A Sentance So Richly Deserved.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324254/Tia-Sharps-killer-Stuart-Hazell-jailed-38-years-parole.html

At last a sentence to fit the crime, he will be 75 years old before he is released.

Yesterday Tia's father said that, whatever jail sentence this monster received, he should be hanged at the end of it.

Does anyone agree?

[emmie]

nothing very civilised about their actions, so what you are saying we shouldn't stoop to their level. Even if Hazell is 75 before he becomes eligible, he is still living, his victim sadly didn't get the chance, nor the young lives ruined in many cases beyond repair, of repeated rape and torture at the hands of those despicable men, they will get out a lot sooner and have lives, with family, friends, no i don't understand that at all.

[Answerprancer]

Ok then let's expand your comment "Capital Punishment in the right situation".
There isn't one Slapshot, not in this country. We stopped state sanctioned murder a few decades ago.

[Slapshot]

The right situation would be a crime that merits the death penatly in the eyes of the law. Agreed we don't have those laws any more but that doesn't mean there are cases where we should question whether we should bring those laws back.

[askyourgran]

So we have to be civil about the animals who will feel nothing at all and will continue their crimes because there is no real deterrent, except being banged up...if they are caught. I have a feeling there are quite a lot of people out there who feel that the judgement on this type of crime is worth a lot more than that. I understand the judge gave Hazell the 38year tariff because he couldn't say that the offence was sexual! Doh!
Let me say Zeul that I mistakenly gave Hazell 'human' rights, which of course I was wrong on both counts.
AP there are few rabid facists on here and I take exception to your remarks on behalf of the rest of us. Keep throwing the coconuts.

[Answerprancer]

Well that brings me back to your use of the phrase "the right situation" you say it as if it's taken as read that there is one.

[Answerprancer]

"AP there are few rabid facists on here and I take exception to your remarks on behalf of the rest of us"
The "rest of us" rabid fascists?

[chrissa1]

I've read most of the posts on this thread. But. Has anyone mentioned the fact that if there was the Death Penalty, in some cases, what would stop a murderer killing more people in the hope of fleeing the crime? He can only be put to death once, so if he has the chance to escape or "get away" with a crime, what's to stop him?
I do NOT agree with the Death Penalty.

[jim360]

Sometimes you just have to trust that the judge was more aware of the facts of the case than you are. If he says that the offence cannot be proven to be sexual... well I've heard otherwise, but are the media or the judge more trustworthy in this?

[Khandro]

LG; if your chief reason for not allowing state execution is because, "It degrades those people having to do it,". Fear not, there will be a copious supply of job applicants prepared to risk degradation.

[Answerprancer]

Including you?

[jno]

and I don't want to employ them, Khandro.

[Goodsoulette]

I used to think definitively, no! in response to the death penalty but my views have changed. Technically I agree with it, what is the point, people who commit crimes such as this do not contribute to society and society is falling apart as it is. What's the point in feeding and watering and educating people who will basically never ever be let out to walk amongst us freely. We can't stick them somewhere else! However, there are just to many flaws in bringing back the death penalty, miscarriage of justice and who on earth would want to be a part of ending peoples lives? You can't really ask doctors to administer lethal injections.

[LazyGun]

@Khandro - "LG; if your chief reason for not allowing state execution is because, "It degrades those people having to do it,". Fear not, there will be a copious supply of job applicants prepared to risk degradation"

It isn't my chief reason, but it is one reason. How many eager applicants there might be for the role is neither here nor there.

Fortunately they are unlikely to be re-introducing the death penalty anytime soon...

[andy-hughes]

LG - I keep hammering home my point in the hope that you will at least understand - if not agree - with what i am saying.

Not executing people - in spite of the terrible things they have done - is not about allowing them to live which they don't deserve, it's about us, as a society, and how we operate our laws.

