Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC #1]

Some of these disgusting criminals who commit absolutely evil crimes don't deserve any human rights at all though. Honestly if they decided the punsihment for those axe murderers was to be hacked up with an axe I for one would not be against it.

[matrix]

You can also guarantee the human rights brigade would have a field day! Bast*rds.

you better believe it lando  but we must not forget these killers have got rights  this world is fuc.king lame... the lunatics have taken over the asylum

[matrix]

Some of these disgusting criminals who commit absolutely evil crimes don't deserve any human rights at all though. Honestly if they decided the punsihment for those axe murderers was to be hacked up with an axe I for one would not be against it.

fuc.king a to that

[The Canadian Red Army]

I have some experience/knowledge of these matters from my own particular trade (yes, I'm a black hooded guillotinist ).

In America, it is well known that there have been numerous miscarraiges of justice involving the death penalty. Most criminals in the US are dirt poor and receive Public Defenders, the equivalent of free legal aid in the UK. I remember reading a report last year that the average person on trial in the US (for any sort of crime) who obtains a Public Defender only gets on average 5 minutes consultation time with their lawyer before the trial begins. This means that they can only give their lawyer the most basic and simplest of instructions, often resulting in them not being defended correctly and being convicted for crimes they didn't commit. Public Defender lawyers in the US are normally youngsters just out of law school trying to get their foot on the legal ladder. Many are very talented but are very poorly paid, inexperienced and have a huge work load.

As a result, many petty criminals in the US, particularly in the South, get stitched up for murders and rapes they did not commit as the police over there are under extreme pressure to get a conviciton.

I know this as I know people who worked on the Innocence Project in the US which is basically a pro bono private project run by Barry Levienstein (OJ's old lawyer) which asks lawyers and law students to help prepare appeals for people on Death Row. Many of these people have been convicted on the flimsiest of evidence and I know of some people who have had their convictions over turned on the basis of purported DNA evidence being used against them in court being bogus.

The concept behind the death penalty is two fold as I see it. The first is a purported deterrent effect, in that it is hoped that the existence of the death penalty will deter criminals from commiting serious crimes. However, as can be seen in the US, where the crime rate is among the highest in the Western World, the death penalty actually has little deterrent effect. In fact, in the 1960s they fried far more people in the US than they do nowadays yet the crime rate was far higher then than it is now.

The second purported logic behind that of the death penalty is some sort of quasi vengeance paradigm, where the family, or even society in general, exacts some sort of retribution for the crime committed. However, from my own studies, it is often the case that the execution of the convict is of little real comfort to the family of the victim, as it doesn't bring their beloved back from the dead. As for society getting retribution, I think we are getting into scary territory here. My understanding of a democracy is that, amongst other things, it should uphold tolerance and compassion. Killing people, for me, is not the answer. How civilised is our society where we can institionise murder, by rationalising it by saying that the convict is wrong for taking another person's life yet it is alright for a group civil servants to pronounce a death sentence on another person and carry out that sentence.

I can possibly see an arguement for the death penalty in extreme situations such as where the country is at war where a the death penalty might have a deterrent effect, but I envisage that in wars such as the Great War or World War Two. Given the spin Blair and Bush put on the War on Terrorism nowadays this is dangerous territory as the war arguement could be used to bring the death penalty back in through the back door.

While I'm not in favour of the death penalty - because it doesn't work and as a society we are better than that - I do feel that the rule of law should be more vigourously upheld. I'm very much in favour that criminals should be punished for their crimes, and to me, a life sentence must mean life.

great post jbg

[The Ace1983]

I remember hearing a quote attributed to a warrior in th 16th century:

"You ask what right I have to kill a thousand men, I ask; what right do I have to let them live?"

The advocators of the Death penalty should ask themselves this and find out if they feel comfortable with the implications. If they do, then what difference is there between them and the killers. Don't say logic, guilt, conscience, hope or compassion, because even the most deranged serial killers posses these qualities in relative abundance. Besides, where's the pleasure in winning, if the loser isn't around to know that they have lost?

[woof woof !]

I'm for the reinstatement of the death penalty ,only however when the evidence is totally overwhelming and conclusive. Many people advocate life imprisonment and yet for many perpetrators life in a British prison falls just short of an all expenses paid holiday . The only real punishment involved is the actual lack of liberty but even that in most instances is only a temporary event. Under our so called "justice" system you cam murder somebody and be out walking the streets again in less than ten years. As for the "Life should mean Life" brigade ,why should we the law abiding tax payers suppoert the existence of somebody who for instance without question has been found guilty of the rape and murder of a small child ? Personally I'd rather have a quick whip round for a length of rope and volunteer to hang the b'stard myself.

[The Ace1983]

So would you be more in favour of turning our prisons back into the hell pits that they used to be? No light, bad food, no air, no outside access, no sewers, no buckets and no hope?

[woof woof !]

So would you be more in favour of turning our prisons back into the hell pits that they used to be? No light, bad food, no air, no outside access, no sewers, no buckets and no hope?

We've got council estates in this country that fit that description .

The thrust of my post was primarily that I would prefer to see a conclusively convicted killer hung  ,rather than live to enjoy one of the most lenient prison systems in the world.

