Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
the hanging issue & more !
11 Answers
I have had enough of people thinking that they can do EXACTLY as they please on the streets of Britain & get away with it. Not just Muggings, Rape & Drunken Violence, BUT Murder that is commited on a daily basis, only to see the Culprit/s get a few years behind bars. MY QUESTION to A.B members is this;- IF A REFERENDUM TO BRING BACK HANGING WAS INTRODUCED - WOULD YOU VOTE FOR IT'S RETURN ?. I fully understand that when it was abolished, technology was nowhere near today's advanced stage..I mean HANGING, ONLY if it was proved UNDOUBTABLY that the accused ARE GUILTY. How about reintroduction of The Cat & The Birch also ?. After a few LASHES I am certain that they would not come back for more. Surely some deterent has got to be introduced, AND SOON ! (Just MY Opinion)
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by signsofgoing. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Thank you for your POSITIVE response Angel12, That was my EXACT point, Only if it was PROOF POSITIVE that the ACCUSED was the person/s responsible. There are so many Street Cams now to aid the Police, which, in some cases, makes the proving that little bit easier. I REALLY wish that SOMEBODY who has had a family member Murdered, would start a campaign, I would be only too pleased to offer MY HELP to get this law through Parliament. I do feel that it would have to be somebody who has suffered the effects of these mindless yobs. I SINCERELY hope that I have not offended ANYBODY with my last TWO statements. (NO OFFENCE is intended).
Pedantic I know, but the issue should be death penalty, not hanging. There are, after all, more humane ways of killing someone. And with DNA now, the issues of many years ago should not be used as an argument - if you take a life, you should lose yours.
You could argue with some crimes humanity shouldn't be an issue, but I am thinking of all the bleeding heart liberals of this world, and it would be better - I think - to have a deterrant death penalty any way we could rather than not at all. Failing that, I'd like to see the nasties of this world lose the right to be living, just be comatose zombies until they die.
You could argue with some crimes humanity shouldn't be an issue, but I am thinking of all the bleeding heart liberals of this world, and it would be better - I think - to have a deterrant death penalty any way we could rather than not at all. Failing that, I'd like to see the nasties of this world lose the right to be living, just be comatose zombies until they die.
hang the bas tards !!! how gives 2 hoots about the accused ????
bring back hanging and have me doing Mr Peerpoints job..
for a 100% proven case... a full confession. video evidence.
blood/dna..
hang every last one !
just as a point.. there was a guy this week that sexually abused his new born daughter. he then killed her !
I CANT THINK OF A REASON WHY THAT BLOKE SHOULD HAVE A HUMANE DEATH !
bring back hanging and have me doing Mr Peerpoints job..
for a 100% proven case... a full confession. video evidence.
blood/dna..
hang every last one !
just as a point.. there was a guy this week that sexually abused his new born daughter. he then killed her !
I CANT THINK OF A REASON WHY THAT BLOKE SHOULD HAVE A HUMANE DEATH !
These often drunk and drug fuelled yobs that roam estates like mine think they are above the law and leave hard working citizens in fear of confronting their animalistic behaviour - just look what happened to Garry Newlove. Decent folk are scared witless to defend themselves, their families and homes incase they get beaten to death. If these kids are capable of such brutality and depravity at such a young age, then stronger measures need to be enforced so that they aren't given the opportunity to commit these atrocities ever again...if that means death, so be it. I'm all in favour of the death penalty if it means that my little boy can grow up without the fear of the violence that we are confronted with each day....
I don�t consider myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but recently a guy was charged with raping a young woman, based on dna evidence. A hair, found trapped on the ring of her finger matched his dna. The guy was charged with the offence and the case taken to court. There was a very minor problem with this dna evidence, the young lady stated that the man who raped her was a large back man, the guy whose dna matched the hair found on her ring was a small white guy.
