Capital Punishment?

[Herr Lipp]

So what are your views on capital punishment, considering firstly in the justice system and secondly in schools.

[Herr Lipp]

In the prison system....god yes! Some countries still have the death penalty, the 'ultimate' punishment, so why should we not bring in the cat 'o' nine tails etc? It may be the only thing that deters those pesky lags from re-offending. Anyone care to oppose?

In schools.....well....I say yes again but obviously only in the strictest circumstances. Not as rough as teh 50's when my uncles and aunties used to get smacked round teh legs with a cane for just talking. I think it should be saved for teh verbally and physically abusive kids, which there is NO shortage of let me tell you. I was lucky enough to go to a fairly well behaved (grammar, incidentally) school but my sister and friends had to put up with comprehensives.

[vordabois]

No to the death penalty.

Mainly for two reasons...

First, the idea that the state can level such an extreme punishment upon an individual is just wrong.

Second (and to me, the most important)... Well, I'm not sure what the number is now, but at least 110 people in the USA who were convicted of violent crimes were exonerated by DNA testing. (As a side note, unfortunately, even though these people were exonerated and were innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted and served time for, many convicts later released [Death Row or not] have said that their lives were totally ruined once they went free...) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293

But with revelations like this, I shudder to think of how many innocent people were killed by the government throughout its history.

Main point being, the courts are not perfect. They convict people who were later proven innocent, and they can be manipulated to allow the guilty to walk free. While we'd all like to think this sort of thing doesn't happen, it does. So I cannot see how an institution that is so imperfect can deal out a punishment so severe and total.

[Herr Lipp]

a fair point. and imagine how much it must fuck your head up being innocent on Death Row.

But I was talking more about old-school punishments like the aforementioned cat o' nine tails, and general beatings. It may sound harsh to read just like that, but put it in context, say a prisoner attempts to murder another inmate, but is stopped short and teh other con is left with broken ribs say, surely it would be more effective to give the offending prisoner a beating than simply lack of privileges/solitary confinement.

Its the way our brain works man, assosciation, it works on animals so why not humans? Seems pretty simple to me: Do bad thing = get hurt = dont want to do bad thing again.

Obviously this wouldnt count for teh insane, but Im generalising for the majority of prisoners.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

http://www.blamonet.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=70787&perpage=35&pagenumber=2

this gets more and more amusing. Thanks :yes:

[Six Ways]

Assuming we're talking about corporal punishment here: Yes. Capital punishment (death): No. Mainly for the practical reasons; i.e. like Vordabois said, you can never be sure. I personally also would not trust any government with that power, as it could (and I believe in the US has to an extent) do a 'slippery slope' thing, and get too easy to inflict. I'm sure that there are literally dozens of innocent people who have been executed in the US. A life sentence can be revoked, whereas death cannot. Although like vordabois (is your name Matt? I seem to remember that all of a sudden) said, it can still ruin lives. But I would much rather have life, and have it revoked, than death, if you know what I mean.

Morally, I see no real reson why not. I don't hold with the usual arguments of 'It makes us no better than them' etc. Morally, as I have discussed before, I believe the only truly correct system is 'an eye for an eye', since it is the only system which does not rely upon our arbitrary judgments of how many years in prison a crime is worth. Also, I believe it would cut crime rates if people knew that if they did something wrong, the same would happen to them. As it stands, prison sentences are of limited detterent effect, since people think they can make deals, behave well, etc etc and basically the impact of the sentence seems reduced to the criminal.

Corporal punishment is morally fine, I think, but again practicalities can come into it. E.g. you would have to be sure they did it, you would have to have lots of controls over how punishment is handed out, how much, etc. I think it would be a much better deterrent than prison.

EDIT: I'd like to add about the people on death row who were later exonerated - I realise in most cases it doesn't repair the damage done, but the least the US can do to say sorry is pay them an absolute shitload of compensation - I mean like $2 mill or something.

[Six Ways]

Also, having not read the poll, I would like to change my vote, since I thought we were talking exclusively about the death penalty! :-o

[Knight0440]

no more prisons, no more jails, no more police, no more death penalty!