Should we change or prison system and how so ? is another debate.

[stmichael]

I'm very half and half about this. In some cases i feel the death penalty should be restored, yet in some i feel it could fail. Below are listed some ideas if perhaps a form of the death pentalty was introduced:


1. With regard to paedofiles and other such disgusting filth that choose to live their rabid existance on our planet, I feel that the COMPLETE removal of sexual organs (including the little fella) is necessary, so that even if they want to go do it again, they cant. If they attempt to again, then they should be executed.

2. I once felt that murder should carry the punishment of execution, but however the Tony Martin case shows the problems that causes, as I feel the poor old bloke was right to shoot the little to$$er, as what would he have turned into had he lived? A burglar probably, who would doubtlessly spend most of his life in prison. Such cases should be carefully considered, perhaps open to public opinion. However for other such cases like the recent Soham murders the death penalty is just. Letting the murderer live to contemplate his or her crimes only works if they have a conscience left, and attempting such brutal murders is evidence that they don't.

3. With regard to race-related crimes, like the Steven Lawrence murder, the death penalty or at least some form of torture would be preferable to the perpetrators, to ensure that their ignorant views are not spread or continued.

It seems that punishments should be far harsher than a little stay in prison. Life in prison isn't bad for some people, as it's often quite cosy, with hi-fis and games consoles. We need TOUGHER measures to ensure that crimes are halted, as it is evident that prison is not enough of a deterrant. The problem is, where do you draw the line in certain cases?

[woof woof !]

3. With regard to race-related crimes, like the Steven Lawrence murder, the death penalty or at least some form of torture would be preferable

      

Do you have any particular forms of torture in mind ?   

[JBG]

With regard to the death penalty and the war on terrorism, is it not the case that the terrorist groups want to destroy western way of life? Sone of the tenents of Western Civilisation are tolerance, the rule of law and due process, so by changing our laws in a knee jerk reaction, such as bringing back the death penalty, is in effect a capitulation to the terrorists.

I won't lecture Britons on how to run their country as that is their business, but I can, however, profer my opinion. If there is a backlash against the Muslim community as a result of the terrorist attrocities, and if the government bring in stringent new laws such as ID cards etc, then surely this is a victory for Al Quaida, as any persecution of the Muslim community will only strengthen what they see as the merits of their cause and stringent new laws will amount to an erosion of the very way of life that Al Quaida want to destroy?

Did Britain not fight two World Wars to preserve its values and way of life (ok there were also geopolitical reasons as well)? Britain stood up to facism and communism yet maintained its democratic and liberal way of life, so why allow terrorism to destroy its way of life which it fought so hard in the last century to preserve?

The death penalty simply doesn't work, on numerous levels, and while some Western criminal law systems need to be looked at again, bringing back the death penalty is not the solution.

[neil]

yeah  lets stone em !

[woof woof !]

JBG , I can't speak for others but my support of the death penalty is not a knee jerk reaction ,it's a view I have held for many many years .As for it not being "the solution " in what way does locking someone away for an indefinite period prove to be a better solution ?

Some cultures see long  or life imprisonment as a fate worse than death .

[stmichael]

The death penalty simply doesn't work, on numerous levels, and while some Western criminal law systems need to be looked at again, bringing back the death penalty is not the solution.

found an opinion which pretty much sums this up

the death penalty is not justice. By allowing the government and the legal system to decide who lives and dies is bestowing upon them a power not meant for mankind. Family and friends of the victim often say that the death penalty is deserved by the criminal. Deserved? Is justice the motive here, or is it revenge? If death penalty advocates favor executions because they believe justice is being served, would they still be for the death penalty if one of their family members or friends was on death row? It is doubtful.

Death penalty advocates have used the economic standpoint to make their case. More inmates means more prisons which means more money. By killing a good share of murderers, we can save money! So, we are putting a price on a human life? By this rational, we should execute ALL convicts and have NO prisons! Think of the money we would save!

It is frightening to think about governments having the power to order an individual's death. Anyone who has read Orwell's 1984 knows what can happen if a government becomes too powerful over its constituents. Is legalized murder the first step towards that scenario?

A look at crime statistics will immediately disspell the myth that the death penalty deters crime. Murder rates are climbing almost every year and executions are rising. Does this appear to be a drop in crime? Hardly. The death penalty is not stopping criminals. Perhaps the government needs to control the root of crime--guns. Taking away the weapon of choice for murderers might actually get crime to decrease. Besides, murderers rarely use their bare hands. They're more likely to use guns, which, if banned or more strictly regulated, would logically result in fewer murders.

Why do we have the death penalty? Officially, it is to protect society from these criminals. However, a criminal who is behind bars for the rest of his or her life can do no harm to society. Besides, in my opinion, to live with guilt and a future consisting of a small prison cell for the rest of one's life is the worst punishment. If the government is committing legalized murder, and "...murder is a serious crime that should be given the ultimate punishment, death," then we are forced to regard the government as a higher being, not subject to the laws that govern it's own people.

[Woollyback]

or subject them to a daily chat with LiverpoolAnytime