Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

BRITLAND

Death Penalty

Recommended Posts

BRITLAND

Ha i found this vid on YT about it being brought back to UK

 

-Unacceptable. Please discuss the video rather than just posting it in future-

Edited by sivispacem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

You're the ones who keep saying it costs more to keep the CONVICTED on Death Row.

Yes, but the economics argument is the only one you've actually made and therefore one must presume that you are arguing for summary execution without effective appeal for no other reason than it saving the taxpayer money. If you have another argument to support this largely illogical one, I'd love to hear it.

 

 

I don't have to prove anything, which you don't seem to understand.

Actually, you do. Because unless you can demonstrate why your idea is a good thing, all I and anyone else reads is the bitter diatribes of an old man. I'm not saying outright that you don't have any good ideas, or solid reasoning behind your suggestions (though I can't see either in this case) but if you can't substantiate your claims, or even suggest why your ideas are good, then you have nothing to discuss and should not be posting in D&D.

 

 

I am saying to execute the CONVICT in a timely manner, or toss out the whole trial process, since you seem to believe everyone CONVICTED is an innocent lamb...

Not at all, but the costs of a lengthy appeals process in terms of individual taxpayers are far outweighed by the chances of getting the conviction of one, single innocent person quashed. As an example of the fundamental flaw in your argument, here is a list of innocent people, freed since 1990 who had been convicted in the US for capital crimes who would have been executed within your 1-year arbitrary appeals period. This is not by any means an exhaustive list-

 

Michael Austin

Randall Dale Adams

Cornelius Dupree

Robert Williamson

Dennis Fritz

John Gordon Purvis

Darryl Hunt

Juan Mendelez-Colon

Scott Kiffen

Brenda Kiffen

Carlos De Luna

Joshua Riviera

Claude McCollum

Dwane Allen Dail

Martin Tankleff

Kennedy Brewer

Tim Masters

David Scott

Robert Gonzales

Levon Jones

James Lee Woodard

Glen Chapman

Ada Joanne Taylor

Damien Echolls

Jason Baldwin

Jesse Misskelly

 

Now, look at that list of people pardoned for capital crimes (though not all given capital sentences), every single one of whom would have died under your "execute capital criminals after a year", and tell me that the human costs of inevitable and astonishingly frequent miscarriages of justice are justified in your proposed system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

 

what percentage of Death Row convicts have been proven innocent?
I think this is the key. Even if it is 0.000000000000000000000000001, I am willing to accept the full drawn out appeals process we have today.

As if he’s the only one paying for it.

So you think the life of an innocent man is worth less than the cost of a Big Mac meal to the average taxpayer? Right.

Also, your quote is hardly notable. Really, it's just an example of you looking deranged.

You continue to argue that Everyone is Innocent.

They are Convicted Capital Criminals.

A Big Mac Meal? Why is it you and Irviding, our resident Economist, cannot explain why we have to pay so much money for nothing.

A year to find fault with the Trial is plenty of time.

Since this is going in circles, and we know the two of you aren't about to be swayed let alone come to a reasonable thought on the subject beyond bleeding heart nonsense of everyone being innocent beyond a doubt I'll stop before you escalate your argumentum ad hominem. You will be the ones paying, it's too bad I have to contribute.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

You continue to argue that Everyone is Innocent.

These people are as innocent as anyone. They have been found such by an appeals court, despite the protestations of a jury of their peers. Even people not implicated in a crime don't have the privilege of being that innocent.

 

So, that's your argument, is it? That all of those people deserved to die, because of what? Because they couldn't afford the price of a half-decent lawyer who would have had them found innocent anyway? Because DNA profiling, the single development that has absolutely revolutionised forensic sciences since the 1980s is good enough to have someone demonstrated, scientifically and without dispute, not guilty in a violent sexual crime yet that is still not good enough for you?

 

 

They are Convicted Capital Criminals.

All of whom have been found innocent, almost none of which on technicalities or other such nonsense. DNA in semen does not lie. Nor does ballistics; nor, it seems, do 1980s county police officers who lean on suspects a little harder than the law allows and are forced to recant out of a combined sense of self-loathing and pity for the poor soul whose spent the best part of two decades being raped in a federal prison by child abusers and gang-bangers for a crime they only said they did because the brutal, self-serving bastard threatened to send them to the gas chamber if they didn't fess up?