[Fab]

Originally posted by Knight0440
no more prisons, no more jails, no more police, no more death penalty! anarchy could so work.


but seriously, I think Luke's eye for an eye being the only fair way to do it could be turned into simply life imprisonment for murder. I'd honestly rather die than spend my life cooped up in a shithole of a prison, knowing I'd die there. This is where prison falls over though, it's not a shithole, whilst being free is preferable to being inside, prisoners are afforded comforts that they don't deserve. Why should they get to watch TV whilst there's still famine and disease?

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Fab
anarchy could so work.

Note to the slow: He is being sarcastic.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by vordabois
I'm not sure what the number is now, but at least 110 people in the USA who were convicted of violent crimes were later exonerated by DNA testing.

agh, finally found the website I stumbled upon so many years ago and was feverishily trying to locate earlier...

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

As of June 20th, 2005, 159 people exonerated by DNA testing.

[Knight0440]

This is where prison falls over though, it's not a shithole,

eh. wrong. as someone who works with a books to prisoners program and has read a lot of prisoner literature i can tell you that hell is a place called prison. It isn't a shithole: it's a FUCKING FIREY HELL!

As far as the dig against anarchism, I'll console myself to the thought that you just don't know enough about it and are so indoctrinated that thoughts of controlling your own destiny and feelings of solidarity and compassion are simply supressed. :-D

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Knight0440
As far as the dig against anarchism, I'll console myself to the thought that you just don't know enough about it and are so indoctrinated that thoughts of controlling your own destiny and feelings of solidarity and compassion are simply supressed. :-D

Utopia is not possible as long as a single other person roams this earth.

[Drunkenmaster]

I say yes unless the evidence is circumstancial (sp?). In other words, if 2 or more people see you kill someone and the murder weapon traces to you, you should die. I also believe that you should be killed in the same way you murdered the victim.

[Knight0440]

anarchy isn't "utopia" :P

[sleepy sinner]

I don't believe there is any moral incentive or justification for corporal punishment as generations have come through that process and it has hardly made the world a better place or made any difference in crime rates or antisocial behaviour.

It has absolutely no deterrent effect on misbehaviour because the causes and motivations for misbehaviour are complex. If capital punishment isn't enough deterrent for criminals (and it's proven that it isn't), then corporal punishment certainly will not be. Without fulfilling any function, it's merely arbitrary abuse and assault.

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by sleepy sinner
I don't believe there is any moral incentive or justification for corporal punishment as generations have come through that process and it has hardly made the world a better place or made any difference in crime rates or antisocial behaviour.


Thats the biggest pile of poop Ive ever read!!!! Completely unjustified GARBAGE. obviously you dont live in the real world. Tucked up somewhere in cute US suburbia?

just take a look at what DHL had to do this weekend. The parcel company that ship to Baghdad and North Korea among other dangerous places have officially blacklisted parts of London, Birmingham and Manchester due to atrocious crime rates and ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.

I can tell you for a fact, from speaking to relatives over the age of 50 ( I give a basis for my opinion unlike you) that before corporal punishment was removed it was nothing like that. The odd scuffle in teh street sure, but none of teh crack fiends, muggers, happy slappers etc etc. Old women wouldnt give a though to going out after dark, and we all know the old one "I used to be able to leave my doors unlocked at night"

Capital Punishment.....Corporal Punishment.....sorry for making the mistake but you got what I meant from the wording.

Theres no deterrent any more. Someone said above he has read prisoners poems who describe it as hell. Well, I dont know if you meant British prisoners, but my Uncle was in the slammer for a bit man and from what he has told me about it, he wouldnt describe it as hell. Im not saying he enjoyed it or anything, but it really wasnt that bad, its all psychological, and for the nutters, rapists, murderers out there psychological damage just isn't enough to deter them.

WTF?!?! imagine this: Im a homeless man. havent eaten for 3 days. Do I wait another 24 hours for the soup kitchen to open? Or do I just ram raid a shop window? getting instant food and whats the worst thats gonna happen to me? A years suspended sentence?!?! Ill be out in 6 months. In that time Ill have been living teh life of Riley, Playstation, Pool, Board Games, Qualifications and (this is completely true) more drugs inside prison than outside. Seems like a pretty easy decision to me. And thats the point, what is prison nowadays? Its a fucking holidaycamp.

