Is it time ?
Posted by: long-time-dead on 29 August 2005
... for the re-introduction of Capitol Punishment for child-related offences ?
Following the recent information relating to the abduction and murder of Livingston schoolboy, Rory Blackhall,I am wondering if it is time for the democratic society of the United Kingdom to seriously consider the need for the re-introduction of the Death Penalty for child-related crimes where proved WITHOUT doubt.
I am a parent and the recent events in Livingston, Soham and countless other instances have made me feel that the time is now for a reformation of the law and a punishment to be enforced that befits the crime.
No more hiding behind psychological disorders via clever defence teams, no more bail, no more treatment for drug addiction. You take the life of a child, or abuse a child - you die. Simple.
I am talking about "without doubt". Paedophilic evidence via PC or absolute forensic evidence etc. Cases where there is no debate over guilt.
We have seen countries invaded in a cloud of doubt and technology able to prove guilt without doubt.
Let's now push to make the law protect society's future - our children.
What say the intelligencia ?
Following the recent information relating to the abduction and murder of Livingston schoolboy, Rory Blackhall,I am wondering if it is time for the democratic society of the United Kingdom to seriously consider the need for the re-introduction of the Death Penalty for child-related crimes where proved WITHOUT doubt.
I am a parent and the recent events in Livingston, Soham and countless other instances have made me feel that the time is now for a reformation of the law and a punishment to be enforced that befits the crime.
No more hiding behind psychological disorders via clever defence teams, no more bail, no more treatment for drug addiction. You take the life of a child, or abuse a child - you die. Simple.
I am talking about "without doubt". Paedophilic evidence via PC or absolute forensic evidence etc. Cases where there is no debate over guilt.
We have seen countries invaded in a cloud of doubt and technology able to prove guilt without doubt.
Let's now push to make the law protect society's future - our children.
What say the intelligencia ?
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by Nime
I have always been for dipping the heads of convicted child-abusers in brightly coloured permanent ink. No further warning would be required for kids to avoid them. How they would cope in society would be an interesting exercise in survival. Far more fun than executing them and their example might constrain others tempted to succumb to their own perverted urges.
Hasn't the death sentence proved to be practically worthless over the centuries for any crime?
Hasn't the death sentence proved to be practically worthless over the centuries for any crime?
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by Nime:
Hasn't the death sentence proved to be practically worthless over the centuries for any crime?
Regarding specific deterrence, i.e., keeping that particular criminal from committing further crimes, it's 100% effective as far as I know. As a general deterrent, certainly less effective.
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by Deane F
I'd like to throw three things into the mix here -
1: Most abuse of children is intra-familial;
2: Children are abused and abducted in countries which practice capital punishment;
3: Offender notification and identification to communities nearly always produces more negative effects than positive. (I'll look up the study and post the reference in a wee while).
1: Most abuse of children is intra-familial;
2: Children are abused and abducted in countries which practice capital punishment;
3: Offender notification and identification to communities nearly always produces more negative effects than positive. (I'll look up the study and post the reference in a wee while).
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by Deane F
Oops, not a study at all. I'll quote directly:
"The tarring of all sex offenders with the same brush clearly defeats the purpose of improving public safety. This is a major weakness of indiscriminate notification. This downside of notification is clear from research. Largely negative consequences are associated with public exposure of sex offenders. British police research found an overwhelming view amongst police and probation officers that "full disclosure to the community was almost invariably undesirable". No single measure of effectiveness could be identified. Australian researchers, Ronken and Lincoln, have also found that public and private community notification failed to achieve stated goals. Instead it had significant unintended consequences." - source: Howard League for Penal Reform (NZ) Newsletter 35 - June 2005.
"The tarring of all sex offenders with the same brush clearly defeats the purpose of improving public safety. This is a major weakness of indiscriminate notification. This downside of notification is clear from research. Largely negative consequences are associated with public exposure of sex offenders. British police research found an overwhelming view amongst police and probation officers that "full disclosure to the community was almost invariably undesirable". No single measure of effectiveness could be identified. Australian researchers, Ronken and Lincoln, have also found that public and private community notification failed to achieve stated goals. Instead it had significant unintended consequences." - source: Howard League for Penal Reform (NZ) Newsletter 35 - June 2005.
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by rackkit
An ironic thread from someone with the handle 'Long Time Dead to start don't you think?
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by JeremyD
I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. IMO, the single most important test of a civilised society is the value it places on human life, and a society that commits legalised revenge killing in the name of its citizens fails that test. There's no escape from the death penalty's implicit equation of a victim's life with their murderer's death, which devalues the victim's life and all our lives.
Further, I sometimes ask myself is what kind of person would willingly kill another in cold blood? The only answer I can think of is a psychopath. What kind of civilisation willingly sets one psychopath to kill another when the option of imprisonment is always available?
As for the supposed deterrent effect of the death penalty, if there is scientific evidence that it exists then where is it? If such evidence does not exist then are those who support the death penalty because of its supposed deterrent effect truly happy to support it on the basis of pure supposition?
Further, I sometimes ask myself is what kind of person would willingly kill another in cold blood? The only answer I can think of is a psychopath. What kind of civilisation willingly sets one psychopath to kill another when the option of imprisonment is always available?
As for the supposed deterrent effect of the death penalty, if there is scientific evidence that it exists then where is it? If such evidence does not exist then are those who support the death penalty because of its supposed deterrent effect truly happy to support it on the basis of pure supposition?
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by Deane F
One thing that has always puzzled me about people who adhere to the idea of capital punishment is the implicit trust in government beauracracy to get such a serious thing right every time when everybody know what amazing cock-ups are possible with beauracrats.
Things might be different in the UK though. The Post Office there probably runs better these days since some took the option of early retirement...
Things might be different in the UK though. The Post Office there probably runs better these days since some took the option of early retirement...
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by wellyspyder
quote:Originally posted by JeremyD:
I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. IMO, the single most important test of a civilised society is the value it places on human life, and a society that commits legalised revenge killing in the name of its citizens fails that test. There's no escape from the death penalty's implicit equation of a victim's life with their murderer's death, which devalues the victim's life and all our lives.
Don't be fooled into thinking you are living in a civilised world! No such thing, like Utopia! The terrorist activity in so called civilised society is case in point.
..when the option of imprisonment is always available? Where is you evidence that imprisoment does any good and that reforms work in general? You think a prisoner will be thankful and detered by imprisoment?
Posted on: 29 August 2005 by Steve G
The chap who appears to be the likely assailant in the Rory Blackhall case was out on bail for several sex charges against children, had failed to turn up for his court case but the police had yet to receive an arrest warrant from the court for him.
I think there is going to be quite an uproar from the local community over this.
I think there is going to be quite an uproar from the local community over this.
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Steve G:
had failed to turn up for his court case but the police had yet to receive an arrest warrant from the court for him.
QED
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Deane F
...or is it QEF? 
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:Originally posted by long-time-dead:
... for the re-introduction of Capitol Punishment for child-related offences ?
Cases where there is no debate over guilt.
No debate? Not sure what you mean by that. Guilford Four; Birmingham Six?
But more to the point: Sally Clarke, Angela Canning, Donna Anthony all convicted child killers who would have been executed under your system and who have all been subsequently cleared.
Or are a few (more) innocent deaths a small enough price to pay for your version of justice?
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by long-time-dead
Nigel
I think each of the cases you mentioned had a degree of doubt attached to them.
No debate is akin to absolute proof. Being caught in the act, etc.
This case has demonstrated that the bailing system is wrong. There should be no bail system for sex offences or ones involving a high degree of violence.
The other case discussed at length today involved the 13 year term (life sentence) handed down to the murderer of an innocent child by an air-rifle.
Man takes gun - aims at child - shoots child in head - child dies. Guilt was proved without doubt.
Had this crime commanded the death penatly, the rifle might not have been lifted or used. The penalty may have changed the decision making process. A child would have still been here, families would not have suffered the grief and the penal system would not have somebody incarcerated for at least 13 years.
If the sentence WAS available and the child was killed in the same way, I would have no issue with the passing of the death penalty for a gross crime against society.
Maybe it is just me, but it doesn't really seem that the sentence befits the crime these days.
Are we running a tight ship or a shite tip ?
I think each of the cases you mentioned had a degree of doubt attached to them.
No debate is akin to absolute proof. Being caught in the act, etc.
This case has demonstrated that the bailing system is wrong. There should be no bail system for sex offences or ones involving a high degree of violence.
The other case discussed at length today involved the 13 year term (life sentence) handed down to the murderer of an innocent child by an air-rifle.
Man takes gun - aims at child - shoots child in head - child dies. Guilt was proved without doubt.
Had this crime commanded the death penatly, the rifle might not have been lifted or used. The penalty may have changed the decision making process. A child would have still been here, families would not have suffered the grief and the penal system would not have somebody incarcerated for at least 13 years.
If the sentence WAS available and the child was killed in the same way, I would have no issue with the passing of the death penalty for a gross crime against society.
Maybe it is just me, but it doesn't really seem that the sentence befits the crime these days.
Are we running a tight ship or a shite tip ?
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Justyn
In relation to child offences only, I'd fully suport the re-introduction of capital punishment where guilt has been proved without question. (At what level is "without question reached"? - I,m sure this area will be debated long and hard reading the comments above).
There are two main reasons why I support the Death Penalty -
The people who commit these crimes do not deserve the opportunity ever to be able to walk the streets freely nor do they deserve the relative luxury of being confined to their own special segregated cells with TV, Sky and playstations. (Ian Huntley comes to mind).
What message is being sent to these people when having been tried and convicted?, the worst that will happen will to them will be a "Life" prison sentance the significant cost of which is being paid by the taxpayer (Usually 25 years - with the possibility of parole, the time of which I belive is now set by the Judge - I seem to remember the Home Secretary recently being refused permission to alter this time period during a recent case.)
I appreciate the arguments above relating to what happens down the road - Guilford 4 etc but with the advances of DNA and forensics surely the level required can be acheived in a small percentage of cases and in doing so send out a clear message of the consequences.
Justyn.
There are two main reasons why I support the Death Penalty -
The people who commit these crimes do not deserve the opportunity ever to be able to walk the streets freely nor do they deserve the relative luxury of being confined to their own special segregated cells with TV, Sky and playstations. (Ian Huntley comes to mind).
What message is being sent to these people when having been tried and convicted?, the worst that will happen will to them will be a "Life" prison sentance the significant cost of which is being paid by the taxpayer (Usually 25 years - with the possibility of parole, the time of which I belive is now set by the Judge - I seem to remember the Home Secretary recently being refused permission to alter this time period during a recent case.)
I appreciate the arguments above relating to what happens down the road - Guilford 4 etc but with the advances of DNA and forensics surely the level required can be acheived in a small percentage of cases and in doing so send out a clear message of the consequences.
Justyn.
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Steve Toy
Retribution should play no part in the justice system for it does nothing to bring back the victim.
Deterrence doesn't really work for murder as most killers are either not thinking about the consequences at all for their crime or are convinced they will get away with it.
Incapacitation is effective. By removing the killer from society s/he cannot reoffend. This could take the form of either the death penalty or permanent incarceration. I favour the latter as mistakes can be rectified. With the former we not only run the risk of killing the innocent, we also set a bad example in a what we'd wish to be a civilised and peaceful society by what is no more than legalised murder.
If you believe in the death penalty, would you flick the switch, release the trap door, fire the bullet or administer the lethal injection?
If the answer is yes then you are a murderer, plain and simple. Otherwise you are just an accessory.
Deterrence doesn't really work for murder as most killers are either not thinking about the consequences at all for their crime or are convinced they will get away with it.
Incapacitation is effective. By removing the killer from society s/he cannot reoffend. This could take the form of either the death penalty or permanent incarceration. I favour the latter as mistakes can be rectified. With the former we not only run the risk of killing the innocent, we also set a bad example in a what we'd wish to be a civilised and peaceful society by what is no more than legalised murder.
If you believe in the death penalty, would you flick the switch, release the trap door, fire the bullet or administer the lethal injection?
If the answer is yes then you are a murderer, plain and simple. Otherwise you are just an accessory.
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by JonR
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Retribution should play no part in the justice system for it does nothing to bring back the victim.
Deterrence doesn't really work for murder as most killers are either not thinking about the consequences at all for their crime or are convinced they will get away with it.
Incapacitation is effective. By removing the killer from society s/he cannot reoffend. This could take the form of either the death penalty or permanent incarceration. I favour the latter as mistakes can be rectified. With the former we not only run the risk of killing the innocent, we also set a bad example in a what we'd wish to be a civilised and peaceful society by what is no more than legalised murder.
If you believe in the death penalty, would you flick the switch, release the trap door, fire the bullet or administer the lethal injection?
If the answer is yes then you are a murderer, plain and simple. Otherwise you are just an accessory.
Couldn't agree more with the above post.
If we allow the death penalty then IMHO we are no better than those found guilty of comitting such heinous crimes.
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by long-time-dead
So I take it you are all not in favour of the "shoot to kill" policy for suicide bombers or for armed hostage takers ?
Not going off at a tangent but contrasting some recent acceptable pollicy.
Not going off at a tangent but contrasting some recent acceptable pollicy.
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by JonR
I am in favour of the "shoot to kill" policy for suicide bombers (not sure it necessarily applies to armed hostage takers) and believe this is entirely consistent with being opposed to the death penalty. When talking about a perceived imminent potential threat to life, I believe there is no comparison between suicide bombers and convicted criminals who, to all intents and purposes and irrespective of their earlier crimes, are under guard and therefore physically restrained from causing any further harm.
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by long-time-dead
... unless they are Brazilian electricians who have no right to a retrial, overturn in evidence, additional witness or :
"Evidence beyond doubt"
So, to quote yourself :
"If we allow the death penalty then IMHO we are no better than those found guilty of comitting such heinous crimes."
Mmm................
"Evidence beyond doubt"
So, to quote yourself :
"If we allow the death penalty then IMHO we are no better than those found guilty of comitting such heinous crimes."
Mmm................
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:So I take it you are all not in favour of the "shoot to kill" policy for suicide bombers or for armed hostage takers ?
Not going off at a tangent but contrasting some recent acceptable pollicy.
Executing a murderer after the crime has been committed is pointless - it won't revive the victim.
Shooting to kill suicide bombers and armed hostage takers at least has the benefit of preventing further killing at the scene.
I am in favour of summary execution where it may save lives, but if such terrorists are successfully apprehended alive then they should rot in jail.
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by JonR
L-T-D,
It goes without saying that the de Menezes killing was an absolute tragedy and should never have happened. He was a completely innocent victim but what if he had been a suicide bomber? For the record I don't take back a word of what I said above.
Jon
It goes without saying that the de Menezes killing was an absolute tragedy and should never have happened. He was a completely innocent victim but what if he had been a suicide bomber? For the record I don't take back a word of what I said above.
Jon
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by long-time-dead
It seems we agree to differ but it seems that the Suicide Bomber (or suspect suicide bomber) is afforded differing status from others.
It seems to me that :
1. Suicide Bombers should be executed without trial by means of fatal shooting - just in case.
2. Armed hostage takers can be killed in a similar fashion as there is a potential of murder.
3. A person who has demonstrated WITHOUT DOUBT that they have committed an incredibly serious crime against humanity and society should be afforded the priviledge of an expensive incarceration at great financial burden to the society they have scarred. Right of parole and freedom is probable after a period. They are then (and has been demonstrated in many, many, many cases) free to commit further crimes of a similar nature.
So the fact is that we, as a society, are prepared to execute people on the basis of potential killing but not actually have the death penalty as part of the legal statute to deal with cases of actual killing. mass murder or paedophillia.
Smacks of double standards if you ask me.
A simple question to ST.
If you are in your taxi and a passenger pulled a gun and threatened to blow your head off would you
a) prefer a negotiator to spend a few hours trying to convince the gunman that all is well in the world, you are a nice guy and he should put the gun down and have a trial to determine that he will be locked up for a very long time
or
b)prefer to have a trained marksman take him out on the basis of potential death to an innocent ?
It seems to me that :
1. Suicide Bombers should be executed without trial by means of fatal shooting - just in case.
2. Armed hostage takers can be killed in a similar fashion as there is a potential of murder.
3. A person who has demonstrated WITHOUT DOUBT that they have committed an incredibly serious crime against humanity and society should be afforded the priviledge of an expensive incarceration at great financial burden to the society they have scarred. Right of parole and freedom is probable after a period. They are then (and has been demonstrated in many, many, many cases) free to commit further crimes of a similar nature.
So the fact is that we, as a society, are prepared to execute people on the basis of potential killing but not actually have the death penalty as part of the legal statute to deal with cases of actual killing. mass murder or paedophillia.
Smacks of double standards if you ask me.
A simple question to ST.
If you are in your taxi and a passenger pulled a gun and threatened to blow your head off would you
a) prefer a negotiator to spend a few hours trying to convince the gunman that all is well in the world, you are a nice guy and he should put the gun down and have a trial to determine that he will be locked up for a very long time
or
b)prefer to have a trained marksman take him out on the basis of potential death to an innocent ?
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Paul Ranson
I don't see what's special about children. Why is the rape/murder of a mother somehow less serious than the rape/murder of her child?
I think that people who end up killing a child in response to sexual urges are less in control of their actions than people who take shotguns into banks. The basis of 'long-time-dead's argument is hysteria.
Paul
I think that people who end up killing a child in response to sexual urges are less in control of their actions than people who take shotguns into banks. The basis of 'long-time-dead's argument is hysteria.
Paul
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I don't see what's special about children. Why is the rape/murder of a mother somehow less serious than the rape/murder of her child?
I think that Paul makes a good point.
(I agree with Germaine Greer - in the West we seem to hate our children as outlined in her essay "Sex and Destiny" and treat them as a lesser class of people and balance this by ostensibly treating them as "innocent" etc.)
I also wonder why it is so important to require a standard of proof of WITHOUT DOUBT for executions when the deprivation of liberty is a very serious sanction for the state to impose. Do we not consider imprisonment to be a serious and grave use of state power too?
Posted on: 30 August 2005 by u5227470736789439
Dear Friends,
How to put this...
If one was abused as a child, one has a lot longer to think about it than an adult, who by the very nature of being an adult (having grown up, is the best I can do), should have enough understanding of the ways of the world to be able to avoid what a child is too simple to see, though I would agree that this simplicity is the first casualty of abuse.
Perhaps I should go on, but it won't do...
Now, what to do with such people classed as pederasts and poedophiles (a word I think wrongly used as it implies love of the victim, and that is surely that last thing on a pervert's mind) I have no idea. Though I understand this, in a way, I can but think we have to be very careful suggesting the death penalty. BUT I would throw away the key, if you see what I mean.
I have been watching this and am finally moved to post after Paul R's post. I had to be said, if gently.
Fredrik
How to put this...
If one was abused as a child, one has a lot longer to think about it than an adult, who by the very nature of being an adult (having grown up, is the best I can do), should have enough understanding of the ways of the world to be able to avoid what a child is too simple to see, though I would agree that this simplicity is the first casualty of abuse.
Perhaps I should go on, but it won't do...
Now, what to do with such people classed as pederasts and poedophiles (a word I think wrongly used as it implies love of the victim, and that is surely that last thing on a pervert's mind) I have no idea. Though I understand this, in a way, I can but think we have to be very careful suggesting the death penalty. BUT I would throw away the key, if you see what I mean.
I have been watching this and am finally moved to post after Paul R's post. I had to be said, if gently.
Fredrik