 

 

A Big Mac Meal? Why is it you and Irviding, our resident Economist, cannot explain why we have to pay so much money for nothing.

Actually, he's not an economist and nor am I. Neither of us have to explain to you why the costs of appeals and the execution process for capital criminals is so high, because the fact that is is the crux of our arguments and the what, where and why is entirely irrelevant. If you are so interested in why capital criminals cost the state so much, then look it up your damn self rather than relying on other members to feed you information about it. We don't care- our argument is made. And your attempts to dispel our logic on issues such as this will not go far as you haven't even made clear why an arbitrary 1-year period to permit appeals before execution is a good thing. See my previous post.

 

 

A year to find fault with the Trial is plenty of time.

The list of names I posted would suggest otherwise. Lets ask them, shall we? Lets ask the people who were falsely implicated due to police corruption, or mental illness, or poor scientific methodology, whether a year was enough time for them to prove that in the eyes of the law they were categorically not responsible for the crimes they were accused of, and sentenced for, committing? Thankfully, we can, because the judicial system allows people to appeal on reasonable grounds. Some we cannot, because they were executed or died before they could prove themselves innocent. What do you say to them, then?

 

 

let alone come to a reasonable thought on the subject

I'm sorry, you are the one who has yet to justify your argument. The list of names of entirely innocent people I provided who, given your system of justice and arbitration, would have died without proving their innocence; in fact the dozen or so murderous, rapist psychopaths who would have been given free reign to continue their vile abuse based on the principle that you had already "got your man", is defence enough for my views. You provide me with one, single solitary reasonable defence for your ideology, and you can come back to this table without looking like an imbecile.

 

 

You will be the ones paying, it's too bad I have to contribute.

Too bad for whom? You aren't contributing; you're an embarrassment.

 

You're a joke, a sick joke. It's bad enough you refer to black people or those of other non-native descent as "darkies", "negroes and negresses" or whatever the f*ck else you call them, but now everyone suspected of a crime is automatically guilty, like it's sixteen f*cking ninety two and the Salem Witch Trials are ahead of the curve in forensic methodology? Made all the more depressing by the fact that, apparently, you're the only person who doesn't seem capable of understanding what a terrifying, monolithic, tooth-chewing, suppository-and-senility-rattled dinosaur you've become?

 

Seriously, just stop, before you descent into Slamman-esque insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

All the Guilty can't be innocent. Society needs limits.

When all else fails, especially logic, in a 'discussion' then the weak need start the argumentum ad hominem to feel superior in a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
All the Guilty can't be innocent. Society needs limits.

When all else fails, especially logic, in a 'discussion' then the weak need start the argumentum ad hominem to feel superior in a lost cause.

As usual, you have absolutely nothing to contribute. Some babbling attempt to appear intellectual, and a snide comment about how anyone disagreeing with your views is attacking you personally. You've been given plenty of opportunity to show a reasonable case, to demonstrate understanding and evidence, and at every turn you have only served to embarrass yourself. The greatest irony of all being that you feel like you have somehow "won" this debate. Not at all, good sir, not at all.

 

You see, if you had presented something even vaguely resembling an argument; if you had, instead of tackling the subject with all the ignorant pomposity of a senile Afghan Hound, presented something resembling a logical argument, rather than repeating the same tired point over and over despite protestations from just about everyone else on the forum that continual repetition does not make something true (case in point, your judgement that execution by default must be cheaper than imprisonment even though all evidence points to the contrary); if your bombastic yet rather ill-informed views on the "merits" of arbitrary execution weren't so fundamentally flawed as to have been essentially Swiss-cheesed before I even started dissecting them, then perhaps you would have maintained some integrity in this debate. But otherwise, not a chance.

 

If you can produce a logical, sensible and rational argument for the executing of all capital prisoners exactly one year after their sentencing, bearing in mind the fine history of judicial impropriety in the United States in recent years, and the ever-increasing list of people who would be dead, buried in pauper's graves and forever shunned as degenerates, murderers and sex offenders had it not been for the been for the ability for them to appeal their convictions over periods of years and even decades, then please stay in this topic. If not, may I kindly request that you go elsewhere as you obviously have nothing to contribute to reasonable debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

A Big Mac Meal? Why is it you and Irviding, our resident Economist, cannot explain why we have to pay so much money for nothing.

 

How is paying to ensure innocent people are not executed nothing? Please elaborate on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lil weasel

You will have the last word, talking to a wall is tiresome:

 

I just want to jump in and add that those claiming it saves money are wrong. The death penalty costs taxpayers more than life imprisonment due to the whole appeals process.

