gazza Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Monasteries used to employ a version of 'reclusion' that might be more appropriate. The person is placed in a cell and only leaves that cell when he is dead. The only opening is a small window through which to pass food. In the cell he has only the bare essentials and he sleeps in a wooden box which will eventually become his coffin. Something to instil fear of punishment that is very low on maintainance costs. i like that idea, more painfull then death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 i'm with Rog - I do think we should have the death penalty for certain crimes. And I am confident that I would be able to pull a lever/inject a poison/flick a switch if required. I only have to think of Rose West, Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting and I know that I could sleep at night if I was responsible for their deaths - why should these people be kept in prison and live to a ripe old age with three square meals a day, a tv, exercise facilities, the chance to study for a degree and visits from their loved ones - all the things that they denied their innocent victims Not to forget that some law abiding citizens do not have such luxuries, so why should someone who has taken anothers life!!! Its all fooken nuts, i have said it before and i will say it again....Where is the deterrent to such crimes or any crimes for that matter? Some people do what they want regardless of who and how many peoples lives are affected. Our softly softly approach to sex offenders and murderers is a disgrace. Questions for LDV, How do you think Ian Huntley should live the rest of his life? How do you think Jesicca and Holly's parents/other family members and friends are living their lives? To have those kinds of feelings to hurt either your own or somebody elses children is not normal and should not be tolerated, in my opinion the sentences handed down are not enough. Silly question Miss Roo he can barely manage to think along the lines of normal society let alone imagine the feelings of parents of children murdered by the likes of these, nor I doubt will he ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I am against the death penalty, for the main reason that the system is not perfect and makes mistakes. Similarly, there are many people that regularly offer false confessions, and there have been police proven in the past to exact confessions in a variety of ways. I think the death penalty can also sometimes be counter-productive such as if, for example, the upcoming trials of those of the alleged 9/11 conspirators find them guilty - and then provide them with the martydom they seek - when long term imprisonment would be a far greater punishment to them. The whole prison and punishment system needs to be looked at properly IMO. It is currently driven by a philosophy of revenge and the lynch mob and is very media-centered, is overcrowded by probably 70% of inmates that shouldn't be there and should be paying their debt to society in far more constructive and effective ways. Prison also contains all too many people with mental health problems, including 10% of people who are ex-forces, and numerous others the product of pond-life parenting. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on rehabilitation and ostracization from re-employment following release, creates numerous career criminals and the revolving door system we currently have. Time and time again, 'lock them up' is proven to be a cop out - and proven to be not serving us well in all too many cases. The fact is people commit crimes, serve sentences and 98% of them then leave prison - and we simply see a building with a big fence around it as some kind of magic solution that will solve everything - when it clearly doesn't. And sentencing is often so varied and non standardised when you look at the crime/time levels, even for the same offence. The problem is though, the revenge and lynch-mob approach is stifling the debate. In a properly re-thought-out prison system, I do think prison should be a harsh punishment, it should involve harsh work punishments and loss of liberty and everyday luxuries like TV/Radio and other comforts - but all combined with a properly funded rehabilation programme, where behavioural changes are rewarded over time as the sentence progresses and the harshness eases as they progress. By making much of the 70% that shouldn't be there pay their debt to society by working it off outside, by treating those with mental health issues in a proper facilitiy, that would free up prison resources to rehabilitate the more serious offenders. Though of course everyone has to face the fact that not all can be rehabiltated, and will always remain a danger to the public and have to remain inside either a prison or mental health institution/prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Albert, there’s so very much in what you have written that I completely go along with. However --- in the case of capital punishment I do believe the option should exist for certain cases and certain crimes. Prison on the other hand is not a universal solution when a punishment is appropriate, and nor is it being used as such though some recent changes such as the use of fixed penalties and cautions has gone far too far in recent years. At the very least the caution process should involve a formal hearing and in my opinion fixed penalties should only apply for trivial matters such as littering and NEVER for offences involving drunken behaviour or public order. ASBO’s should be abandoned. In their place juvenile delinquents should face juvenile courts and corporal punishment should return as an option for magistrates to impose. This could actually now go down a r*t hold if the matter of what is crime and what is offence, and should the same punishment or even form of punishment be used in both cases, but that would be taking this thread a tad too far. --------------------------- As an aside there is an emerging problem over here in the case of the now well established (and spreading) Muslim colonies in which Shar’ia is commonplace. The problem involves what amount to Muslim vigilantes policing these colonies and those who “break” Shar’ia being brought before clerics who hand down Shar’ia punishments. It’s a thing, much as the case of FEG, where the authorities are reluctant to involve themselves for fear of “offending” people as it is seen as being “culturally sensitive”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Not to forget that some law abiding citizens do not have such luxuries, so why should someone who has taken anothers life!!!Its all fooken nuts, i have said it before and i will say it again....Where is the deterrent to such crimes