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist

this gets more and more amusing. Thanks

so is "I added more smileys"! :lol:

[Herr Lipp]

t'link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4108470.stm

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by vordabois
Utopia is not possible as long as a single other person roams this earth.
"Hell is other people" - Jean Paul Satre

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Walther Soapcheck
so is "I added more smileys"! :lol:
But I didnt say that on here. Your logic is atrocious.


E+ A very poor effort.

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Knight0440
no more prisons, no more jails, no more police, no more death penalty!

so what do your propose to do not only about rehabilitation and retribution?

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Knight0440
eh. wrong. as someone who works with a books to prisoners program and has read a lot of prisoner literature i can tell you that hell is a place called prison. It isn't a shithole: it's a FUCKING FIREY HELL!

As far as the dig against anarchism, I'll console myself to the thought that you just don't know enough about it and are so indoctrinated that thoughts of controlling your own destiny and feelings of solidarity and compassion are simply supressed. :-D

some people deserve to be in a fucking firey hell. take certain members of the ALF for example...

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by revgoozen
some people deserve to be in a fucking firey hell. take certain members of the ALF for example...
careful, now.

Ah, what the hell, lets go off on a tangent.

[Barbara]

capital punishment, I dunno. Death penalty is one of those things where I can't say I feel bad when people like Timothy McVeigh get executed, but I also feel like the entire court systems of the united states are all about money, if you have it you can get away with anything, if you don't have it, you're fucked. Therefore, there might be a lot of innocent people on death row (or already executed) who were just poor, in the wrong place, had only minimal evidence but were convicted because they didn't have money for a high-powered defense. Seriously, I used to work for a lawyer and if you have enough cash to pay them and the courts, you can get out of ANY trouble from drunk driving to drug trafficking to assault & battery, and worse.

Corporal punishment in school & prison... naw, it's not needed in prisons. Prisoners get the shit beat out of them by guards and each other anyway, get raped, get their throats slit... at least in federal prisons.... arresting officers are often unneccessarily aggressive and rough toward prisoners/persons under arrest, spray them with mace when it isn't really needed etc.

Schools, nope... I'd have loved to see some kids get the shit beat out of them at school but I don't think they should have anything like that in school, kids get beat down enough by their parents and their peers. If they still can't behave after all that then what good is a teacher beating them down going to do? Leave them kids alone. If I was a teacher and some students were really unable to behave, I'd send them home or just totally ignore their prescence (unless they did something to warrant sending them home/to the principal) and continue encouraging and praising the kids who do care and try, because those are the ones that want to learn and why should a teacher give a shit about teaching someone who doesn't want to learn? You could say 'it's a teacher's job' but fuck, teachers get paid so little and have so much placed on their shoulders that it's unfair to them to have to spend their classtime trying to wrangle in the kids who just don't give a shit about being there. it's like George Carlin said, "Kids are like any other group of people: a few winners, a whole lot of losers, and you can't save them all."

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Knight0440
As far as the dig against anarchism, I'll console myself to the thought that you just don't know enough about it and are so indoctrinated that thoughts of controlling your own destiny and feelings of solidarity and compassion are simply supressed. :-D

Enlighten us then.

My basic understanding of anarchism leads me to believe that anarchists are very naive people, who believe in some sort of 'inherent good' in each and every person; some kind of natural moral sensibility. But give us the details.

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by Barbara
Schools, nope... I'd have loved to see some kids get the shit beat out of them at school but I don't think they should have anything like that in school, kids get beat down enough by their parents and their peers. If they still can't behave after all that then what good is a teacher beating them down going to do? Leave them kids alone. If I was a teacher and some students were really unable to behave, I'd send them home or just totally ignore their prescence (unless they did something to warrant sending them home/to the principal) and continue encouraging and praising the kids who do care and try, because those are the ones that want to learn and why should a teacher give a shit about teaching someone who doesn't want to learn

In an ideal world that would work Barbara, but it's not working. Teachers get assaulted and all sorts nowadays. Check this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4112634.stm

Some kids do get beaten by their peers, they arent the ones that usually go on to commit crimes, its teh BEATERS that do and they frequently have no punishments, so why should they stop picking on the little kid or the black kid? do you see what I mean?