 

The point is people who are going to be receiving the ultimate punishment need to be able to appeal every piece of their case and present every piece of evidence they can.

 

You will treat the prisoner (innocent maybe) with truly cruel conditions and say, "Yeah, we saved a life!"

Exposing them to STDs (a truly horrible death sentence.)

More expense for health care.

You will pay unnecessary taxes to support this cruel caging.

You put them in a Penitentiary (do you know what that means?)

You pay through the nose post trial, post judicial review, while their Lawyers make money in the Review process for year after year.

Now, Let’s go over some things:

• A person is arrested,

• the cops investigate,

• the District Attorney reviews the evidence,

• an arraignment hearing is held,

• The ‘suspect’ is bound over, Bailed maybe,

•The Defense investigates.

• Depositions are taken,

• Discovery is Shared.

• A Pretrial Hearing is held,

• Motions are heard,

• Evidence is gathered,

• More Discovery is Shared.

• The Trial is held,

• More Motions are heard,

• The Judge decides what evidence/testimony will be allowed.

• The Jury hears/sees the evidence,

• The Jury deliberates on that evidence and testimony,

• The Jury comes to a decision, If Guilty then,

• More Motions are heard,

• The Judge holds another hearing for the Pre-Sentence.

• The Judge holds the hearing for the Sentence.

• The Defendant’s Lawyers have made notes on what they believe were Reversible Errors.

• The Defendant’s Lawyers request review.

• A higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.

• The Defendant’s Lawyers request review.

• Motions are heard,

• The next higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.

• The Defendant’s Lawyers request review.

• Motions are heard,

• The next higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.

• The Governor Is requested to intervene.

• The Defendant’s Lawyers request another review.

• The next higher court reviews the trial and makes a judgment to uphold the Trial Judge.

• Maybe the President is requested to intervene.

• The Defendant’s Lawyers request another review.

And that isn't enough Due Process for an Execution?

How Irviding can say

But what you're advocating is essentially a system of kangaroo courts that just declare you dead and you go off to the chamber in two weeks. Where the f*ck is the due process?
Gosh, What do you call a trial and appeals?

So it doesn’t have to two weeks, how about a five year plan?

People keep on about, "It costs more to Execute a Convicted Criminal." Well it probably does, but it is an artificial expense. One that can be curtailed by a time limit for appeals, and maybe set fee(s) for the privilege. why does one murderer with friends get a 1000$US an hour lawyer and another get Pro bono? How many Actual hours do these Lawyers actually ‘work’ on an appeal case?

And, you feel that it isn’t enough of a burden on the Tax Payers?

Because the Convicted (by his/her Peers) might in somebodies dreams, still be innocent?

 

Now, regarding the incentive for murderers to not murder because of the Death Penalty Law. Don’t believe it. People who commit premeditated murder have the idea that 'they' won't get caught, and, the others are in the 'heat of the moment'.

 

Why not say that we should keep them alive because the Medical Profession needs them for experiments, the Mental Health Care Providers might find a pill that will cure the sickness that makes a person a Capital Criminal, or maybe the application of an electric shock to the correct part of the Criminal brain might work?

So there’s the solution, instead of a Death Penalty, we sentence them to life until cured by a Medical Procedure!

 

 

You are truly insane.

 

Yes, but the economics argument is the only one you've actually made and therefore one must presume that you are arguing for summary execution without effective appeal for no other reason than it saving the taxpayer money. If you have another argument to support this largely illogical one, I'd love to hear it.

 

And your attempts to dispel our logic on issues such as this will not go far as you haven't even made clear why an arbitrary 1-year period to permit appeals before execution is a good thing.

[…]I'm sorry, you are the one who has yet to justify your argument. […]You provide me with one, single solitary reasonable defence for your ideology, and you can come back to this table without looking like an imbecile. […]you're an embarrassment.

You're a joke, a sick joke. […]apparently, you're the only person who doesn't seem capable of understanding what a terrifying, monolithic, tooth-chewing, suppository-and-senility-rattled dinosaur you've become?

Seriously, just stop, before you descent into Slamman-esque insanity.

 

 

All the Guilty can't be innocent. Society needs limits.

When all else fails, especially logic, in a 'discussion' then the weak need start the argumentum ad hominem to feel superior in a lost cause.

