Two Police Officers killed in Tameside

[Johnuk123]

Since the death penalty was abolished 150 people have been killed by murderers released to murder again.

 

[Kneedown]

It is cheaper....much cheaper

Only because of the endless and repetitive appeals process.
Far cheaper to have one appeal then carry out the sentence, as was the case in this country.

 

[Johnuk123]

Here's my idea to get rid of a few undesirables.

When a criminal gets a very long sentence of 20-30 years give them the option of the death penalty.

Having heard so many say they can't do a long sentence plenty would opt for rapid execution within days.

Everybody's a winner,criminal gets his wish, state literally saves a fortune, can't believe nobody has thought of such a cracking idea.

 

[Kneedown]

How easily you propose terminating someone else's life. Why don't you answer the question I posed earlier: would you be prepared to be the innocent party put to death by the state, or have it be your family member?

I wouldn't relish the prospect no, anymore than i would relish being knocked over by a bus or being brutally murdered. On the other hand, if your most dear was sadistically violated and killed (May God forbid!) Would you feel justice had been done when the perp was given 20 years in a comfy prison with all mod cons and warders more like butlers than authority figures?

 

[Bungle73]

Only because of the endless and repetitive appeals process.
Far cheaper to have one appeal then carry out the sentence, as was the case in this country.

Yes, why bother making absolutely sure the person is guilty let's just execute them on the spot. Heck why even bother having a trial?

 

[Kneedown]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I might be being thick here, but i'm not sure what you're getting at?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, why bother making absolutely sure the person is guilty let's just execute them on the spot. Heck why even bother having a trial?

But most of the time it's not about guilt or innocence, it's about the electric chair being cruel and unusual punishment despite the fact it's been used since the kate 19th century, it's about the condemned having used so many drugs that their veins are shot to pieces so it'll hurt when they put the needle in, it's about the jury being racist because most were white and the prisoner black. Technicality after technicality.

 

[Bungle73]

I wouldn't relish the prospect no, anymore than i would relish being knocked over by a bus or being brutally murdered. On the other hand, if your most dear was sadistically violated and killed (May God forbid!) Would you feel justice had been done when the perp was given 20 years in a comfy prison with all mod cons and warders more like butlers than authority figures?

People don't get 20 years for murder they get life, with a minimum term recommend. How long they actually spend in jail depends on a number of factors, like the likelihood of them re-offending - certain prisoners will never get let out - but when they are they are only out on licence.

And prisons are not "comfy with all mod cons". Stop believing everything you read in the gutter press.

I might be being thick here, but i'm not sure what you're getting at?

I thought it was quite clear what I was getting at.

 

[Johnuk123]

Yes, why bother making absolutely sure the person is guilty let's just execute them on the spot. Heck why even bother having a trial?

Surely you're not naive enough to think a Court of Appeal discharge means somebody is innocent.

I suggest you check out Ernest Saunders the only man in medical history to apparently make a complete recovery from Alzheimers disease.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And prisons are not "comfy with all mod cons". Stop believing everything you read in the gutter press.

Which prisons have you visited ?

 

[Bungle73]

Surely you're not naive enough to think a Court of Appeal discharge means somebody is innocent.

I suggest you check out Ernest Saunders the only man in medical history to apparently make a complete recovery from Alzheimers disease.

And? The justice system is not perfect (which is partly the basis of my whole argument); no system set up by human beings can be.

Which prisons have you visited ?

Which have you? I'm going by what I've heard from people who know what they're talking about, and a sensationalist story the The Sun. Prison is not a place I'd like to be, that's for sure.

 

[DarloRich]

So which is it that some of you feel should have the death penalty:

1) The murder of two police officers?
2) The murder of two women?
3) The murder of two people?
4) Murder?

 

[Johnuk123]

And? The justice system is not perfect (which is partly the basis of my whole argument); no system set up by human beings can be.


Which have you? I'm going by what I've heard from people who know what they're talking about, and a sensationalist story the The Sun. Prison is not a place I'd like to be, that's for sure.

I'm not saying it's a place people love going to but the dispersal system in particular is very comfortable where even work is an option.

Things have moved on since Fletch was in Slade and the only thing most prisoners hate is loss of liberty.

The food is excellent with a menu system which I bet you don't have at home.
Most of the inmate gyms in the high security estate are better than anything you'd join.

I was a prison officer for 6 years before joining the Police where I had 5 years in Cambs and 24 in the Met.

 

[DarloRich]

A lot of that is the a problem with the EHRA. Much as I am in favour of the act as we ALL benefit from its provisions, it should not apply, other than at the most basic level to prisoners. I am not one of these who think that you should take all human rights from a prisoner but they need to loose many of the "extras" they do get. You need basic rights to stop any abuses but not much more. There needs to be a very basic provision of accommodation, simple meals, work and rehabilitation. If you do well and behave you get more.

I have no problem with people earning sensible privileges in prison through good behaviour, trying to improve their chances of not coming back by educating themselves or bettering their skills. However it should be a privilege, not a right.

The other problem is that many people aren’t aware that both punishment AND rehabilitation form the central pillars of justice. Prisons are not just there to deny liberty to the prisoner. They are there to try and rehabilitate the offender to ensure he isn’t a frequent flyer with HMPS.

 

[Johnuk123]

A lot of that is the a problem with the EHRA. Much as I am in favour of the act as we ALL benefit from its provisions, it should not apply, other than at the most basic level to prisoners. I am not one of these who think that you should take all human rights from a prisoner but they need to loose many of the "extras" they do get. You need basic rights to stop any abuses but not much more. There needs to be a very basic provision of accommodation, simple meals, work and rehabilitation. If you do well and behave you get more.

I have no problem with people earning sensible privileges in prison through good behaviour, trying to improve their chances of not coming back by educating themselves or bettering their skills. However it should be a privilege, not a right.

The other problem is that many people aren’t aware that both punishment AND rehabilitation form the central pillars of justice. Prisons are not just there to deny liberty to the prisoner. They are there to try and rehabilitate the offender to ensure he isn’t a frequent flyer with HMPS.

Good post, one thing that should be bought back is the old system of a Governor/Board of visitors being able to put extra days on a sentence for bad behaviour.
It used to be a maximum of 28 days from a Governor and 56 from the B.O.V.

The old system of let out early for good behaviour has been abolished thanks to Europe.

A prisoner can spend his whole sentence fighting staff and inmates and being a disruptive influence.

Because of H.O. guidelines only the most serious offences will get police involvement.If the prisoner actually gets to court he nearly always gets a concurrent sentence so in effect absolutely nothing.

So a prisoner has no incentive to behave whatsoever.

Incidentally just as a piece of information the worst prisons to work in are not the high security estate but youth custody and womens prisons.

 

[Mojo]

Surely the death penalty is just an easy get out for any convicted criminal? Rather than having to spend years suffering in prison they get killed straight away. I know which one I'd certainly rather take, and it's no surprise that per capita there are 14 times more suicides in the prison population vs everyone else.

 

[Johnuk123]

Surely the death penalty is just an easy get out for any convicted criminal? Rather than having to spend years suffering in prison they get killed straight away. I know which one I'd certainly rather take, and it's no surprise that per capita there are 14 times more suicides in the prison population vs everyone else.

My idea earlier of having a choice would definitely be an easy way out I agree.

But it would save anybody being killed by the same person after they've eventually been discharged.

Those you mention who commit suicide are in effect giving the death penalty to themselves.

Not everybody who commits suicide in prison of course is serving a long sentence.I remember somebody killing themselves who was doing 2 years and was out in 2 months, every case will have a reason.

 

[michael769]

Because of H.O. guidelines only the most serious offences will get police involvement.If the prisoner actually gets to court he nearly always gets a consecutive sentence so in effect absolutely nothing.

I am guessing you mean concurrent sentence as a consecutive sentence means the time is served after the first one run out.

 

[Kneedown]

People don't get 20 years for murder they get life, with a minimum term recommend. How long they actually spend in jail depends on a number of factors, like the likelihood of them re-offending - certain prisoners will never get let out - but when they are they are only out on licence.

But they always have the CHANCE of getting out. When Capital Punishment was suspended in Britain in 1965 it was on the understanding that it would be replaced by LIFE imprisonment. Nowadays that can mean a tariff of as little as 10 years. Murder is murder. Whatever the motive the end result is the same, ie a family has to continue forever without a loved one, whilst the perpetrator has the knowledge that somewhere out there, he has some soft hearted fans who think he has been hard done to and will continue to plead his case. Look at Lord Longford who campaigned tirelessly for Myra Hindley's release. Look at the army of Kray twins fans who campaigned for their release. Reggie was finally released, although only for a few weeks before his death. The point i am making is that, as long as the perpetrator is breathing, they have a chance of getting out, and as society gets more liberal and sentences get shorter, the chances get better.

And prisons are not "comfy with all mod cons". Stop believing everything you read in the gutter press.

Do you deny that prisoners have access to sports equipment, computer games, books, furniture and bedding, lavatories, showers, half decent food and even sex in some cases?

I thought it was quite clear what I was getting at.

Sorry, but i'm not up on the latest buzzwords and catchphrases.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So which is it that some of you feel should have the death penalty:

1) The murder of two police officers?
2) The murder of two women?
3) The murder of two people?
4) Murder?

All of the above.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the death penalty is just an easy get out for any convicted criminal? Rather than having to spend years suffering in prison they get killed straight away. I know which one I'd certainly rather take, and it's no surprise that per capita there are 14 times more suicides in the prison population vs everyone else.

Is it an easy way out though?
People adapt to their surroundings and make the best of it, and they are provided with certain stimuli too, ie books, gym equipment, food etc. Perhaps this is no bad thing when you are trying to rehabilitate someone, but no amount of rehabilitation will undo what a murderer has done.
Look at how Ian Brady has been allowed to taunt the late Winnie Johnson for all these years. He was supposed to have been banged up for life and forgotten about, but he has had a voice, and full control over how he played his game the whole time.
A short walk to a long drop wouldn't have been an easy way out for Brady as he would have been denied the control over the situation.

 

[Bungle73]

Murder is murder.

Um, no it's not. Every murder is far from the same as every other murder.

Do you deny that prisoners have access to sports equipment, computer games, books, furniture and bedding, lavatories, showers, half decent food and even sex in some cases?

Bedding, lavatories, showers, food? Why shouldn't a prisoner haves access to these things??

Prisoners have privileges, but they have to be earned, and will be taken away for bad behaviour.

Sorry, but i'm not up on the latest buzzwords and catchphrases.

It's not a "latest buzzword or catchphrase" it's a perfectly simple to understand use of the English language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[Oswyntail]

.... Murder is murder ....

Well yes, but...

• A girl who has been sexually abused for years stabs and kills her abuser
• A son gives pain killers to a terminally ill father knowing the dose would kill him but stop the pain
• A patient prone to psychotic episodes kills a stranger because they themselves have received an incorrect dose of medication.
• A teenager knowingly supplies drugs which kill another, but was unaware that the drugs themselves were of lethal strength.
• A 10-year old deliberately kills another child as part of a game.

All real cases, but all with special considerations. And if you allow for special considerations in any one of these, then you have to consider them for all cases.

 

[Kneedown]

Well yes, but...

• A girl who has been sexually abused for years stabs and kills her abuser
• A son gives pain killers to a terminally ill father knowing the dose would kill him but stop the pain
• A patient prone to psychotic episodes kills a stranger because they themselves have received an incorrect dose of medication.
• A teenager knowingly supplies drugs which kill another, but was unaware that the drugs themselves were of lethal strength.
• A 10-year old deliberately kills another child as part of a game.

All real cases, but all with special considerations. And if you allow for special considerations in any one of these, then you have to consider them for all cases.

Which is why, historically, the Home Secretary has had the power to review the case in question, and either confirm the sentence or commute it.

 

[DarloRich]

All of the above.

ok thanks. Just a few scenarios to test that position and illustrate my own:

A man comes home after a long day at work and finds his wife who he loves dearly in bed with another man. There relationship was rocky, she was having affairs, they argued for many weeks, she wanted a divorce, he didn’t want to end it. He is filled with rage, snaps and kills them both with his cricket bat propped up behind the door. Death penalty?

You are alone at home late at night and are in bed, you hear someone downstairs stealing things, you arm yourself with your cricket bat to defend yourself and your property, as you descend the stairs you see a shadow of the villain on the wall, he seems to be holding a knife, you launch yourself at him (shouting no warning), hitting him over the head with your bat and you kill him - he was holding your TV remote and was an unarmed youngster - death penalty?

An aged family member is desperately ill with some terrible terminal illness, their suffering is unbearable and you decide to end their pain. You do not discuss it with them but you know it is what they want. You decide that the easiest way is to administer an overdose of their painkillers. This you do ending their life - death penalty?

I don’t agree with the death penalty. I think that to utilise such a punishment drags you down to the level of the criminal and in doing so you loose the moral high ground and the moral authority of the state is eroded.

I would prefer punishment in prison for a full life term for the most heinous crimes and a long sentence for other crimes. However, there are situations where you may be convicted of murder but not deserve a full life tariff. However, as stated above, prison should be a much harder place to spend time than they are now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well yes, but...

• A girl who has been sexually abused for years stabs and kills her abuser
• A son gives pain killers to a terminally ill father knowing the dose would kill him but stop the pain
• A patient prone to psychotic episodes kills a stranger because they themselves have received an incorrect dose of medication.
• A teenager knowingly supplies drugs which kill another, but was unaware that the drugs themselves were of lethal strength.
• A 10-year old deliberately kills another child as part of a game.

All real cases, but all with special considerations. And if you allow for special considerations in any one of these, then you have to consider them for all cases.

bloody hell - took me ages to write mine and you steal my thunder. Stone him.

 

[Kneedown]

Um, no it's not. Every murder is far from the same as every other murder.

The end result of Murder is universal. It's the motives that differ.

Bedding, lavatories, showers, food? Why shouldn't a prisoner haves access to these things??

Why SHOULD they? They can do their business in a bucket like they used to, and why not the bare minimum of food required to sustain life?

Prisoners have privileges, but they have to be earned, and will be taken away for bad behaviour.

In other words they bide their time and keep their nose clean without annoying the Warders and all is well.

It's not a "latest buzzword or catchphrase" it's a perfectly simple to understand use of the English language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Well i've never heard of it before, and i'll wager a fair few others havn't either, but i now understand what you mean thanks to the link you very kindly provided.
It would seem that there are two conflicting concepts, ie Correlation does not imply, and Correlation proves. One's point of view would depend on what side of the fence one is currently on.
For instance, you use the term "Correlation does not imply causation" to counter my argument that murder rates per head of population in the UK have risen since the abolition of hanging, but you contradict yourself in another post that in America, non DP States have lower murder rates than DP States.

The term is relative, and pretty hard to prove or disprove. All we have to go on are figures.

 

[Oswyntail]

One can debate about whether any punishment "works" till the cows come home, and you have to start with a definition of what we mean by "works". Does society want vengeance, cleansing or redemption? Greater minds than ours have sat long into the night and come nowhere near even agreeing on that.
At the heart of the death penalty debate, though, is a paradox. We treat murder as being the most serious of crimes because we believe life is sacrosanct; can we (or our representatives) therefore justify the removal of life without gross hypocrisy?

 

[Kneedown]

ok thanks. Just a few scenarios to test that position and illustrate my own:

A man comes home after a long day at work and finds his wife who he loves dearly in bed with another man. There relationship was rocky, she was having affairs, they argued for many weeks, she wanted a divorce, he didn’t want to end it. He is filled with rage, snaps and kills them both with his cricket bat propped up behind the door. Death penalty?

Defence of "Manslaughter on grounds of Diminished Responsibility".

You are alone at home late at night and are in bed, you hear someone downstairs stealing things, you arm yourself with your cricket bat to defend yourself and your property, as you descend the stairs you see a shadow of the villain on the wall, he seems to be holding a knife, you launch yourself at him (shouting no warning), hitting him over the head with your bat and you kill him - he was holding your TV remote and was an unarmed youngster - death penalty?

Defence of Self Defence as homeowner PERCIEVED immediate threat. Makes no difference that the "knife" was actually a remote control, if he thought, in the dark, that it was a knife and felt threatened then no offence has been committed as long as the use of force was relative to the percieved threat.

An aged family member is desperately ill with some terrible terminal illness, their suffering is unbearable and you decide to end their pain. You do not discuss it with them but you know it is what they want. You decide that the easiest way is to administer an overdose of their painkillers. This you do ending their life - death penalty?

Yes. How can you know for sure it is what they want if you havn't discussed it with them?

I don’t agree with the death penalty. I think that to utilise such a punishment drags you down to the level of the criminal and in doing so you loose the moral high ground and the moral authority of the state is eroded.

I would prefer punishment in prison for a full life term for the most heinous crimes and a long sentence for other crimes. However, there are situations where you may be convicted of murder but not deserve a full life tariff. However, as stated above, prison should be a much harder place to spend time than they are now.

Thats your considered opinion. Fair play to you. Mine happens to differ.

 

[Bungle73]

The end result of Murder is universal. It's the motives that differ.

In other words every murder is not the same as every other murder, just like I, and others have, said.

Why SHOULD they? They can do their business in a bucket like they used to, and why not the bare minimum of food required to sustain life?

Because we are a civilised society.

In other words they bide their time and keep their nose clean without annoying the Warders and all is well.

How else are you going to get prisoners to behave?

Well i've never heard of it before, and i'll wager a fair few others havn't either, but i now understand what you mean thanks to the link you very kindly provided.
It would seem that there are two conflicting concepts, ie Correlation does not imply, and Correlation proves. One's point of view would depend on what side of the fence one is currently on.
For instance, you use the term "Correlation does not imply causation" to counter my argument that murder rates per head of population in the UK have risen since the abolition of hanging, but you contradict yourself in another post that in America, non DP States have lower murder rates than DP States.

The term is relative, and pretty hard to prove or disprove. All we have to go on are figures.

I didn't contradict myself, I merely used another case to counter what you said and therefore back up my original statement.

 

[Kneedown]

One can debate about whether any punishment "works" till the cows come home, and you have to start with a definition of what we mean by "works". Does society want vengeance, cleansing or redemption? Greater minds than ours have sat long into the night and come nowhere near even agreeing on that.

Very true.

[/QUOTE]At the heart of the death penalty debate, though, is a paradox. We treat murder as being the most serious of crimes because we believe life is sacrosanct; can we (or our representatives) therefore justify the removal of life without gross hypocrisy?[/QUOTE]

As a society we seem to believe life is sacrosanct when it suits us. We are currently engaged in a bloody war in Afghan where life isn't sacrosanct, we terminate thousands of perfectly viable foetus's every year that have a heartbeat, but they are not sacrosanct. They don't even get a trial or appeal!
I believe that Capital Punishment doesn't demean the value of human life. I believe it increases the value by sending the message to society that the unlawful and wilful taking of life will be punished with the highest possible sanction.

 

[Oswyntail]

... We are currently engaged in a bloody war in Afghan where life isn't sacrosanct, we terminate thousands of perfectly viable foetus's every year that have a heartbeat, but they are not sacrosanct.....

Oh golly that's a whole minefield waiting to explode! Personally, I also hate the idea of abortion as a form of secondary contraception, and warfare strikes me as a feeble surrender to man's baser nature. But let's not go there....for now!

 

[DarloRich]

Thats your considered opinion. Fair play to you. Mine happens to differ.

I have no problem with people a different view espeically one well thought out and long held. I appreciate where you are coming from and I would imagine we might agree on many things.

 

[Johnuk123]

I am guessing you mean concurrent sentence as a consecutive sentence means the time is served after the first one run out.

Of course it is, well spotted I will correct it, thanks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In other words they bide their time and keep their nose clean without annoying the Warders and all is well.

I feel I should mention that the "warders" term was abolished in the 1920's they have been "officers" since then.

On a side note it's also frowned upon to call prisoners inmates, prisoners is the only proper term for about 10 years now.

Saying that you will still find them called inmates in all sorts of official documents.

Your posts are excellent keep it up.

 

[Bungle73]

On a side note it's also technically illegal to call prisoners inmates, prisoners is the only proper term for about 10 years now

What do you mean, "illegal"? :?