cycas Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Nay from me, for the reasons cited by both Owl & GSDfan. I don't believe in the deterrent effect of either the death penalty or punitive treatment in prisons. I believe in forgiveness and redemption ( and that isn't a religious statement : I am agnostic). A good friend of mine was murdered, once. I don't believe for a moment that her murderer would have been prevented by any deterrent effect, but I do believe that he was not a completely bad person who deserved to suffer for the rest of his life. In fact, I'm not sure I believe that completely, unredeemedly bad people exist, although there are certainly plenty of people who need to be restrained to protect the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I think my feelings on the death penalty have changed over the years. I have no problem with convicted murderers and paedophiles being hung, however because there can be no coming back for those wrongly convicted then executed I just cannot support it in this country. Barry George (who killed Jill Dando) and Michael Stone (who killed Lyn & Megan Russell) are both appealing against their convictions. If we had the death penalty they'd both be dead by now. What if one of them wins their appeals? There are plenty of other cases I could mention, but those two sprung to mind. And Sion Jenkins, who was convicted of murdering his foster daughter? He's now a free man but things could have been so different. All of those men have sworn blind they are innocent. Jails need to be much tougher in my opinion. There is a thread here somewhere about Ian Huntley being on Facebook via a friend. That man should be in solitary confinement, being fed nothing but gruel and without the luxury of friends. Fair comment but just because these two are appealing doesnt mean they are innocent and I take this view even though I know how things get twisted just so police can get a conviction. You only have to look at Noel Gara's book on the Ripper to see that or the Guildford Irish jailed for bombings that are now free BUT I would rather PTS a human I considered a danger rather than see a child die because I didnt have the balls to stand up and argue that given the choice I choose innocent children and people to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSDFan Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 BUT I would rather PTS a human I considered a danger rather than see a child die because I didnt have the balls to stand up and argue that given the choice I choose innocent children and people to live. But if you kill a person because you believe them to be a danger and they are then discovered not to have committed the crime, you have killed an innocent person, not saved innocent people. I don't believe in the deterrent effect of either the death penalty or punitive treatment in prisons. I believe in forgiveness and redemption ( and that isn't a religious statement : I am agnostic). I'm also agnostic and totally agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helly Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I would have had no qualms what so ever in playing a part in choosing a death sentence for the likes of Ian Huntley or Brady or any of the other convicted without doubt bastards who showed no remorse for killing. I also think human rights for prisoners has gone way too far. Prison is meant to be a punishment and the perks and attention that the likes of huntley gets takes the pee in my eyes. No one should see prison as a cushy number. To me it should be so horrible everyone wants to leave and never have to experience it again, not consider it a warm bed, and a safe place to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sproggie14 Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 A very strong nay from me. As other have said 1) It clearly isn't a deterrant and the US shows that clearly 2) Either killing is wrong or it isn't. To kill someone for killing someone is just daft 3) There is too great a risk of wrongful conviction I look at it this way. There are still countries where you can be killed for adultery, theft, disagreeing with the government etc. It's very easy for us to say they are wrong but how do we know then that we would be right to take a life for murder, rape, paedophilia or any other crime? They believe that taking life for adultery is right! Personally I don't think the justic system should concentrate so much on punishment. It clearly isn't working for a start. What we need is to look at why these people do what they do in the first place and try to solve the underying issues. Locking them away with more criminals is not solving the issue, it is building them useful contacts and increasing their detachment from and resentment of the rest of society. Maybe its naive but I think there are few truly evil people out there, just sick and badly damaged ones. We should be trying to cure them and what made them that way not just punishing them. Prison, to me, should be about keeping the rest of society safe from people while they are made better not a punishment. There are plenty of other ways of punishing people which are less expensive and less alienating. Also, if the death penalty does occur then I think gas chambers, electric chairs etc should be totally banned. How incredibly barbaric! If a person is put to death then it should at least be done humanely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I would have had no qualms what so ever in playing a part in choosing a death sentence for the likes of Ian Huntley or Brady or any of the other convicted without doubt bastards who showed no remorse for killing. I also think human rights for prisoners has gone way too far. Prison is meant to be a punishment and the perks and attention that the likes of huntley gets takes the pee in my eyes. No one should see prison as a cushy number. To me it should be so horrible everyone wants to leave and never have to experience it again, not consider it a warm bed, and a safe place to be. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 To me it should be so horrible everyone wants to leave and never have to experience it again, not consider it a warm bed, and a safe place to be. But surely the problem with that is that people are so different, and suffering can be caused in so many ways. I am pretty sure that even a fairly 'cushy' prison would be a terrible, terrifying, stressful experience for me, with my comfortable background and middleclass expectations. I never want to risk going to prison. I find it a really scary prospect. But for someone to whom a warm place to sleep and enough to eat and no immediate threat of violence is luxury, you might have to make prisons much, much worse in order to make it seem terrible to them. You'd have to make them into dungeons where the weaker people would probably be at great risk to their health. This is the central dilemma of punishment. Make a prison a place of discomfort and misery, and I'm guessing half the people in there will curl up in fear and want to die, and the other half will sail blithely through demanding more mashed potato. Also, there's the element of who delivers this terrible experience. Do we want prison officers becoming immune to human suffering, or even enjoying it, then walking out onto the streets at the end of the day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) Problem with that argument Helly, apart from Human Rights as you say, is that where do you stop? Do you keep making it even more horrible when making it harder doesn't work? Do we revert back to shackles and meaningless labour? That's then sending people to prison FOR punishment rather than AS punishment. Prison is no soft option as it is, the self-harm and suicide figures point to that. Also, what kind of people will we be releasing who come out of the harder regime thinking it no sweat and easily done again - and there WILL be some. I spent a most amazing day at Grendon therapeutic prison where really serious offenders go for part of their sentence. And I MEAN REALLY serious. The transformation and awareness of the 'residents' there is unbelievable. They speak to you honestly about their crimes - they spare no shame, and they have really faced up to what they have done. It's based on group therapy and there is NO segregation unit (punishment block) because they police each other and deal with problems as a group. Obviously the offenders who are successfully accepted there are selected (after a 3 month stay to see if they are open enough to the process to make any progress). These were people inside for terrible murder and rape crimes, including against minors, but we ate lunch with them and spoke to them as very civil and genuine people who I would have no qualms whatsoever in living next door to. There was minimal prison staff presence and each unit was headed by psychologists and psychiatric staff. Anyone who lives near should look out for opportunities to visit, I believe they have 2 open days a year. It must cost a fortune and it is the only one of its kind in the UK but my goodness is it worth it. Sadly however I can see no politician or Prime Minister brave enough to state that he/she was going to fund more Grendons and have such places being mainstreamed - that's where we come in - the public and that's why we need to be more informed about what is actually being achieved by our CJS and to look beyond our own emotions. PS. Ditto to Sproggie! Edited October 23, 2007 by reds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I would have had no qualms what so ever in playing a part in choosing a death sentence for the likes of Ian Huntley or Brady or any of the other convicted without doubt bastards who showed no remorse for killing. I also think human rights for prisoners has gone way too far. Prison is meant to be a punishment and the perks and attention that the likes of huntley gets takes the pee in my eyes. No one should see prison as a cushy number. To me it should be so horrible everyone wants to leave and never have to experience it again, not consider it a warm bed, and a safe place to be. I agree. Some of my views are considered draconian / extreme by some but for me peodophiles, rapists & murderers can have no complaint if they get exactly what they deserve. With the advances in forensic science, DNA etc I think miscarriages of justice are far more rare than they may once have been & I suspect that if you look at the numbers of postumous pardons versus number of hangings they were not that frequent even back then. Some may say who would do the hanging etc but personally I'd have no problem or qualms whatsoever about being the one to send the likes of Huntley & Brady off to death / hell or whatever else you believe in. I'm not convinced by the rehabilitation argument - or why do so many end up in & out of prison today when they've never had it better in prisons? I also think that if you get a life sentence you should serve a life sentence, not get time off for good behaviour, but instead be given extra sentence for any other behaviour, no tv's, pool tables etc etc - I'd have no problem with feeding them bread & water / gruel & keeping them locked up most of the day - prison should be a place you never want to go back to not a place where some are better off in prison than they are out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Problem with that argument Helly, apart from Human Rights as you say, is that where do you stop? Do you keep making it even more horrible when making it harder doesn't work? Do we revert back to shackles and meaningless labour? That's then sending people to prison FOR punishment rather than AS punishment.......................... As, For? Is there really a difference to the public at large rather than the offender? I suspect that most people wouldn't want a paedophile, rapist or murderer living next door to them. I know I wouldn't want them here in my village, let alone next door & I have neither a wife nor children to worry about. That I suspect is why most politicians wont back such a scheme - they are supposed to represent the public (but sadly often don't) As for these reformed characters can you be sure it's not more a case of saying what they need to say in order to get probation - they wouldn't be the first - and lets not forget that whilst they are happily chatting about what they have done their vicitims were denied that right by their acts! I honestly believe that Tony