As usual, you have absolutely nothing to contribute. Some babbling attempt to appear intellectual, and a snide comment about how anyone disagreeing with your views is attacking you personally. You've been given plenty of opportunity to show a reasonable case, to demonstrate understanding and evidence, and at every turn you have only served to embarrass yourself. The greatest irony of all being that you feel like you have somehow "won" this debate. Not at all, good sir, not at all.

if you had, instead of tackling the subject with all the ignorant pomposity of a senile Afghan Hound, presented something resembling a logical argument, rather than repeating the same tired point over and over despite protestations from just about everyone else on the forum that continual repetition does not make something true (case in point, your judgement that execution by default must be cheaper than imprisonment even though all evidence points to the contrary); if your bombastic yet rather ill-informed views on the "merits" of arbitrary execution weren't so fundamentally flawed as to have been essentially Swiss-cheesed before I even started dissecting them, then perhaps you would have maintained some integrity in this debate. But otherwise, not a chance. […]

 

 

My point is after the trial and verdict is in. A reasonable appeal period then Execute the bad person.

As long as there is no Death Penalty, there is no problem.

When there is a Death Penalty what good does it serve if the Lawyers make hay beyond a reasonable time.

One final statement. I Don’t believe that every person who commits murder needs to be executed. There is the possibility that some are One Of situations, ‘crimes’ that would never be repeated don’t even require jail time. Careful consideration need be given to what crimes actually need the removal of the person from society.

A Death Penalty serves only one true purpose the removal of a 'repeat' offender.

Consider carefully what 'crimes' deserve it.

Edited by lil weasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Thanks for listing the entire procedure of an arrest to a trial. But again the question remains - why would you not want to allow the appeals process to be fully executed? Even if it saves one innocent person how can that be a waste of money? (i feel it appropriate to add that if we did not have a death penalty the long drawn out capital appeals process would become moot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

More expense for health care.

You will pay unnecessary taxes to support this cruel caging.

You put them in a Penitentiary (do you know what that means?)

You pay through the nose post trial, post judicial review, while their Lawyers make money in the Review process for year after year.

Yes, I get the financial argument, that killing all capital criminals after a year is probably cheaper than allowing them a reasonable appeal time. But you still haven't explained any other reason- least of all one from an ethical standpoint- why is it reasonable to execute people so promptly given the relatively high rate of miscarriages of justice in the United States.

 

 

How Irviding can say
But what you're advocating is essentially a system of kangaroo courts that just declare you dead and you go off to the chamber in two weeks. Where the f*ck is the due process?

Gosh, What do you call a trial and appeals? So it doesn’t have to two weeks, how about a five year plan?

I don't think its reasonable to put a time-scale on it. Many of the people I listed in my post of those convicted of capital crimes whose sentences were quashed an were pardoned were not freed until 20 years or more after their conviction. If you start setting arbitrary periods in which people can appeal, then you run the risk of executing those who cannot afford to appeal, or whose appeals depend on discoveries (either scientific or human) which have not taken place yet. What's more, the entire court system would be in chaos if every capital criminal tried to fit their entire top-to-bottom appeals process into a five-year period.

 

 

People keep on about, "It costs more to Execute a Convicted Criminal." Well it probably does, but it is an artificial expense. One that can be curtailed by a time limit for appeals, and maybe set fee(s) for the privilege.

You see, I'm not sure time-limiting the appeals process is going to make it any cheaper. People will still force the same appeals process into a shorter time-frame and therefore cost more in the shorter term of the appeal. Plus the costs of the numerous challenges to the law setting the time-frame as unconstitutional, cruel and unusual, and effectively denying innocent people justice. That'll cost a fortune too.

 

 

And, you feel that it isn’t enough of a burden on the Tax Payers?

I'd quite happily say no, it's not an undue burden on taxpayers. Firstly, as above, I'm not entirely sure that setting an arbitrary appeals period is going to reduce those costs. Secondly, I'm not sure what the annual costs of holding inmates on death row are to the US taxpayer (there are lots of cost figures, but they don't seem to account for things like the fact people work whilst in prison and therefore financial contribute themselves) but it can't realistically be more than about $20 per annum per capita (20-odd states with the death penalty, assuming a ~$300m annual cost to each state- which is well above what it is in reality and closer to the lifetime costs for capital criminals). Now, how much would your system intent to reduce this cost by? 30%? 50%? Congratulations, you saved every taxpayer ten dollars a year in return for killing numerous innocent people. Tell me, is that a good deal?

 

 

Because the Convicted (by his/her Peers) might in somebodies dreams, still be innocent?

So, you're just going to dismiss that huge list of 30+ recent miscarriages of justice I presented? These aren't people who are innocent "in someone's dreams"- these are people who are innocent in the eyes of the law. If you don't think they are actually innocent even after they've demonstrated to the highest courts in the land that they probably are, then that's your problem.

 

 

So there’s the solution, instead of a Death Penalty, we sentence them to life until cured by a Medical Procedure!

Pretty sure the laws forbidding "cruel and unusual punishment" forbid medical experimentation on criminals. Weren't there several prominent cases in the 60s and 70s of medical experimentation on convicts that resulted in lots of people dying?

 

 

My point is after the trial and verdict is in. A reasonable appeal period then Execute the bad person.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "reasonable period" when you are dealing with a man or woman's life.

 

 

As long as there is no Death Penalty, there is no problem.

There's still a problem of miscarriages of justice, it's just much less likely to be life-or-death.

 

 

When there is a Death Penalty what good does it serve if the Lawyers make hay beyond a reasonable time.

I don't get this argument. You seem to imply that the entirety of the appeals process in capital cases is driven by hotshot, bloodhound lawyers out to make a quick buck. Now whilst I don't deny that representation costs a large sum of money, I'm pretty sure the reason that people appeal criminal convictions for capital crimes is far more self-serving than lining the pockets of lawyers. Many of these may just be attempts to bide time and keep a criminal alive as long as possible, but many are also legitimate. How do you differentiate between the two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

No death penalty, just stronger sentences for violent crime and anti-social behavior.

 

-Care to expand on this please?-

Edited by sivispacem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

What do you mean? Mandatory minimums?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
No death penalty, just stronger sentences for violent crime and anti-social behavior.

I strongly disagree. People commit crimes because they're either too emotional to consider the consequences, they think they'll get away with it or they just don't care. Nobody commits a crime while thinking "haha those bleeding hearts will give me a slap on the wrist, then it's right back to killing, raping and flag burning". The criminal justice system doesn't, hasn't and won't ever provide a deterrent to criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
No death penalty, just stronger sentences for violent crime and anti-social behavior.

I strongly disagree. People commit crimes because they're either too emotional to consider the consequences, they think they'll get away with it or they just don't care. Nobody commits a crime while thinking "haha those bleeding hearts will give me a slap on the wrist, then it's right back to killing, raping and flag burning". The criminal justice system doesn't, hasn't and won't ever provide a deterrent to criminals.

I agree for the most part. I think it's extreme to say there is no deterrent at all though. Why follow the speed limit (or within 10-15 of it)? Because there could be a cop sitting on the side of the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

The death penalty will not deter a madman from turning a gun on innocent people, so why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finn 7 five 11

 

The death penalty will not deter a madman from turning a gun on innocent people, so why bother?

And there it is in one simple sentence exactly why the death penalty should not exist ignoring other moral implications, basically it comes down to this.

 

lil weasel, it is not the others here who are the "brick walls" in the debate, it is in fact you!

 

 

A Death Penalty serves only one true purpose the removal of a 'repeat' offender.

Incarceration does the exact same thing except it leaves some room for error in the cases of innocents, i would like to see how you would feel being convicted of raping someone (falsely) and being sentenced to death despite the fact you are innocent and that there is no possibility now that you can be proved innocent further down the track (At least it won't affect you,)

Edited by finn4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A J

I'd love to see the death penalty come back, but I guess I'm immoral and completely devoid of modern society's complete acceptance of violent crime, and it's supposed link to poverty and social deprivation.

 

Risk of the miscarriage of justice? If the case is not clear cut, put them in a cold cell, and make them generate their own electricity for heating / tv, by attaching them to a device which is power by themselves, like a hamster in a wheel.

 

Give the victims of their crimes the choice for their justice. It should be a human right, to be feel protected by the laws of the country, if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

 

Maybe it's wrong to be, brutal and have no sympathy for murders, rapists and paedophiles, but I'm unashamed of my views, no matter how wrong better educated and supposedly morally superior people might consider them.

 

As for the idea that nothing will deter a madman from wielding a gun and shooting a crowd of people for no logical reason, I completely agree, but at the same time that's a different kettle of fish compared to a family who has found out their child has raped and murdered by a paedophile, if he does that and shows no remorse, should he really be cared for, potentially by the victims families, who probably pay tax to look after him... which again leads to another argument, it costs more to execute than to imprison, just give me an axe, preferably sharp, and it won't cost you much, maybe just a dinner. I'd happily remove these sick people from society, like a dangerous dog that mauls a child to death, they should be put down, removed from society.

 

It will never happen though, not here in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Straznicy

 

I'd love to see the death penalty come back, but I guess I'm immoral and completely devoid of modern society's complete acceptance of violent crime, and it's supposed link to poverty and social deprivation.

Frankly, that is an utterly ridiculous statement, and I think you probably know it. If anything our tolerance for violence is diminishing more and more with time. There are more people convicted and imprisoned for violent offences than there has ever been before; as of 8th March 2012 the prison populations of England & Wales and Scotland had both reached their record highs. More than a quarter of these prisoners are incarcerated for violent offences.

 

I do not know what you are implying with your 'supposed' comment on the poverty-criminality link, but the latter connection is definitely real and correct. You just have to look at the evidence from last years riots (extreme example of criminality it may be) to have that picture painted for you. Fifty eight percent of those appearing in court following the riots claimed residence within the 20% 'most deprived' areas in England. The logic for this poverty-crime link has always appeared rather conspicuous to me, but it seems to pass by a large margin of the population. People living in a state of poverty naturally want to escape that situation, but do not always possess the necessary skills, background or whatever other factor to facilitate upward mobility. In that scenario, crime becomes far more tempting and/or likely than it normally would. Eventually some individuals see no reason why they should play by the rules of the society that they have been left on the bottom rung of.

 

 

Risk of the miscarriage of justice? If the case is not clear cut, put them in a cold cell, and make them generate their own electricity for heating / tv, by attaching them to a device which is power by themselves, like a hamster in a wheel

This is just downright bizarre, if I am understanding your point correctly. So you agree that the possible jeopardy of executing an innocent person in a dubious case rules out the capital sentence, but want it replaced with a punishment that violates various laws and conventions regarding human rights? You would sentence an accused with some reasonable chance of innocence to this? As I said. Bizarre.

 

 

Give the victims of their crimes the choice for their justice. It should be a human right, to be feel protected by the laws of the country, if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

One of the raison d'êtres for the rule of law and criminal justice system is to prevent mob justice and vigilantism. Officiating and fostering efficiency of such actions would have a devastating impact on the moral fabric and integrity of the land. Handing over a convicted murderer to the families of victims would not help anyone; the family will not have their loved one back after they exert whatever punishment on the convicted, the convicted will never have the opportunity to learn true remorse and become a functioning, contributing member of society again.

 

Prison is a sufficient deterrent for most of us, most of the time. I would love nothing more than to hack certain people to death with the most outlandish garden tool I could find, but I don't because I know the chances of myself landing in jail as a result increase exponentially. Sometimes however we don't have this comfortable position to make logical decisions and then violence occurs. The media consistently over-exaggerate the comforts enjoyed by prisoners because it always gets people riled and sells papers (duh). Prisoners obviously need some comforts, how would you hope to reform them without some forms of entertainment? Lock a guy in a grey cell for years with nothing to do, and upon release you'll likely have a very resentful, mentally unstable individual with a higher chance of offending than before he went to prison. Rehabilitation isn't meant to be a deterrent; it's meant to rehabilitate.

 

 

As for the idea that nothing will deter a madman from wielding a gun and shooting a crowd of people for no logical reason, I completely agree, but at the same time that's a different kettle of fish compared to a family who has found out their child has raped and murdered by a paedophile,  if he does that and shows no remorse, should he really be cared for, potentially by the victims families, who probably pay tax to look after him... which again leads to another argument, it costs more to execute than to imprison, just give me an axe, preferably sharp, and it won't cost you much, maybe just a dinner. I'd happily remove these sick people from society, like a dangerous dog that mauls a child to death, they should be put down, removed from society.

Prison does remove them from society, that's the point of prison. Have your medieval executioner fetish all you want, but introducing capital punishment would, if anything, worsen our society. If the state is allowed to execute then a precedent is set in society as a whole for murder. Furthermore, we will see a return to the days of innocent men and women having their lives taken from them by an imperfect justice system. We will see no reduction in violent crime or pedophilia, because people don't think about the gallows when they pull a knife in a fight, or fiddle kiddies at the weekend. Capital punishment is a pointless, out-dated and barbaric punishment that no state should have in its arsenal; particularly when that state is in a position to operate a more viable alternative that transforms anti-social characters into contributory ones.

 

Reducing violent offending and crime in general is best accomplished by tackling the roots. This means a greater focus on reducing relative poverty, tackling domestic violence in all its forms, and better identification and treatment of individuals with a higher pre-disposition for criminality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

just give me an axe, preferably sharp, and it won't cost you much, maybe just a dinner. I'd happily remove these sick people from society, like a dangerous dog that mauls a child to death, they should be put down, removed from society.

 

Doubt it, but alright tough guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeWh

Being a link in the chain of the UK Criminal Justice system, I'm not for the death penalty - the margin of error/miscarriage of justices that can happen are just not worth it, and I'd rather a murderer had to stare at the same 4 walls for the rest of his natural rather than had the easy, simple and coward's way out!

 

I see a lot of people at work time and time again, and people get reputations and known around local nicks, this isn't because 'prison's not a good enough deterrent' - it's because here we use the CPS for charging decisions and they couldn't prosecute Bin Laden for terrorism, they'd have knocked it down to assault!

 

Then when it gets to court the magistrates and the CPS will settle on a sob story in determining sentence and bail conditions, which they then break, get arrested on warrant for that and go back to the same court with the same lame excuses!

 

Can we sort the charging system out before we start committing people to death...

 

Prisons could be tougher, I agree but I don't agree with letting them have industry and jobs or forcing them to do hard labour - at the end of the day why should companies benefit from crime, getting cheap labour and why should prisoners take a job that an innocent, law abiding person could have. Forcing them to work and make things will just, ultimately drive industry to the prisons for their cheap labour and drive other people to crime through unemployment!

 

The death penalty won't prevent or deter crime, let's face it things are that bad here now if criminals saw death himself staring at them they'd give him the middle finger salute and call him a twat and be completely unfazed - they're too used to getting off with it! Honestly, the amount of times I've seen officers have someone bang to rights and just for the CPS to go 'Well he's got x going on at home' or 'Y happened to him 10 years ago!' and suddenly it's 'not in the public's interest' to prosecute a burglar, car thief, sex offender or general scrote!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccrogers15

I appose death penalty. People who support it and authorize it, are total retard hypocrites. They KILL someone for KILLING SOMEONE! Hypocrites much?

 

-Please keep D&D posts in line with house rules in future-

Edited by sivispacem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people become criminals because of circumstance, because they have reasons? Would it not make more sense to try and remove these reasons from the equation rather than to simply shove a huge portion of society into cages like animals? At any rate, the criminal justice system is incapable of providing a deterrent, nobody commits crimes because they're certain they'll just get a slap on the wrist. dozingoff.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeWh
if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people become criminals because of circumstance, because they have reasons? Would it not make more sense to try and remove these reasons from the equation rather than to simply shove a huge portion of society into cages like animals? At any rate, the criminal justice system is incapable of providing a deterrent, nobody commits crimes because they're certain they'll just get a slap on the wrist. dozingoff.gif

It's occurred to me, I know it happens - but there's a larger proportion of criminals who are criminals through their own choice. They dig their own graves.

 

Usual routine is they'll commit a crime once or twice, say burglary, to fund a habit - they get found guilty and have to attend 3 drug rehab sessions spaced 1 month apart, there's no testing at these things and then they keep their habit up - they get caught again, repeat above, they try their luck a third time and end up in prison on a 6 month stretch - realise they get 3 square meals a day and looked after so when they're released, after learning tips and tricks from other inmates they're out again, breaking the law. They go back even longer. They grow accustomed to the cushy and easy lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people become criminals because of circumstance, because they have reasons? Would it not make more sense to try and remove these reasons from the equation rather than to simply shove a huge portion of society into cages like animals? At any rate, the criminal justice system is incapable of providing a deterrent, nobody commits crimes because they're certain they'll just get a slap on the wrist. dozingoff.gif

It's occurred to me, I know it happens - but there's a larger proportion of criminals who are criminals through their own choice. They dig their own graves.

 

Usual routine is they'll commit a crime once or twice, say burglary, to fund a habit - they get found guilty and have to attend 3 drug rehab sessions spaced 1 month apart, there's no testing at these things and then they keep their habit up - they get caught again, repeat above, they try their luck a third time and end up in prison on a 6 month stretch - realise they get 3 square meals a day and looked after so when they're released, after learning tips and tricks from other inmates they're out again, breaking the law. They go back even longer. They grow accustomed to the cushy and easy lifestyle.

...

 

Accustomed to the easy lifestyle? That is simply asinine. What happens is: once you lock someone up a few times, they're branded as a criminal and no longer feel that they can make an honest living, they cease to feel as though they have peers in "respectable" society. It's not a "choice" there are easily identifiable mechanisms through which people with low socioeconomic status become criminals. And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle".

I'm not going to open a can of worms right now by disputing the rest of your argument, but in the UK it really is. Most non-violent criminals end up in low-security or even open prisons, regardless of the length of their stretch. They've got a reasonably comfy bed in a cell that's all theirs, a TV, access to computer games, on-site training, three fairly decent meals a day, air conditioning and all manner of niceties. If you are, say, a homeless addict, that sounds positively luxurious. It's luxury compared to the squalor in which most addicts live, regardless of whether they are homeless, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle".

I'm not going to open a can of worms right now by disputing the rest of your argument, but in the UK it really is. Most non-violent criminals end up in low-security or even open prisons, regardless of the length of their stretch. They've got a reasonably comfy bed in a cell that's all theirs, a TV, access to computer games, on-site training, three fairly decent meals a day, air conditioning and all manner of niceties. If you are, say, a homeless addict, that sounds positively luxurious. It's luxury compared to the squalor in which most addicts live, regardless of whether they are homeless, in fact.

So then you're agreeing with his ridiculous statement that criminals just love the cushy prison environment? Probably not but at any rate: I don't know how anyone can consider an environment where restrictions are placed upon your activities, and your life is literally in the hands of other people, luxurious. Especially if you're an addict and don't have access to the drugs that help you get through the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle".

I'm not going to open a can of worms right now by disputing the rest of your argument, but in the UK it really is. Most non-violent criminals end up in low-security or even open prisons, regardless of the length of their stretch. They've got a reasonably comfy bed in a cell that's all theirs, a TV, access to computer games, on-site training, three fairly decent meals a day, air conditioning and all manner of niceties. If you are, say, a homeless addict, that sounds positively luxurious. It's luxury compared to the squalor in which most addicts live, regardless of whether they are homeless, in fact.

So then you're agreeing with his ridiculous statement that criminals just love the cushy prison environment? Probably not but at any rate: I don't know how anyone can consider an environment where restrictions are placed upon your activities, and your life is literally in the hands of other people, luxurious. Especially if you're an addict and don't have access to the drugs that help you get through the day.

It's quite naive to think that addicts don't have access to illicit drugs in low-security prisons. If anything, they're more available than they are freely on the street. And people have different priorities. My point is not so much that I agree that re-offending is caused by cushy prisons- I think they are a contributing factor, but its much more complex than that. Mike is a serving police officer, so he's got a good knowledge of the criminal justice system. I think he's right, that there are a proportion of society who embarked on criminal activity because its easier than paid work, and who have found that convictions for non-violent activity that brings them a net benefit only ever lead to stints at her majesty's pleasure that in the context of the daily lives of the perpetrators really don't look like a detractor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Whoa.

 

Hate to jump in so quickly out of the blue here, but to begin a thought by remarking about naivety and then suggesting that an addict will be able to easily - nay, even easier than on the streets! - support his habit behind bars... is frankly absurd.

 

Do you have any actual statistics to back that up? Because that would, truly, blow my mind.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Not statistical evidence per se but plenty of press reports suggesting that illicit drugs are relatively easy to get hold of in open prisons in the UK. One in eight prisoners at HMP Ford tested positive in mandatory drug tests according to that report- that's an indicator, to me at least, that illicit drugs are comparatively easy to get hold of. Though I'll willingly admit my "easier" comment is probably a step beyond what can be demonstrated, but purely because obtaining illicit substances outside of a confined space is more a case of who you know than a matter of direct non-circumstantial availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think you're recognizing the realities of the depths of addiction. I may take my experiences for granted, and living in a city with one of the worst drug problems in the civilized world may sway my opinion too far in the opposite direction, but I don't believe there's any way a junkie would be able to satiate his addiction behind bars. Unless he was the head of some television prison gang, or something.

 

But we all know junkies aren't the head of anything.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.