The crime statistic you've linked to is in absolute numbers, it doesn't compensate for population growth, other take into account other long term influences like economic cycles.

As for the things you constantly hear about - well, that's the media for ya.

jamal, with all due respect, this notion is sickening, abhorant an fairly ridiculous.

what you propose is state-sponsored vengeance, not justice by any stretch of the imagination. (someone else said that, the vengeance thing, in similar words, but for the life of me i can't recall who, although the fizzog of ol' Neitchze is most vivid)

the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent is just nonsense, nothin more. are we to assume that where the death penalty is present crimes are not? that the knowledge that oh, i'll be killed for this, stops people killing? i don't think so.

what you end up with is a system that kills killers for a multitude of reasons, certainly, the aforementioned vengeance, for political reasons, for distorted ideas of justice informed less by any JUSTICE and more by the political climate of the time, but no detterent under any definition of the word.

it's a horrendous idea, and what of the ol' mis-trial, what of the misscarriage of justice? how to rememdy these grotesque errors when the wrongly accused is long-since lain cross steel an needled-up front glarin witnesses? do we kill the judges, who murdered an innocent person for suposedly doing the same thing?

not to mention the effects of living in a society that routinely kills mentally ill criminals an suposes such wretched terrors to be just an RIGHT. if we look up to folks who solve problems by gassin an slayin an electrocuting anyone who steps over certain lines for whatever reasons, what the hell are WE suposed to think, how are WE supposed to react to slights on our persons?

Barbarism is still barbarism, whether operating under some perverted notion of justice or otherwise. Hitler operated under just that notion, lest we forget.

Before the UK even considers the death penalty a far more effective measure would be the complete legalization of handguns for private ownership and the decriminalization of their use for the defense of self and property. As demonstrated again and again that would be a far more effective deterrent than the death penalty.

An armed society is a polite society.

Dave

Mr Chip, its not just the media, these things actually occur. I work within the CJS so know better then most that the extent of serious crime in the UK is at a significant level.

As stated and contrary to Aaron's comments, I do not place significance on capital punishment as a deterrent. For the main fact that crime has constantly increased and not been significantly affected by any form of crime controls or punishments, there are therefore no significant deterrents. What I argue and support is that proper punishments must be delivered for relevant crimes. It is not about deterring or revenge, but about justice.

"In the interests of justice, the perpetrators of crime must receive punishments that are proportionate to the crime as well as equivalent. When offenders are sentenced to life they should serve life, and when they take life they should receive a sentence of death".

We see the two men convicted of killing and raping the girl in Thailand. Nothing will bring her back, but her family and many others will find some satisfaction in the fact that they will be executed for their crimes. This is much more satis factory and appropriate then the average 15 year sentence they would have received in the UK, where they would have spent in a prison where their cell contain home furnishings and electronical gadgets.

In a system with appropriate safeguards where such a punishment is delivered after great care has been taken to ensure a sound conviction, perpetrators of relevant crimes will be duely be punished for taking the lives of their victims and committing heinous crimes. This is much more appropriate then the 15 years on average served for a life sentence in the UK, which evidently fail to reduce crime, punish offenders, protect the public and acknowledge the suffering of victims and their families.

As with Islamic law, the victim's family should also have a right to accept compensation from the perpetrator instead or indeed make use of clemency and, of course, the state should only have the right to apply the ultimate sanction if it abides by all the rules itself.

"Nothing will bring her back, but her family and many others will find some satisfaction in the fact that they will be executed for their crimes."

Jamal, this is certainly correct, but the price on the damn soul of the country, if such a thing is even plausible, would be greater than any individual sense of satistfaction could hope to cover.

desire for some sort of vengeance is a totally understandable emotional weight, but when it comes to matters of state and political & social policy, emotional weight HAS to be discarded, there's no way anything but utmost terror can result from a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on the emotional results of a punishment on those originally victimised than on the notion of justice itself.

to draw the notion to its conceivable conclusion, where does it end, this satisfaction? an orphan grows up to kill two children from a large family, for to give an example out thin air. said killer is killed by way of "punishment". is this ANY sort of fair deal for the family, if we're to assume that the crime is equal to the resultant punishment? if for the loss of two children loved dearly by a large family, we offer the life of one individual with NO family, with no-one especially caring one way or the other, is this REALLY a fair deal? isn't it just a slaying that offers no real comfort to anyone?

so if the notion of some sort of satisfaction offered is this shakable, when we think about it, surely it stands to reason that it's no grounds whatsoever for ANOTHER life being taken?

murder is murder. and if thats a punishment to fit the crime, then why don't we steal from thieves? why don't we rape rapists?

Do we not take the freedom of theives and rapists, just as they take the property and sexual activity from others?

In the same sense we must take from the murderer, but the fact remains that there is no punishment proportinate or equivilent other then capital punishment itself. I agree that there are many side effects and casulties to such an option. But it can only be justice if murderers receive true punishment for their crimes, of which can only be execution.