Martin had the right idea about defending himself and his home whatever the Courts said & as far as I'm aware nobody has tried to rob him since he came out despite him being plagued before that night - so there must be some deterrant there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kats inc Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I used to be very pro the death sentence after my aunt was murdered.I truly believe that her killer should have had a much harsher sentence than he did.He was thought to be criminally insane and sent to Broadmoor where he had his own room,TV,access to education etc.The murder of my aunt also cost the lives of both her parents shortly afterwards,one from a heart attack within days so my family had to attend a double funeral and then shortly after that her Dad had a stroke and died.So does his punishment fit his crime? My cousin was left in the same school class as the son of the man who killed his own mother.I said I would personally have taken a shot gun to him given an opportunity when I was younger for what he did.Her murder was extremely brutal and the man who killed her was her lover. Now I've mellowed with age and I am not sure that he should give his life up but what I would want,like other relative affected by a murder in the family,is just punishment for that crime.Not for him to be languishing in his own private room with all the trappings of a blooming hotel at hand. No death penalty but a punishment that fits the crime with no soft option please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 As, For? Is there really a difference to the public at large rather than the offender? Prison is for the denial of liberty, not the infliction of pain. It is NO nice place to be. As for these reformed characters can you be sure it's not more a case of saying what they need to say in order to get probation - they wouldn't be the first - and lets not forget that whilst they are happily chatting about what they have done their vicitims were denied that right by their acts! I normally agree with you Ian but have to take you up on this. There was no 'happy chatting'. These are people who have faced up to what they have done and are telling you in heart renching detail their crimes. Believe me, there was absolutely nothing happy in the way they spoke - they were ashamed and repentent and honest enough to accept their deeds and the harm they have caused - the full degree of which they acknowledge will never be known to them. These are not people paying lip service, they serve years at Grendon and THEN go BACK into the normal prison population, they do not get released from Grendon. It is a very emotionally intense process they go through and they get challenged about their actions. I speak as someone who's direct relative has offended (in my opinion a heinous crime) and gone to prison for a short period. To me it was a complete and utter waste of everything. He was given the choice to have a community sentence to spare a prison term but chose prison as he refused to sit in a group and talk about what he had done. He refused (and still does) to accept his offence and how it affects others. Punish him by all means but it achieves nothing. It certainly didn't make me feel any better - what's the point when he doesn't acknowledge what he is being punished for? I have been (not as a resident I add!) in several conventional prisons and only the odd young man has shown any kind of awareness like the Grendon group. This is why I say we need to be informed. Visit Grendon Ian - then comment and that is a serious and genuine challenge. Kats Inc - I'm so sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Fair comment that I haven't been to Grendon - though I might have to now and perhaps "happily chatting" may have come across more flippantly than I intended it but to me they are choosing to talk not forced to do so (hence happily chatting) and maybe they genuinely feel repentance but they are still free to make those choices whilst some of their victims never make another choice again. True I don't know for sure at what point after Grendon they might be released on avergae but my general perception of probation etc is that if they were "repentant", no longer considered a danger (which the "experts" have been known to get wrong) then they would have a good chance of release. I don't see prison as merely denying liberty, nor inflicting pain but as being there to teach a lesson. Petty criminals I'd agree can be educated / rehabilitated but some of the more heinous crimes - the likes of Brady & Huntley for example I just don't accept you can. Some call it evil, some call it mentally ill, psychotic etc but what credible evidence is there that such people can be cured of that? Maybe I'm unforgiving but if someone had murdered someone close to me I'd want them to pay a comparable price not just regret what they'd done and then ultimately go back to freedom & I certainly wouldn't want them moving in next door Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassiespookymum Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I don't agree with the death penalty at all - I used to when I was much younger then saw a documentary on tv about a young black man in the US - I cannot remember his name - it followed him for a year while he was on death row convicted of a double murder. He went through appeal after appeal and was executed - it later turned out he was innocent. It was heartrending - I've never forgotten it, everyone around him knew he was innocent but they were unable to fight the system who wanted someone to pay for the crime. I believe that life should mean life and I think that prisoners should not have an easy life - I also believe that if scum like Ian Huntley want to kill themselves they should be 'allowed' to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeadyP Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'm against the death penalty. Most child abusers are family members or close friends. Its difficult enough for a child to tell that something bad is happening to them. Does it make it easier, if they know that their dad will end up dead if they say anything? I dont think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts