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 ?
Posted on: 31 August 2005 by Deane F
Doesn't the UK (in theory) still execute for high treason? Or was it repealed like it was here (in 1986 IIRC.)
Posted on: 31 August 2005 by Bob Edwards
Deane--
The mere fact that I can present an argument or any evidence against the mens rea element (or anything else, for that matter) does NOT equal introducing "doubt."
I don't recall the specific defenses mounted on the two's behalf, except that I believe the defense in the Dunlap case (the infamous "Chuck E Cheese" incident--he murdered four people in cold blood) attempted to portray him as not sufficiently responsible because of his upbringing. I'll take a look and see if I can find something out. I do remember the main thrust was not whether he had committed the crimes or not, but whether the jury should have heard about his "horrific" upbringing during the penalty phase.
John KR: You said "In a situation where a person is about to kill innocent people (adult or children) and no other option is available, then call in the snipers. How can you ever KNOW to a sufficient degree to justify killing someone who has not actually broken a law yet? But oppose punishing someone who clearly already has?
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 31 August 2005 by Steve Toy
Summary execution of terrorists holding hostages or about to detonate bombs is ugly but is preferable to them being permitted to kill others. I think we could safely describe this course of action as the lesser of two evils. We don't kill them summarily because they deserve it but because we have no better alternative.
Nobody, not even a killer deserves to die. The death penalty after the fact (with or without a sound conviction) does nothing to save lives.
The more civilised states on Earth don't have the death penalty. I'm proud that the nation in which I live is a member of such an honorable club. The US often strikes me to me a third world nation with third world fundamentalist values that are little better than those in Sharia states of the Middle East.
As a deterrent the death penalty is completely ineffective, so retribution is its only justification. Those who believe in retribution for its own sake to me are just primitive barbarians belonging to a bygone age.
Posted on: 31 August 2005 by Bob Edwards
Steve--
Rather than attempting ad hominem attacks on the country in which I am proud to live, perhaps you would care to do one of two things. One, agree to disagree like gentlemen. Or, second, actually address the substance of what I have said.
If you'll recall, I posted that claims that the death penalty "deters" the crimes it is targeted at are unsupported at best. You also have totally ignored incapacitation, and your repeated assertions that retribution is simply barbaric is fine as far as your personal opinion and feelings go, but let us please not pretend that it represents a substantive argument or discussion.
And by the way: everyone dies. Sooner or later, from one cause or another.
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 31 August 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
And by the way: everyone dies. Sooner or later, from one cause or another.
Indeed they do but a death sentence is not the same as expiring due to natural causes, misadventure or accident.
My comments were not directed specifically at US citizens who happen to post here - certainly not your good self, but against the very fact that most US states have the deathy penalty on their statute books. This is only your fault specifically if you choose to defend it and support it.
I haven't ignore incapacitation - I posted about it earlier in the thread and stated that life meaning life was equally effective.
In the civilised world we lead by example. To me that means killing maybe as a form of defence from other killing, and certainly not for rebuke or retribution.
The same, on a much more benign level, could be said of sounding your horn as a driver.
Posted on: 31 August 2005 by Jim Lawson
Deane F
No it does not.
Jim
Posted on: 31 August 2005 by Jim Lawson
"The more civilised states on Earth don't have the death penalty."
Civilized nations like Denmark and Norway had abolished the death penalty before the First World War. After the Second World War, they restored it to deal justice to the Nazis and their collaborators.
Jim
Posted on: 01 September 2005 by Nime
Steve's post holds rather a lot of water.
Execution in the US is retribution on the black population for failing to non-exist.
Posted on: 01 September 2005 by John K R
quote:
How can you ever KNOW to a sufficient degree to justify killing someone who has not actually broken a law yet? But oppose punishing someone who clearly already has?
The answer to the first question is indeed difficult, but circumstances where for instance hostages are being systematically executed or the person has killed before in similar circumstances.
The with second part of the question I personally see no conflict and S Toy has explained the concept before my reply. Put simply capital punishment takes a life, without saving any one, killing a terrorist about to take lives saves innocent lives.
John.
Posted on: 01 September 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
Put simply capital punishment takes a life, without saving any one, killing a terrorist about to take lives saves innocent lives.
Quite.
Posted on: 03 September 2005 by Martin D
But they're not given "life" to be out in 8 years and offend again, so if it were without dount i'd say yes - execute the scum, if it were my daughter or son i'd happily plug in the chair and pay the electric bill. I'm fed up with lowlife ruining my society.
Daily Mail style rant over.
Martin
Posted on: 03 September 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Martin D:
I'm fed up with lowlife ruining my society.
So it's "your" society when it suits you and the criminal is individually responsible for harming sociey? That doesn't make sense to me. Society belongs to the lowlife just as much as it belongs to anybody else in it. Do you feel any responsibility at all, however slight, for the less savoury aspects of living in a large collective?