Just to add. Note I am only arguing such a penalty for crimes of murder. Life for Life. Nevertheless, if you look at Saudi Arabia, while they do quite a few unIslamic things there, crime is very low compared to other countries, particularly in Mecca, where it is not uncommon for shopkeepers to just leave their shops open if they left for a bit. So clearly the harsh punishments have an effect here. I do not argue this as a definitive case, considering in countries like Japan or Denmark there are low crime rates and no death penalty. Maybe these countries provide an atmosphere which prevents crimes at the root. Since this does not occur in the UK, we must begin somewhere and this should be in having clear and harsh penalties for the perpetrators of crime. Crime is out of control, the murder rate is increasing as is the blatent disregard for life. Therefore reintroducing the death penalty is the most positive way forward at present.

but can we combat what you refer to as a blatant disregard for life by having our leaders display just that disregard?

point taken on freedom being removed as punishment for material things being stolen, i was thinking that i was writing actually, but you can see how such an argument could be made.

i beleve the death penalty to be an abhorant, barbaric means of punishment whatever the case, but this isn't to say i don't sympathise in part with the calls of, say, family members of the murdered to have this kind of punishment administered. but a fella has to recognise the part emotions are playing here, which is not to undervalue them, i'd feel rotten if i DIDN'T have some part of me goin "that fucker needs hung" for example, as a knee-jerk reaction to some tragic crime of some sort. but that kind of thinking cannot be the basis for our justice system, it just can't, becuase for one thing, it's far too grey an area. to say that everyone charged with murder and found guilty IS in fact guilty is as demented a notion as saying everyone found innocent is innocent. it's just not the case, and the idea of someone being killed on account of these errors, i dunno how anyone could sleep at night knowing they played a part, at whatever level, in having this happen.

to propose the death penalty as A - any sort of positive movement, and B- as some kind of stepping stone to a better way is something i find very difficult to accept. and i don't, in fact. every single area of british life needs some sort of reform, education primarily. i think also things are a lot better than the doom-doused image painted in your post (which, whilst i disagree with it entirely, was an excellent piece, if one i find difficult to read). Education reform is at the core of a chain of events that need to occur, but the idea of reinstating a death penalty is a very, very dangerous step backwards, too far back to be in any way credible, or in any way permissable under any sorta progressive society.

You make valid points against the death penalty. Any re-introduction is a dangerous step due to the grea areas. However, from what Ive seen in the middle east, it can work. I think that sometimes to move forwards we have to adapt, which can mean borrowing from the past.

I'm not sure of the repercussions of having or not having capital punishment. I certainly think it should only be administered in cases where physical evidence is overwhelming and there is essentially no question of guilt.

It may not be the popular view but I believe there are certain crimes that a human can commit that would forfeit their right to coexist on this planet. I have watched the confessions of serial child rape/murderers. I have seen them describe the hours and days of rape and torture ending in the death of the victim. After watching this I not only support death for the individual but would be more than happy to hand out the punishment myself.

I don't have some strong desire to see most of these people die, but I can understand and agree with the logic behind it.

I am 59 and when I was in my teens supported the death penalty. Muder made front page news probably we heard of one or two A YEAR back then in the uk.The public was shocked and the murder was talked about for weeks /months.
Later I changed my mind about the death penalty and was anti hanging for no other reason than I thought I had grown up and have remained that way for some time , however I now feel very strongly about this and I think the UK should reintroduce the death penalty or life SHOULD MEAN LIFE WITH NO REPRIEVE.Our punishment system is a joke
We hear and see at least one murder reported every single day sometimes more. There were 4 on the news last night! No one cares any more we just say OH NO ANOTHER MURDER ISN'T THAT AWFUL AND GET ON WITH OUR LIVES.
These horrendous people have taken away inncoent lives, children from parents, parents from children and so on. They come out of jail anything from 8 yrs on that is not right.
I also believe we should see the reintroductuion of national service (bad lads army proves that point) and national service was cmplulsory in the days of the death penalty could the two be connected? The lack of Discline and the bad behaviour in general could perhaps have a lot to do with the increase in crime and murders.

I would like to see the figures relating to murders in the uk between 1943- 1973 when we had the death penalty and for the same period when capital punishment was abolished 1974-2004 but not including terrosim or wars for either period.I bet everyone would get a shock!

I agree that capital punishment should be reintroduced in the U.K.
Everyone knows that society is too lenient on the killers of children and the elderly,after their sentence many of these animals are allowed to slip back into society only to be housed next to some more potential victims.
Trust in society has gone.
Tougher sentencing would deter the perpetrators of these crimes without a doubt because they are committed by cowards protected by the feeble do-gooders and p.c. brigade.
The time has come to get tough and execute anyone convicted of the murder of the young and elderly.

Well, the death penalty might dissuade some people from pre-meditated crimes, but as far as I know, most crimes happen in the spur of the moment, i.e. when a person is not thinking rationally, so I doubt the death penalty would be much of a deterrence (it doesn't seem to be in the US anyway).
Although I suppose it does have a certain logic vis a vis justice as far as murder goes. However, I would be uncomfortable using it against any except repeat offenders, in case some are wrongfully convicted.

I think it is probably more important for the entertainment media to show positive, non-violent ways of solving problems, instead of showing the use of guns as the best way. Alas, I guess that doesn't sell as many movie tickets or get as high Neilsen ratings. Oh well, I guess entertainment is more important to alot of people than peace on the streets.

I think the UK's increase in crime is due to the acceptance of disrespecting people more than anything.
They used to have wonderful comedies in the past, but now, a few I have seen from the last few years have been quite pitiful, where the characters seem to spend most of their time putting folks down. I understand there can be laughs in dysfunctional families, but it would be nice if they would try to solve their problems once in a while, rather than wallow in them. The audience might even learn something from it.

The death penalty is a great idea in theory. So long it only applies to 'other people'. Of course, neither you nor anyone in your family or in your circle of friends would ever find themselves accused of murder or worse. Only deserving strangers would be executed by the state, so it's all good.

Yeah, right!!!

The UK law system is back to front, criminals get more support than its victims. Murderers are able to basically get away with murder, life should mean life not 15 years, or earlier if youve been a good boy or girl, this is a total waste of taxpayers money. I think if the evidnce is overwhelming against a criminal then they should be executed, not left to live a life of luxury in prison, why does it take so long to get a change

Vote for capital punishment, there are too many sick people who murder and walk away, or enter prison, and live a better life than they did before, just to be realeased with new names, new house and a new life when they don't deserve this.