[Barbara]

anarchy I don't think can exist in society as it is now....it would take a more enlightened populus to maintain...anarchy is lack of government, yes? but there will always be some power-hungry person thumping on what they feel is right and wanting others to feel the same way or be punished, all it takes is the support of others and you have an improptu government. The desire in some hearts to seize control is there and can't be eliminated just bt eliminating the government. eventually a new leader (or dictator) would come into power through ability to sway other people's opinions and favor.

No police and prisons? I agree that the arrest of non-violent offenders is questionable in many circumstances, but there are still very disturbed people in the world that should not be among regular society... just a few days ago on the news they've arrested a serial killer in Alabama, who has confessed to killing two teenage girls from my area years ago. These girls dissapeared about 5 years ago and no one knew if they were alive or dead, but now the guy arrested has tipped off police as to the location of the bodies, and so finally a search has started to recover them...after all that time. What justifies such a thing, an adult male kidnapping, most likely raping and then killing two young girls and hiding their bodies in the middle of nowhere? In an anarchist society what would happen to such a person? If no police or prison system existed where would they go, would they just be free to do whatever? It isn't likely to happen to you or someone you care about, but things like this still happen, people still have very sick deep-rooted problems and do terrible things to each other, and eliminating a system of punishment for their crimes isn't going to solve or change anything. If you want to kill or harm an innocent person who never did a thing to you, you don't deserve to walk free in my opinion.

[Barbara]

Fraser, I don't know how it is in Britain but most of the adults/kids I've known who were more violent and aggressive than normal and were into beating up kids for no real reason were beaten down by their parents a lot, their fathers particularly. You get the shit beaten out of you and I think most people would feel humiliated and angry, maybe even more likely to want to hurt someone else in retaliation.

[Herr Lipp]

Yes I think that parallels fairly well. But Corporal Punishment is different from Abuse IMO. And, if done correctly (ie people have it explained to them why they are being punished) it can be nothing but effective.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Six Ways
My basic understanding of anarchism leads me to believe that anarchists are very naive people, who believe in some sort of 'inherent good' in each and every person; some kind of natural moral sensibility.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Knight0440
eh. wrong. as someone who works with a books to prisoners program and has read a lot of prisoner literature i can tell you that hell is a place called prison. It isn't a shithole: it's a FUCKING FIREY HELL! yes, prison is so bad that it's not uncommon for people who've served long sentances from when they were in their early twenties to commit a crime to go back inside, because they'd rather be on the inside where everything is taken care of for them than on the outside where they have to work to get by. granted, part of the problem is to do with poor rehabilitation, but the fact of the matter is that it happens.

and yeah, what luke said about anarchism, the idea of survival of the fittest doesn't appeal to me.

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
In an ideal world that would work Barbara, but it's not working. Teachers get assaulted and all sorts nowadays. Check this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4112634.stm

Some kids do get beaten by their peers, they arent the ones that usually go on to commit crimes, its teh BEATERS that do and they frequently have no punishments, so why should they stop picking on the little kid or the black kid? do you see what I mean?

the world isn't becoming more violent because parents and teachers aren't beating their children into submission. if the world is becoming a more violent place (where's the proof), it likely has something to do with the fact that it's more difficult for parents to directly engage their children. i usually work 9 hour days, have an hour lunch, and have a 45 minute commute to and from work. i'm a tired guy. i also happen to have the ability to turn on dora the explorer for my 2 year old daughter whenever i want, 24/7. it's tempting, we have a really comfortable couch, microwave burritos in the freezer, and the sopranos are on comcast on demand. it's tempting because my wife and i have very little together time, and even less personal time. it's also the wrong thing to do. my baby is a terrific little person and she deserves more of my time than she gets. if i send her to the other room by herself all night long until bed time, how can i expect her to grow up ?

furthermore, as a parent, i can tell you that time outs are perfectly effective. i've never had a time where i thought, "time outs just aren't getting this done, i need to hit my child". children depend on their parents for everything. the threat of violence should not be introduced into a bond that is so pure.

[Drunkenmaster]

Originally posted by Six Ways
Enlighten us then.

My basic understanding of anarchism leads me to believe that anarchists are very naive people, who believe in some sort of 'inherent good' in each and every person; some kind of natural moral sensibility. But give us the details. If there was anarchism, you could kill him and then you wouldn't have to have this conversation.

[sleepy sinner]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
Thats the biggest pile of poop Ive ever read!!!! Completely unjustified GARBAGE. obviously you dont live in the real world. Tucked up somewhere in cute US suburbia?

just take a look at what DHL had to do this weekend. The parcel company that ship to Baghdad and North Korea among other dangerous places have officially blacklisted parts of London, Birmingham and Manchester due to atrocious crime rates and ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.

I can tell you for a fact, from speaking to relatives over the age of 50 ( I give a basis for my opinion unlike you) that before corporal punishment was removed it was nothing like that. The odd scuffle in teh street sure, but none of teh crack fiends, muggers, happy slappers etc etc. Old women wouldnt give a though to going out after dark, and we all know the old one "I used to be able to leave my doors unlocked at night"



In my country (Australia) both my parents and most of my other relatives of similar age came through the corporal punishment system, which was perhaps more half-heartedly employed here as a remnant of an English tradition than it may have been in England or America. Perhaps the violence wasn't on the same scale. But caning and other things were common. It absolutely has not instilled any belief in them that it is an appropriate method nor deterrent nor solution to the problem of 'misbehaviour'. One of the problems with corporal punishment is who defines 'misbehaviour'. In their context it was defined by puritan nuns and monks.

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that beating children into submission in schools is an act of anti-social behaviour by an older generation, a manifestation of their shame and desperation concerning their own sins and failures.I'm sorry to have to tell you this but violence, drug abuse and antisocial behaviour have been a feature of most societies throughout most of human existence. In this generation information about these things however is far more easily disseminated and talked about and witnessed. This doesn't mean they are features unique to this generation. People "over 50" might like to believe that their conduct was better but frequently this is not the case. Drug abuse still occurred in those times. Violence, gang warfare, domestic violence, huge amounts of antisocial behaviour (what the hell else do you call the actions of the KKK, homophobes and red-hunters?) were rampant earlier in this century, just as they are now. I've read historical documents that reveal exactly the same things happening on a massive scale in MEDIEVAL times. The French Revolution and Plague scares are good examples of the fact that people lay blame and terrible abuse on others when they are unable to cope with their own problems or the problems their generation is facing. That's all corporal punishment is, hundreds of years later.

[Herr Lipp]

cool/

[vordabois]

Sorry to dredge up such an old thread, but I thought this little article I came across today was worth noting...

Use of death penalty: Justice Stevens dissents
Supreme Court liberal strongly criticizes capital punishment system
Updated: 3:27 p.m. ET Aug. 7, 2005

CHICAGO - Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens issued an unusually stinging criticism of capital punishment Saturday evening, telling lawyers that he was disturbed by “serious flaws.”

Stevens stopped short of calling for an end to the death penalty, but said that there are many problems in the way it is used.

Recent exonerations of death row inmates through scientific evidence are significant, he told the American Bar Association, “not only because of its relevance to the debate about the wisdom of continuing to administer capital punishment but also because it indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice.”

Other justices, including Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have also spoken out about concerns that defendants in murder cases are not adequately represented at trial.

But Stevens, 85, detailed a much harsher and sweeping condemnation.

He said the jury selection process and the fact that many trial judges are elected also work against those accused of murder.

Stevens, named to the high court by President Ford in 1975, is considered one of the most liberal justices.

In recent years he has been influential in votes that barred states from executing mentally retarded killers and those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.

The Supreme Court frequently splits 5-4 in capital cases, and often O’Connor is the pivotal vote.


Laments O'Connor's departure

O’Connor, 75, announced last month that she was retiring, and Stevens told lawyers that her departure will be difficult. “It’s really a very wrenching experience,” he said.

Stevens, a Chicago native, made the comments as his wife, two daughters and the widow of the late Thurgood Marshall, Cecilia, watched from the audience.

Marshall, the Supreme Court’s first black member who retired in 1991, was a critic of the death penalty and argued that it was unconstitutional under any circumstances.

“Since his retirement, with the benefit of DNA evidence, we have learned that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously,” Stevens said during his keynote address at the 2005 Thurgood Marshall Award Dinner.

He said Supreme Court cases have revealed that “a significant number of defendants in capital cases have not been provided with fully competent legal representation at trial.”

In addition, Stevens said he had reviewed records that showed “special risks of unfairness” in capital punishment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8861381/

[Herr Lipp]

Cool. Read somewhere or other that Britain used to have the Death Penalty up until a few years ago, but only for Treason (teh death penalty for all other crimes was ended in teh 70s). Blair got rid of it the longhead, I wouldve loved to seen those fucking bombers we caught swinging their little hearts out as I pelted them with stones mwah hah hah. I'll just have to settle for them getting slashed and stabbed in prison...oh well!

(oh if you didnt realise they are going to charge those failed bombers with treason, so i heard today).

[ferret]

an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
besides teh death penalty is unconstitutional
we are one of only 4 nations i believe that still do capital punishment
along with iraq, iran saudi arabia and china...
nice company

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by ferret
an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind

Don't get me started arguing against that again.
But in short, not necessarily as long as it's controlled and truly fair, if you know what I mean. I'm still against capital punishment but mainly for the practical reasons.

[Herr Lipp]

I could live in a world without capital punishment, if I knew that prison was like it used to be, a fucking struggle, where if someone misbehaved they got a kosh or a truncheon round teh head. not like now with single rooms, tv's playstations, pool tables etc and the fact that the guards can barely do anything to people anymore.

[Fab]

could we stop with all this "teh" talk, it fucking pisses me off something awful, like when people say "could of".

[Herr Lipp]

its a typo you gimp.

[Herr Lipp]

I dont do it on purpose, Im just a two finger typer who goes too fast.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
I dont do it on purpose, Im just a two finger typer who goes too fast. sorry guy, but the fact that you do it more often than not suggested to me that you thought it was cool.

i've got my eye on you...

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Fab
sorry guy, but the fact that you do it more often than not suggested to me that you thought it was cool.

i've got my eye on you...

I don't use two fingers, but I accidentally write "question" as "quesiton" all the damn time. It's so annoying. :-p

[Herr Lipp]

ko, baf.

[Kinbote]

I have no problem with killing criminals, but I do have a problem with allowing government the authority to decide which of its citzens live and which die.

I wouldn't mind letting the families of murder and rape victims carry out executions themselves, if they so choose. Though I don't suppose such a notion is at all practical.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by UncleLester
I have no problem with killing criminals, but I do have a problem with allowing government the authority to decide which of its citzens live and which die.

I wouldn't mind letting the families of murder and rape victims carry out executions themselves, if they so choose. Though I don't suppose such a notion is at all practical.

First point = :yes:
Second point = Hmm..... not sure....could get seriously out of hand there. But then you did say about it not being practical.

Actually, as Frank just pointed out to me, it's not really the government who decides who dies in the end it's ultimately up to the jury and the judge. The government does give the opportunity for death to be handed out, but it doesn't say 'DO IT!!!' or anything.

[Jackal]

If someone purposely killed my child, I would like to kill them with my own hands.

[ferret]

i would want them b uried under the jail
never to see light or enjoy the pleasures of man
but death would be to easy
jail is the way to suffer

[Herr Lipp]

Originally posted by UncleLester
I wouldn't mind letting the families of murder and rape victims carry out executions themselves, if they so choose. Though I don't suppose such a notion is at all practical.

Iraqi style! I saw a video of someone doing that. Two men raped a young girl then killed her, after the trial (if u can call it that) the family of the girl put the two blokes against a wall and fucked them up with pistols and assault rifles. One even walked up to teh geezer when he was slumped on the floor and put 3 rounds in his head. They looked very satisfied let me tell you.

ferret: jail would be a perfect way to suffer, except (in britain at least) its a fucking holiday camp! My Uncle did 7 months inside and he had his own room, television, couldve had a playstation and the fucking cunt smoked a quarter of hash a week. A Quarter! In Prison! fucking mental. It was better back in the day when the screws used to be able to dish out a little rough justice, but its all fucking human rights garbage now.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
but its all fucking human rights garbage now.

Also, that anecdote about the iraq thing DID sound very satisfying. I bet those guys were shitting themselves.

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by Six Ways

Actually, as Frank just pointed out to me, it's not really the government who decides who dies in the end it's ultimately up to the jury and the judge. The government does give the opportunity for death to be handed out, but it doesn't say 'DO IT!!!' or anything.

Isn't the judge of government? And juries are sheep (unless it's a celebrity on trial, obviously). If they find someone guilty, they'll go right along with the prosecutor.

[Herr Lipp]

I'd worry about a jury of my "peers" not liking the look of my face or the cut of my jib and just making their minds up that I'm guilty.

[Kinbote]

Yes. That's the trouble with democracy. People can govern themselves all they want, I don't care, but they're certainly not fucking fit to govern ME.

[Fab]

Originally posted by UncleLester
Isn't the judge of government? And juries are sheep (unless it's a celebrity on trial, obviously). If they find someone guilty, they'll go right along with the prosecutor. I don't know about in america, but in England, the Judiciary is totally seperate from the government. I can also think of a case when the jury refused to return a guilty verdict despite the fact that the guy was clearly guilty, so they don't always go along with the prosecution.

The case was about a guy who broke a law in the Official Secrets Act (or something like that). It was in the Falclands war and the English navy had just sunk a ship, the Govenment said the ship was attacking the English ship but the guy leaked the fact that it was actually retreating. Blatantly breaking the law, yet the jury found him innocent.

Then there are all the cases where rapists get off because they can't produce evidence of a lack of consent.

[Herr Lipp]

Franko, do you know the difference between a 'magistrates' court and a 'crown' court, out of interest? like why they have two seperate ones? the queen makes things complicated :O

[Fab]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
Franko, do you know the difference between a 'magistrates' court and a 'crown' court, out of interest? like why they have two seperate ones? the queen makes things complicated :O magistrates court is for summary offences, they can give out a maximum custiodial sentance of 6 months for one offence or 1 year for multiple offences, and a maximum fine of £5000. Crown court is for indictable (murder, rape etc.) offences and can give out a maximum sentance of life and an unlimited fine. For some stupid reason, all indictable offences start in a magistrates court and get transferred straight away to a crown court.

There are also triable either way offences (burglary's one, off the top of my head) which as their name suggests can be tried in either court, at the discretion of a magistrate.

the main reason the different courts exist is because magistrates courts are much cheaper to run, since magistrates are volunteers.3

Arg, it feels like A-Levels again.

[Herr Lipp]

I see...thanks.

Hopefully I'll never have to experience court for myself.

[theburk]

im one of those texans they dont talk about on tv who is against the death penalty, not neccissarily on moral grounds, but because it is costly, ineffective, pointless and the risk of killing an innocent man is too great. anyone else here see that movie "the thin blue line"?

[Telegram Sam]

Originally posted by theburk
anyone else here see that movie "the thin blue line"?

[Herr Lipp]

Never saw the movie, loved the English television show.

They'll be doing a new Blackadder in 2010, so I heard.

[theburk]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
I dont do it on purpose, Im just a two finger typer who goes too fast.

happens to me all the time, my hands will get ahead of me or ill get distracted and not notice i pushed the e before the h.

[theburk]

Originally posted by Alan Smithee


:D cute, while he is the shit, i was talking about the documentary. you should watch it, its pretty amazing how an innocent man can get sentanced to death while the obviously guilty man goes on killing.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
They'll be doing a new Blackadder in 2010, so I heard.

Really? They better.