I would find it the height of hypocracy to say to a criminal that because of what they have done - through whatever reason (not excuse!), I am going to support a system that is going to do the same to them - but in a calculated cold-blooded quest for self-rigtheous vengence.

It's never going to be a system i can live with, even though i entirely understand the grief, and futile rage that powers such thoughts, we need to rise above our base instincts and maintain our civilisation.

Murder by the state is not civilised behaviour - it is not a deterant, it can lead to miscariges of justice - it has nothing to commedn it at all.

[Khandro]

Answerprancer; // Including you?//. Emphatically no!
Though for certain characters, particularly historical ones, I might have been tempted to risk degradation.

[ludwig]

I'm not clear why the death penalty is often classified as vengeance whereas incarcerating someone for life is seen as justice.

It's something often said, but never really explained.

[andy-hughes]

ludwig - an interesting ethical dilema.

My personal perspective is that it is fundamentally wrong to take the life of someone in punishment for taking another life - it simply reduces the state to the status of the criminal, without the benefit of extenuating circumstances, repellent though those may be. To take a life in cold blood - to employ a person or persons to take the life of someone as a profession is to be the very worst example of cynical vengence, and has no place in a civilised society.

That said - such crimes must be dealt with in a way that sends a message to the perpetrator, and to society as a whole. That is the removal of the individual from the society they have refused to live in normally - combined with the loss of any identity and freedom. This provides the twin aspects of the removal of the chance for re-offending, thus avoiding putting lives at risk, together with a message -albeit often unheard - that society will not tolerate such behaviours, and there is a legal system in place to keep soceity safe, as far as is possible.

As I have opined at length on this thread, I cannot see execution as anything by state-sponsored murder, and the emotional righteous anger of a vociforous few who claim they would 'pull the lever', or 'leave him with the other prisoners' etc. ad nauseum, does not justify it.

It is very easy to allow emotions to run away with us in cases like this, where a child has died violently, but who could honestly - and I mean really honestly - live with themselves once that righteous rage has dissipated, but the vengence murder committed, or faciliated - remains in the memory for ever.

Execution is not simply a matter of 'saving the tax payers' money' - in fact, it is not a simple matter at all.

[ludwig]

Thanks for the explanation andy. I'm still not sure why the one punishment is vengeance and the other not though.

// it is fundamentally wrong to take the life of someone in punishment for taking another life - it simply reduces the state to the status of the criminal, //

Why so? The state would only do it in response to a criminal's actions. It would only be reduced to the same status as the criminal if it started trying to get the punishment in first, minority report style.

// To take a life in cold blood - to employ a person or persons to take the life of someone as a profession is to be the very worst example of cynical vengence, and has no place in a civilised society. //

Where do the armed forces or armed police fit into that? Are they exempted. If so why? If someone is wandering down the street pointing a shotgun at people, should armed police be allowed to shoot him if he doesn't comply with their instructions? This is not something you see people campaigning against in the same way as the death penalty. It's generally seen as justifiable, even though the shotgun wielder hasn't been convicted or charged with any crime, and the gun may not even be a real one.

Is it ok to kill people as a preventative measure, but not as a punishment? Is that how it works?

[andy-hughes]

I don't think it is every OK to kill anyone - ever, which is why I don't epext an invitation to head up a force in Helmand to dropping through the door any time soon!

I don't believe that the circumstances stack up though. It is a world away from a split-second decicion to shoot someone who may be about to kill someone else - and a drawn-out judicial process which sets out a day and time for death to be administered.

It is a very tough ethical dilema, but I still feel that my instinct regarding capital punishment - that it is not the mark of a civilised society - is the right one.

[ludwig]

// It is a world away from a split-second decicion to shoot someone who may be about to kill someone else - and a drawn-out judicial process which sets out a day and time for death to be administered. //

As a society we accept the one and not the other. I'm interested to know why.
Surely the split second nature of the 'acceptable' killing should call it into question further. Would you categorise them both as 'state sponsored murder' ?