Mr Martin, if a member of my family commits murder, i would be happy to see them suffer the consequences, they would deserve thier fate for taking someones life. The fact they are your family is a moot point and frought with bias, although you have a good poin none the less.

Its sickening and saddening to turn on the television to hear of the latest murder or rape/murder. My fiancee is away from home, and i worry for her every night, and i fear there isnt much to stop someone from raping and killing her for sport in the UK. The only thing i know that i could do would be to kill them myself, which would see my life in prison, miscarriage of justice and all!

I beleive any form of premeditation should require pentaly of death. The money saved froma life imprisonment (if only it were life) could be used to fund a much more efficient effective trial for the accused to ensure guilt, and to make sure the guilty part meets the correct punishment.

National service is an excellent idea, and may help to remove this ASBO culture too.

The death penalty, as many of you have mentioned is (obviously) an extreame measure, but is it not true that many of the crimes that these animals commit are extreame also? I do support the death penalty, however it should only be used in cases where there is no question of guilt.

Im more supportive of other measures, such as the decriminilization of hand guns for defence, or greater still the reintroduction of national service I personnally feel that these steps would be more positive then the reintroduction of the death penalty.

Reintroducing the death penalty would be a radical step and not one to be taken lightly. Needless to say if there was a public vote tomorrow on this issue I would be voteing yes.

I have been involved with recording crime scenes for the past 17 years including, amongst many others, those involving babies and children who have been abused, tortured, raped and in some cases murdered.

I started out thinking that I was doing something positive and fighting crime in my own way. I try to think of the person and their family (unless the family are proved to be the perpetrators)and to do the best job I can for them - and that keeps me going.
An earlier post said that "emotional weight has to be discarded" when discussing the death penalty.

WHY?

We are human beings, social animals with all that entails including emotions. The legal system, working without emotion, totally using reason can deduce whether someone is guilty or not. That is fair and just.

But you can either lock them up hidden away from society to meet other criminals, complete their OU degrees and live at your expense or rid society of them permanently. They serve no purpose in society, are a danger, their lives won't be enhanced or improved by incarceration. This is a reasoned opinion - nothing to do with emotion.

Amnesty International says the death penalty is "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

So if it is inhuman to kill the perpetrators of these kind of acts are inhuman and therefore don't have the same rights as other members of society.

The OED defines inhuman as "lacking positive human qualities; cruel and barbaric. not human in nature or character".

So the horror of these crimes, the damage it does to family and community, the fear it perpetuates, the unimaginable misery that their innocent and defenseless victims were forced to endure and the fact that their behaviour is not human seems to be a very poor third behind politics and the human rights of the criminal. We already have it on good authority (Amnesty) that murders aren't human so why have they got human rights?

So this is the reasoned argument for the death penalty.

The emotive one? Think of documenting up a little lifeless body, starved, burnt and bruised, recording their surrounds, no light, locked away, tethered to something to limit their movements but probably too weak to move anyhow. Born into the world for a short agonizing miserable life. Are Amnesty fighting for these victims lives? They are forgotten people, they hold no political importance for US based Amnesty and their lives have no value or meaning.

I carry on doing my job because it may help catch the perpetrator, prevent further crimes and is a way of showing some form of respect to victims who may have had little or no human kindness or respect in their lives.

Yes, complete legalization of handguns for private ownership is needed. The dunblane shootings, if you do your research was the plot of freemasons. Not the lower blue lodge degree's but by officials in the higher degree's.

This was a plot to dissarm the british public. We need to get our guns back!

maybe we should just hang the do gooders? after all its 40yrs of libralism that has brought us to the sad state we are in now .but on a realistic note yes i agree with the death penalty it wont take many to shake up the casual gun users in gangs it wont be big to carry a gun swinging from a rope will it? just a thought.

Personally i'm in favour of executing all those who want to bring back the death penalty, especially when their reasoning is as defective as that of Chris Turtner above, who seems to think introducing the death penalty in the UK will have a deterrent effect even though it doesn't in the US. D'oh!

All i can say is whoever thinks major criminals that murder, rape etc do not deserve to be sentanced to death are idiots. You take someones life you pay with yours. You do something disgusting like rape a baby or rape women, you wont stop at 1 you will carry on and to prevent you from doing this you will be sentanced to death. Not all criminals will stop commiting crime if the death sentanced was to be bought back but at least the ones that have will not have another chance to. Simple.

Indeed you are simple, Mo. Personally I think people who write poorly thought out comments full of bad spelling ought to be executed, but it is all a question of where to draw the line. At least my way we don't have to worry about the legal system making mistakes....

I'd like to know what is wrong with vengence, either as a society or as individuals? Vengence is a perfectly natural, normal reaction to a crime against innocent others, and if nothing else, certainly gives the victims or their families & friends a sense of justice to which they are well entitled - especially when the government & the law are too spineless & tepid to adequately punish or deter the monsters who perpetrate it. If the government refuses to protect innocent citizens, then maybe it's time for vigilante justice? It could certainly be justified. Further, I deny that life - or specifically, the lives of such human vermin as commit violent crimes - is sacred. It's not, any more than the lives of rats or roaches, and furthermore has been proven to be so by the actions of the very individuals themselves: you commit a violent crime, you remove yourself from the ranks of humanity, together with any and all inherent rights & privileges.

IMO violent criminals ought to be used for medical & commercial (cosmetic) experimentation instead of animals. At least they'd be paying back a modicum of their debt to society, & their miserable existences would be to a degree justified. Otherwise they're just eating, sleeping, excreting piles of humanoid crap.

I'm with Nancy -

Privatize Justice

Guys, they tried that in the USA back in the days of the Wild West. It didn't work out too well then and it sure ain't gonna work any better nowadays.

I find myself to be in agreement with the author of this piece. Jamal speaks here as a professional, as well as a resident of the UK, and makes compelling arguments.

It is not enough to denounce capital punishment as "barbarism" as one poster has done. Murder, rape and other crimes of violence are all barbarism. Even corporal punishment, which is generally barbaric, and often over-used and abused, does have its place in society. Witness the stink that went up over a tourist being sentenced to five strokes of the cane in Malaysia an number of years back. Those five strokes of pain will live forever in the memory of the recipient. Whatever else he does, it is not likely he'll repeat the crime he committed there.

If a person murders someone in the society he lives in, the murderer needs to understand with a certainty that he himself will die. So, the issue here is the issue of certainty. Justice must be sure - but it also must be swift, less the populace forget the point of the death. A life is a terrible thing to waste...

The proper pursuit of justice most assuredly has its place in a country that alleges it believes in a Book that says, "tzédek tzédek, tirdóf" - justice, justice, shall you pursue.

But having said this, I agree with Dave Nalle as well; the average Brit must have the right to bear arms in plain sight. An armed society is a polite society.

Well, I'm not surprised to see Ruvy lined up here with his quaint "eye for an eye" approach to life.

I would be inclined towards the armed society response if people were actually capable of acting according to reason rather than emotion but alas it ain't so.

Mob rule, vigilanteism and the like are precisely why a more legalistic approach to justice are required. It just isn't within the capacity of most people to behave reasonably in the passionate heat of the moment.

Glib remarks like "an armed society is a polite society" make great soundbites but just don't work out that way in the real world, where real people not automatons are making the decisions.

You only have to look at many of the comments made on this very site for evidence of that. None of you three manage to stay at all times within the very loose standards of behaviour required here, never mind exhibiting the wisdom necessary to wield a more permanent type of justice.

The ONLY result of this kind of approach would be the increased frequency that you would see "strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees".

I don't support allowing the general population to bear the sort of arms some would allow, such as machine guns; there's absolutely NO reason for any private person to have something like that, or a shoulder-rocket launcher, for example. But I do support bearing arms in general, AS LONG AS the guns in question are legally sold & bought, registered, & the users are thoroughly trained in safety measures. Unfortunately, the last criteria I'd use can't be enforced, namely that the gun user not be a blithering idiot & fool who keeps loaded guns around the house accessible to kids, etc. Alas, you can't mandate intelligence & common sense.

Ruvy, i looked up "Strange Fruit" in Wikipedia after posting the above and read the following:-

"Strange Fruit" began as a poem about the lynching of two black men written by a Jewish schoolteacher from the Bronx, Abel Meeropol, who used the pen name Lewis Allan (the names of his two children, who died in infancy). Meeropol and his wife were also the adoptive parents of the children of the executed spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in the 1950s.

"Strange Fruit" was written as a poem expressing his horror at the lynchings, and was first published in 1937 in The New York Teacher, a union magazine.

Though Meeropol/Allan often asked others (notably Earl Robinson) to set his poems to music he set Strange Fruit to music himself and the song gained a certain success as a protest song in and around New York.

Before Holiday was introduced to the song, it had been performed by Meeropol, by his wife, and by black vocalist Laura Duncan, who performed it at Madison Square Garden.

Meeropol said later that he had been inspired by seeing Lawrence Beitler's photograph of the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in Marion, Indiana.

"Strange Fruit" was eventually heard by Barney Josephson, the founder of Cafe Society, New York's first integrated nightclub, who introduced it to Billie Holiday. Holiday performed the song at Cafe Society in 1939, a move that by her own admission left her fearful of retaliation.

Holiday later said that the imagery in "Strange Fruit" reminded her of her father's death, and that this played a role in her persistence in performing it.

Billie Holiday's version of "Strange Fruit" is pretty definitive but there have been many other great recordings of it, by many diverse artists. One of many great takes is this one by Nina Simone.

Someone who believes that a person who has murdered many innocent young women needs to be executed, (I'm thinking Ted Bundy), is NOT, I repeat NOT the same mentality as the persons who carried out lynchings.

I maintain there are many times when society AS Society is obligated to obliterate these semi-human predators. Not just murderers but rapists & child molesters as well. Again, if you don't want to kill them outright, then let them perform a much-needed public service in atonement for their crimes by serving as human guinea pigs in lab experimentation, either for drugs or surgical procedures, or even cosmetics. As for the notion of vengence - I see nothing wrong with it. That the families of victims or the victims themselves would want vengence is normal & should be allowed; it's the least the criminals owe their victims, & if it brings a measure of satisfaction to the victims or their families or society, then so be it. There is nothing barbaric or 'bad' about wanting to to get a little of your own back from someone who has wronged you, especially when it's a deep & serious wrong.

I agree with Ruvy, however, in that justice needs to be not only certain, but swift - which these days it certainly is not, especially with the long - sometimes decades - delays allowed and/or encouraged by the almost endless appellate process, most of it complete bullshit designed more for the benefit of lawyers & their criminal clients than society at large.

As for vigilantism not being effective, I beg to differ. In those parts of the Wild West where it flourished & was enforced (a short period of time, granted) it had a very salutary & sobering effect on the wilder & more lawless elements, especially when it was graphically demonstrated to them that justice, primitive as it may have been, was going to be as quick as it was inevitable. Many a bad guy lit out for easier pastures after an exemplary lynching/firing squad or two, leaving the remaining population in peace & lawful quiet.

Yeah, okay, let's start by killing everybody who feels bloodlust. Up against the wall, Nancy, you're a threat to humanity! It would make me feel safer to know that people with such violent tendencies were no longer around...

Christopher,

Whenever you have a justice system crippled by a refusal to protect society, you get exactly what you fear and wave in front of my face - the justice of the mob expressed in lynchings and hangings. Whenever a system of law enforcement becomes so corrupt that the bobby cannot be relied upon to do his job, you get vigilante justice. Apparently, the UK has degenerated into such a society. That is the picture Jamal draws for us of the society around him.

If British society refuses to enforce laws against murder, rape, robbery and the like, vigilante justice will emerge in the UK; Judge Lynch will indeed swish his robes of death and "strange fruit" will hang from the heaths and groves of England.

I would only note for the casual reader that the murder rate in New York City or even Minneapolis is probably higher than that of the UK. But if this changes, and the UK becomes a murder capital of Europe, we can expect Englishmen to seek to protect their own rights to a peaceful society. England is the home of the Bill of Rights of 1689, upon which much of civil law in America and much of the world is based (the other basis is the Bible).

Chris, even sheep(le) rise up against abuse after a time...

Whenever a commenter runs out of answers related to the real world, they resort to whenevers, ifs and hypotheticals!

Jamal is being hysterical and, if you form your picture of the world solely based on media reports, you're going to have a very wacky view of the world. Based upon what I hear on the news the only things that matter to Americans are the "war" in Iraq and the price of shares.

Based upon what I hear on the news the only things that matter to Americans are the "war" in Iraq and the price of shares.

Perhaps that's why I don't see any State Department "travel advisories" for Britain - sociopath-infested hellhole that it is, if folks like Jamal and Mark Manning are to be believed...

that's because the US State Dept is a branch of Her Majesty's Secret Service - d'uh

Shh! That's a secret!! ;-)

Chris - you sound pretty satisfied with governments' control over 'justice'

but here in the US the demographics of the (massive) prison population is disenchanting...it almost looks like a war on the poor rather than an attempt to control the most vile behaviors

as for vigilantism - I reject any argument based on 'necessity' required by some unchanging human nature

things might work out for the best in the coming anarchy

demographics...are

I don't understand where you got that impression from, troll.

I do think the massive US prison population is a sign of a country gone law happy, which is bitterly ironic in the so-called land of the free. The US is a country which actually has far more government control and laws than the so-called more socialist countries of Europe. It just goes to show the power of a slogan, as most Americans really do seem to believe they are more free!

Ruvy says: "If a person murders someone in the society he lives in, the murderer needs to understand with a certainty that he himself will die."

Hey, that's great news for suicides! If you're too cowardly to kill yourself just kill someone else, the state will take care of the rest!

Not everyone in a gang is murderous, some are nice.

I am of the firm belief that when you piss all over someone else's human rights, you foreit your own.

People talk shit about 'oh but if you kill it means you're just as bad as the murderer' NO IT DOESN'T. The termination of a criminal is in no way similar to the rape/murder of an innocent victim. the former is only the result of the criminal committing the latter.

PLUS, the money saved (£43k per year) from having the death penalty reinstated could be used to save about 6 cancer sufferers, whose £7k one-off treatment is considered 'too expensive' for the NHS.

1 criminal or 6 cancer sufferers? hmm decisions decisions 'ay?

I am sick to the back teeth of hearing stuff like that I provided a link to above!!!!

"They also kicked him about the body, pushed sticks up his nose and urinated on him."

"Finally the two defendants jointly pushed him into the river, where Toby never regained consciousness and drowned."

"But they were convicted of manslaughter and were jailed at Nottingham Crown Court. Quantrill must serve five years in a youth detention centre or jail and Orm three-and-a-half years."

What the hell is up with our justice system! why is it that they get three and a half to five years in jail when they subjected a man to an ordial like that and then ended his life!

When they come out in a mere three years, the 25 year old they killed will still be dead! The family of that 25 year old will still be greeving from the loss, but those murderers will still be freed!

I still dont belive in state administered death, but for crying out loud - what on earth do they think they are doing releasing people like that into our community so soon! Anyone with that mentality is dangerous until they are so old they cant walk anymore, and even then, should be supervised! This makes me very angry, and it should other people too. people should be shouting very loudly about all these killer that are being let out, there's loads of them!

I dont think arming the nation is right eithr! In fact its mad. Imagine loads of mexican stand offs between gangs of kids in the street! And the rules of engagment will change, but the victims wont be any better to protect themselves - remember, the killer has the edge, because he has the killer mentality, the victim doesnt know the killer is the attacker until he pulls his gun and attacks the victim, and thats bound to be when the victims back in turned isnt it? so even when the victim is armed to the teeth, the victim wolud have to have a suit like off pretator, with invisability, and a shoulder cannon that fires where ever you look and locks onto ememies quicker than they can pull a weapon. In practice, in such a society, it wolud be like walking through iraq shrotly after the occupation, you wolud have to have your gun drawn all the time and face everyone you came across in case they fired at you. Instead the police need to get a handle on whoever is supplying these weapons and they need to lock them up for MOST OF THEIR LIVES, words that the goverment doest seem to be able to understand the meaning off! They seem to thnik that humans have the life span of dogs and cats - since 15 years to them constitues life! They need to do a lot more stop searches and generally make life really tough for anyone carrying a gun or a knife around!

THE BEST method I can think of would be brain monitoring. science fiction - it is not:

"Developments in brainwave measurement have led to several new applications based on the monitoring of brainwaves. One such application, which the inventor says can evaluate whether or not a particular person has a memory of a particular event, is called brain fingerprinting."