or any crimes for that matter? Some people do what they want regardless of who and how many peoples lives are affected. Our softly softly approach to sex offenders and murderers is a disgrace. Questions for LDV, How do you think Ian Huntley should live the rest of his life? How do you think Jesicca and Holly's parents/other family members and friends are living their lives? To have those kinds of feelings to hurt either your own or somebody elses children is not normal and should not be tolerated, in my opinion the sentences handed down are not enough. I wouldn't dwell on the matter of deterrence, it clearly doesn't operate when capital punishment or harsher punishments are given out.I think those that are known to pose a continuing threat to society must be separated from society. Those that do not should be given some form of punishment to make up (in some way) for their impact on society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The program The Execution of Gary Glitter the other night was very interesting especially the comment by Anne Widicome "Sometimes we just have to accept there is plain evil and as such we must remove it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Even Texans are starting to have doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I think those that are known to pose a continuing threat to society must be separated from society. Those that do not should be given some form of punishment to make up (in some way) for their impact on society. I am curious LDV where should they be separated to? And what sort of punishment would be suitable for such crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 They should be separated and put in some form secure unit. Those that pose a continuing threat I would assume are those with serious mental issues or with serious anti-social attitudes that need treatment or help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 They should be separated and put in some form secure unit. Those that pose a continuing threat I would assume are those with serious mental issues or with serious anti-social attitudes that need treatment or help. A coffin is an appropriate secure unit for many. Consider this (and heaven forbid it should ever happen). One of your close family was taken, attacked, raped, brutalised, and finally killed. What would YOU like done to the perpetrator? Locked away in some place that had all the comforts of home, probably many more than many people have, with the only real drawback that he / she couldn’t get out, and even that’s now being allowed from time to time, or that they were taken and “put to sleep’. Me? I would want neither, I would want the SOB to be hurt, big time, and then eventually and only after they had really suffered killed. Or how about some ideologically inspired twat who followed the teaching of his “religion” and killed those who his religion directed him to do by planting a bomb amongst innocent people, or even if he or she just assisted the act? Happy with locking them up for a few years? Not me. Again I would want them HURT and hurt for a long period of time and then killed in the most offensive method that could be done with regard to their religious beliefs. I don’t CARE what that makes me, I’m not alone in this, and while redress for any suffering people have experienced by the low life filth who do such things is being withheld by the denial or natural justice, as it presently is, then true justice is not being delivered by The System. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 It's a predictable tactic, to paint a picture of horror with serious words. Taken. ATTACKED. RAPED. BRUTALISED. And finally. KILLED. Who wouldn't support the death penalty after that. But then, an innocent person gets executed. And the supporters then become what they purport to abhor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 They should be separated and put in some form secure unit. That's like a prison then? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say somewhere that people shouldn't be put in a prison? Those that pose a continuing threat I would assume are those with serious mental issues or with serious anti-social attitudes that need treatment or help. So all terrorists - who I am assuming will continue to pose a 'continuing threat' should be 'treated or helped' And how pray would you propose to do that? Possibly locking them in a room whilst you lecture them ad infinitum on your glorious golden path to a workers utopia? Wouldn't that come under a 'cruel and inhuman' punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 It's a predictable tactic, to paint a picture of horror with serious words. Taken. ATTACKED. RAPED. BRUTALISED. And finally. KILLED. Who wouldn't support the death penalty after that. But then, an innocent person gets executed. And the supporters then become what they purport to abhor. No, the person who executes a condemned man or woman is undertaking a duty that is sanctioned by law on an individual who has been found guilty by due process. If there has been an error made then that is to be deplored but at the same time in my opinion, and against a cliché that is seldom questioned but should be, it is better if one innocent person is punished than many guilty go free. If many guilty go free then many victims do not get the justice that they deserve, if one innocent person suffers then one person does not get the justice he or she deserves. I know which way I like to see things stacked, and it’s to see justice for the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I wouldn't dwell on the matter of deterrence, it clearly doesn't operate when capital punishment or harsher punishments are given out. I'm not sold on that argument but whatever the fact remains that there are no repeat offenders wehn capital punishment is undertaken so it's a bloody good deterent in that case alone. I think those that are known to pose a continuing threat to society must be separated from society. Those that do not should be given some form of punishment to make up (in some way) for their impact on society. Just bloody read this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...rison-cell.html If nothing else it shows the utter stupidity of treating terrorists in the same way as crminals and in tghis case what is this piece of human excrement still doing in the uK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No, the person who executes a condemned man or woman is undertaking a duty that is sanctioned by law on an individual who has been found guilty by due process. I didn't mean the executioner alone, but ALL supporters of the flawed system which condones premeditated murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.