It might sound like something from clock work orange, but we are now at the point where we are beginning to be able to read brain activity! If someone is shown a film/pic of a certain situation or person, we should soon be able to see if there is unsavoury brain reaction that is sufficient to direct the person under test to commit a crime - Ha, and there would be no way for them to hide either, as they might be able to lie, but their brain reaction is what they perceived at that point!

we would have to take care not to sign away our liberty by allowing the unlimited use of the device by the state and business, but when it comes to serious violent crime and terrorism, how brilliant it will be to uncover these people for all to see, it will mean the boot is on the other foot for a change!

The question will be - how to deal with someone who we know has criminal tendancies, yet has yet to comit a crime?

Which is all very well Jamal, but as you and I know, there won't be a return to the death penalty in Britain.

They moved on from that a long time ago, and it won't be coming back. Apart from the fact it's barbaric (and 40 years in jail isn't a bad alternative for scum), as has been shown in the US, it doesn't make any difference to the crime rate.

The murder rate in the US, which has a death penalty, is multiple times that of Britain.

There's an end to your argument already.

And Dave,

Fantastic idea re: the legalisation of handguns in the UK.

Especially coming from a person living ina country where the proliferation of guns gives it by far the highest rate of gun homicide in the developed world.

Typical errant nonsense from supporters of gun laws that involve virtually no laws ... people are getting shot, so let's make MORE guns available, not less.

An armed society is a polite society? Yeah, right, look at the US. Lol. That's a joke, right?

Preach to the Poms when their rate of gun homicide reaches that of the US. Until then, the best you could do would be to keep your gob shut on something like this.

As you once said to me, "killing a tapeworm by feeding it to death" just doesn't work, whether that means taxes OR guns.

DD: "Perhaps that's why I don't see any State Department "travel advisories" for Britain - sociopath-infested hellhole that it is, if folks like Jamal and Mark Manning are to be believed..."

I reckon Manning's views have been coloured by a belting in a London pub after one-too-many beers and a tad too much gob opening ('cause you just know Mark is great at keeping his views about Britain and Britons to himself).

As I keep promising Mark, though, I can organise a whip around for him at the Punch and Judy and the boys and girls there have assutred me they'll raise enough money to get him a one-way ticket back to Boston.

He reminds of that great song, "Stuck in the UK". Every time I hear the words ("Detroit, New York and LA, but I'm stuck in the UK") I thjink instantly of Mark, the reluctant trans-Atlantic transplant.

Well, it doesn't have to be that way Mark old boy! We can get you home mate!

And Jamal, shame on you ... shame.

Nancy, on guns: "Unfortunately, the last criteria I'd use can't be enforced, namely that the gun user not be a blithering idiot & fool who keeps loaded guns around the house accessible to kids, etc. Alas, you can't mandate intelligence & common sense."

That'd be the reason they have tough gun laws in the UK.

It's worth noting here Nancy that the UK has a much lower rate of gun homicide than the US (in single figures compared to the US, which is the highest, in double figures, of any developed country).

Now why do you think that is? Oh, I know, it's because anyone can go out and buy a gun, no one keeps track of the things, and too many of them end up in the hands iof criminals.

Also, most handgun deaths in the US occur in the home, and the victims are usually related to the shooter.

That's all a cogent and coherent argument for arming the populace, eh?

On the police: I do think EVERY copper in the UK should be armed, however. Some are, but for those who aren't, it's often too late by the time armed response teams arrive or the guns are coming out of the box in the boot of the police car.

"The murder rate in the US, which has a death penalty, is multiple times that of Britain."

With all due respect, mate, but I've seen you argue vehemently on other threads that our murder rate is due to our widespread private gun ownership.

The death penalty is rarely argued as a deterrent these days, anyway.

But it does ensure that one shithead won't ever murder again, doesn't it?

And, of course, revenge is sweet...

The death penalty is a sensible way to save taxpayer money.

Dave

Clav: I've just argued that above. What I'm saying is that it also isn't any deterrent.

But yes, you know my view on guns ... and I do believe the proliferation of guns in the US is the reason for its high crime rate compared to other developed countries (Dave tried to tell me once that Colombia fitted into that category, which of course has a higher rate than the US).

And Dave, in states where there is a death penalty in the US, most people spend the equivalent of what, 15 to 20 years behind bars before they get the chop?

In most countries, that's a life sentence. So how exactly does that save taxpayers' money?

I know they send 'em off a bit quicker in Texas, but elsewhere it seems a bit different.

Yes, revenge is sweet. But what if that revenge involves one innocent person getting chopped along with all the guilty?

Even just one is too many, and is a good enough reason on its own to argue against the death penalty.

"What I'm saying is that it also isn't any deterrent."

I agree, Stan. I said so above; nobody even argues (me included) that it IS a deterrent anymore.

EXCEPT for the yob you execute; he won't be murdering anyone else anymore, as so many do here after they're released on bail, or even on probation after years in the joint.

Kill 'em and that won't happen.

Barbaric? Some see it that way, yes, but I say it's far less so than the crime of murder.

The punishment fits the crime.

"Yes, revenge is sweet. But what if that revenge involves one innocent person getting chopped along with all the guilty?

Even just one is too many, and is a good enough reason on its own to argue against the death penalty."

That was once a pretty good argument, Stan; one that even began to convince me.

But, as DNA evidence plays a larger role in all of criminology, the likelihood of an innocent defendant becomes slimmer, and will soon disappear altogether.

Doesn't anyone, especially the righteous religionistas on BC, think that it's wrong to facilitate the vengeance impulse of victims and their families?

What would Jesus do?

Just for the record, I am not a "righteous religionista" (whatever that neologism means).

No, I don't think it's wrong to exact vengeance when deserved; In fact, I think it's a good principle of justice to make the punishment fit the crime.

I have no idea what jesus would do.

But, as DNA evidence plays a larger role in all of criminology, the likelihood of an innocent defendant becomes slimmer, and will soon disappear altogether.

Clav, when fingerprint evidence came into use about a hundred years ago, it seemed so foolproof that much the same forecasts were being made.

These days, people tend to talk about DNA as if it's the be-all and end-all of criminology. Fact is, there often isn't any DNA evidence, and you know as well as I do the number of cases (homicide and otherwise) that come to court with the prosecution relying heavily or entirely on circumstantial evidence (the Laci Peterson case, for instance).

There's also a great danger, as a former detective mate of mine points out, that some investigators are now relying almost solely on DNA evidence when the real key to all this investigating properly and tieing up every loose end in a brief.

A combination of all things, then, not just the reliance on one new piece of modern technology that can be flawed and depends on so many other things.

DNA is useless, for instance, where there is evidence let's say that a person has been in continuous contact with another person at the scene of a crime prior to it being committed.

Since most killings involve someone close to the victim, there's a problem there right at the start. Relying on any scientific evidence solely as the basis of making a case is really dangerous and doesn't fit with many notions of our justice system(s).

To rely on it is just as flawed as ignoring it.

Well, then, mates, I accept the probability that innocent men are going to be sent to the gallows from time to time.

Even if I'm one of them some day.

The DP is not even cheaper than life imprisonment. I read an analysis of this a few years ago and the high cost of DP appeals and years on Death Row are much bigger than Life Imprisonment.

The police are simply unreliable. They get rewarded with promotions and raises based on their "collars" and convictions. So they have a vested interest in catching and prosecuting the obvious suspect, not in finding the real criminal. So The System has to leave room for subsequent exoneration.

Encouraging vengeance is bound to lead to crime cycles, like the Hatfields and the McCoys, the Jews and The Muslims, the Crips and the Bloods, etc. Innocent bystanders will always be harmed.

Perhaps we should listen to the people who actually have to do it...

Albert Pierrepoint, the last Chief Executioner of Britain, became an opponent of the death penalty, arguing that it existed out of a base desire for revenge and didn't benefit society in any way. His epiphany, according to his autobiography, was the time he ended up having to hang a mate of his who'd killed his girlfriend in a jealous rage.

He knew that his friend, and indeed most of his 'clients', hadn't acted with premeditation and therefore the death penalty was no kind of deterrent.

I think no one any longer considers it to be a deterrent.

But then, neither is imprisonment.

People bent on criminal acts rarely stop to consider the consequences.

e-okul
hi,
Jamal is being hysterical and, if you form your picture of the world solely based on media reports, you're going to have a very wacky view of the world. Based upon what I hear on the news the only things that matter to Americans are the "war" in Iraq and the price of shares.

"Based upon what I hear on the news the only things that matter to Americans are the "war" in Iraq and the price of shares."

Also, when, where and with whom we're next gonna get laid...

According to a recent poll the War actually ranks about 4th in importance, down with immigration reform. The economy, national security and jobs rank at the top.

Dave

"Fact is, there often isn't any DNA evidence, and you know as well as I do the number of cases (homicide and otherwise) that come to court with the prosecution relying heavily or entirely on circumstantial evidence (the Laci Peterson case, for instance)".

In this case there was no evidence for the guilt of Peterson. No evidence, direct or circumstantial. He was convicted solely on public outrage whipped up by the media to sell more rubbish.

All of the actual evidence went to his innocence.

Clav: "Also, when, where and with whom we're next gonna get laid..."

What about the REALLY important stuff: the price of beer/smokes, rising petrol prices and the risk of higher mortgage interest rates.

You can win an election down under on that stuff.

dear pepole of the workd,we are all humain we live and die naturaly.
but to be killed by a nothman was it worth it NO.A person whatever reason it may be they are not to kill.
there is no revange not by justice.no human being should decide abaut a nother life.BUT when sombodys life has been taken and brutally murder WE as a nation of this part of the world in the UK should decide that there will be nobody anymore who will comme aut of gale to kill again.WHAT JUSTICE HAVE WE GOT,NONE.
THE COURT OF ENGLAN OF UNITED KINGDOM GIVES THE RIGHT TO KILL THEIR OWN PEPOLE BY GIVING THE KILLERS THE WRIGHT TO LIVE.and to do it and kill again.DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE ON JUSTICE OF THIER OWN WILL OF THE FAMELY.

The UK NEEDS the death penalty.

Well, James, I realise 'Maja' can't spell, can't think straight, can't construct a sentence intelligible to any mortal man and apparently abides by a moral code which died out in the fourteenth century, but surely your recommendation is a little extreme...

No James, the UK DOESN'T need the death penalty.

What's a Nothman BTW Doc?

Does he mean a Norseman by any chance??

How will that impact the sensibilities of our resident Mexican viking, whose ancestors' boat took a wrong turn at iceland and ended up in Guadalajara??

Or even me, when the boat from Northumbria washed up on the Great Southern Land (that has no peer)??

Those Nothmen ... they can't be trusted y'know.

Always been troublemakers, and always will be.

I think the Nothmen come from an obscure and unexplored corner of the Workd.

And if the Great Southern Land has no peer, what do you Aussies do for amusement arcades and funfairs?

The Nothmen cometh ...

From an unexthplored and obthcure part of the worlk?

And we don't need no amusement parks and fun fairs down here Doc, you know that.

It's just one long knees-up (that's a party, for you Americans) anyway.

See Doc, that's where you blokes made the big mistake.

You sent all the party people to the BEST place, while all you lot stayed on that miserable piece of rock in the North Sea (not for nothing is it shaped like a witch taking a dump).

You thought you were punishing us, and now you're all falling over yourselves to get in here.

The wheel turns full circle.

However, none of you will ever be forgiven for stealing the corner of our flag and using it as your own.

A pack of opportunistic bastards if ever there were one ...

I THINK THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS SO FUCKED UP THEY SHOULD BRING THE DEATH PENALTY BACK BECAUSE MURDERERS, RAPISTS, PEODAPHILES ETC. SHOULD ALL BE HUNG FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, NOT A SELECTED NUMBER OF YEARS IN PRISON, THEN TO BE RELEASED TO CONTINUE COMMITTING FURTHER CRIMES

You seem very anxious to hang people, Buster.

Tell me - exactly how far down the food chain do you want to go with this? Should we hang someone who murders with premeditation, or in a fit of temper? Someone who rapes, or who commits a sexual assault? Someone who molests a child, or who solicits one online?

Who gets to decide in your Utopian bloodbath?

If ur from the uk have u read the bristol evening post today a man got 4 years for murder and he's only going to do 2 out of that.

I'm from the UK originally, but live in America now. I just surfed to the Bristol Evening Post's website and read the story.

The report doesn't clarify, but I can tell you here and now that if the guy only got four years, then he was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. A murder conviction results in a mandatory life sentence.

Mitigating circumstances in this case appear to be that the killer has apparently shown genuine remorse, and that the victim appears to have contributed to his own demise having returned to the fracas rather than simply walking away from trouble, which he had the opportunity to do.

I agree with you, however, that four years (presumably, since the killing happened in 2006, he's already served two of those on remand) is a highly inappropriate sentence for a homicide under those circumstances.

The death penalty for manslaughter is just as inappropriate, though. Whether the killer, or the victim, or both were chavs (it sounds as though they were) is irrelevant.

Kill the murderess and rapists etc and free-up prison space for the other scum that deserve to be in cells for years, house burglars etc, every crime committed in the UK, the guilty don't get enough punishment.

I'd say bring back the death penalty but only for open/shut cases. Like this austrian bloke who done that to his daughter. If there is even a 1% chance that the perpertrator is not guilty then prison for him/her.

I actually prefer corporal punishment especially for those fuckers who attack firemen/policemen/paramedics when they are responding to a call. What manner of moron attacks people whose only thought is to save them?

I am against the death penalty in most instances but the option should be there - not as a deterrent but as a swift punishment which rids the world of a murderer, rapist, paedophile (especially the latter).

100% guilty people should be executed WITHOUT appeal.

Vigilante Justice sounds appealing but cannot be applied fairly? Who decides what case is worthy of death (murder fair enough, rape, fair enough, honour killings? HELL NO) different cultures have different thoughts on what constitutes as a legal retribution.

Barbaric? Yes

Necessary? Sadly Yes

I have no problem with people against the death penalty, in fact I envy you for your capacity for mercy. But it is something I can never accept until there is a time when a year can go by, without murder, without rape, without paedophilia, all these things.

Unfortunately I don't see it happening

I say do it. Bring back hanging or, even better, firing squad. That way, people would think twice about coldblooded murder or becoming a paedophile, don't you think? And in our age of genetic profiling (people have been arrested in America on the basis of DNA found on a roach from a cannabis joint) it is far more unlikely that innocent people will die as a result of bringing back the death penalty (as a Marxist and Feminist, I hesitate to use the term 'capital punishment' for obvious reasons).

Red, capital (sorry!) punishment simply doesn't work as a deterrent. If you know anything about child molesters and paedophiles, you'll be aware that this is especially true in their case. Statistically, ALL paedophiles were themselves molested as children. They simply can't help themselves.

Dave, here in the US most death penalty cases cost more than life sentences because of the sheer amount of legal fees that are run up in multiple appeals, stay requests, etc.
I agree that the UK needs to restore the right of self-defense. While I no longer believe in the death penalty, I do believe in having the right to defend ones life, family, and livelihood with any tool necessary.
A person whom has been convicted and sentenced to death might be innocent, but a criminal who killed by his intended victim is 100% guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

STM,
You speak of the large number of guns in the US as being responsible for our murder rate but you need to be aware that the highest murder rates here are in the places where guns are banned, Washington DC for example.
I do agree with you about the DNA evidence not being as reliable as claimed. Plus there have been some cases here, of outright fraudulent reports from some "crime" labs. Due to the corruption of the courts it is still possible for an innocent man to be convicted. Life without parole? Yes. Death penalty? Only if it occurs during the commission of a crime.
Self defense is not vengeance. But the threat of it is a far greater deterrent to crime than ANY penalties imposed by the legal system.

Of course if all of our countries would give up the ridiculous war on drugs...we might have some room to put the real criminals in prison.

I THINK THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UK IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT,HOW CAN A FEW YEARS IN A CUSHY JAIL CELL BE PUNISHMENT FOR THE MURDER OF A POLICEMAN / WOMAN,THE RAPE AND MURDER OF A BABY,OR THE ROBBING AND MURDER OF A WORLD WAR 2 WAR HERO PENSIONER,REGARDLESS OF ALL OTHER ARGUEMENTS,ONCE YOU KILL A MURDERER BY CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,HE OR SHE CAN NO LONGER KILL ANYONE ELSE!WITH DNA ADVANCES TODAY IN 2008,EVIDENCE IS FINAL AND 100% CORRECT.

3 -- January 15, 2006 @ 13:08PM -- Dave Nalle [URL]

"Before the UK even considers the death penalty a far more effective measure would be the complete legalization of handguns for private ownership and the decriminalization of their use for the defense of self and property. As demonstrated again and again that would be a far more effective deterrent than the death penalty"

An armed society is a polite society.

Dave


erm, no its not! an armed society is called America! highest gun crime rates in the world.
also the reason we got rid of handguns is cos a school load of toddlers got shot up by some sicko with a load of handguns!

Bring back death penalty!