If anyone has been reading the national press over the last few years, you will have realised that once your dna has been taken for any reason, it is compared against the national database of dna. It costs virtually nothing to get a computer to check for a match across the whole database. This has resulted in the guy who made the �Yorkshire ripper tapes� being caught many years after the event. (He was jailed, and blamed for the Yorkshire ripper being able to carry out further offences � but this was actually due to police incompetence).
In another case I recall, a pensioner who had very limited mobility was charged with a house break in at a place he claimed he had never been. Again he was charged with the offence, despite it being unlikely that he had traveled over 200 miles to carry out the offence � climbing through a broken window. This was resolved once further dna analysis was carried out showing he was not responsible.
In another dna case involving rape � a woman claimed she had been raped by an old tramp and was awarded money from the criminal injuries board. Sometime later a young man�s dna was found to be a match � but he had never been an old tramp. It transpired that the guy was this woman�s boyfriend at the time, they had had sex and she was worried she might have got pregnant and made up the story.
dna is not the proof that the police, prosecutors & public think it is.
If anyone has been reading the national press over the last few years, you will have realised that once your dna has been taken for any reason, it is compared against the national database of dna. It costs virtually nothing to get a computer to check for a match across the whole database. This has resulted in the guy who made the �Yorkshire ripper tapes� being caught many years after the event. (He was jailed, and blamed for the Yorkshire ripper being able to carry out further offences � but this was actually due to police incompetence).
In another case I recall, a pensioner who had very limited mobility was charged with a house break in at a place he claimed he had never been. Again he was charged with the offence, despite it being unlikely that he had traveled over 200 miles to carry out the offence � climbing through a broken window. This was resolved once further dna analysis was carried out showing he was not responsible.
In another dna case involving rape � a woman claimed she had been raped by an old tramp and was awarded money from the criminal injuries board. Sometime later a young man�s dna was found to be a match � but he had never been an old tramp. It transpired that the guy was this woman�s boyfriend at the time, they had had sex and she was worried she might have got pregnant and made up the story.
dna is not the proof that the police, prosecutors & public think it is.
No (and yes)! What is forgotten about the death penalty is that it was imposed on such a random basis. Even back in the thirties, when it was imposed most, the convicted murderer had only a one in three chance of being executed.The remainder were sentenced to death, that being the only penalty allowed under law, but saved by the Home Secretary recommending clemency. Whether the murderer was hanged or not would depend on, inter alia,public sentiment, whether the case was high profile and widely reported, the personal biases of the individual Home Secretary, whether there were votes in it and , possibly, the state of the Home Secretary's digestion when he read the case papers.
And it depends why you want the death penalty. If you see it purely on moral grounds, a life for a life, a deserved penalty to fit the crime, that's fine. If you think it is the ultimate way of keeping a potential murderer off the streets, then there's little evidence that any jailed murderer repeats the crime after release.If you think it's a deterrent then there's no evidence that it ever is. There's no serious and proper study that indicates so. Most murders are domestic in nature and a high percentage of murderers spoil our fun by killing themselves anyway.Such killers are not dissuaded by the thought of the consequences when they kill (if indeed, any potential murderer is).And a great many such killers escape an conviction for murder by pleading 'diminished responsibility' a defence not open to killers many years ago.
Weigh that all against argument of the cases of wrongful conviction and , on balance, I'm against the death penalty .
And it depends why you want the death penalty. If you see it purely on moral grounds, a life for a life, a deserved penalty to fit the crime, that's fine. If you think it is the ultimate way of keeping a potential murderer off the streets, then there's little evidence that any jailed murderer repeats the crime after release.If you think it's a deterrent then there's no evidence that it ever is. There's no serious and proper study that indicates so. Most murders are domestic in nature and a high percentage of murderers spoil our fun by killing themselves anyway.Such killers are not dissuaded by the thought of the consequences when they kill (if indeed, any potential murderer is).And a great many such killers escape an conviction for murder by pleading 'diminished responsibility' a defence not open to killers many years ago.
Weigh that all against argument of the cases of wrongful conviction and , on balance, I'm against the death penalty .
-- answer removed --
I'm firmly against the death penalty and would vote against it. I also can't think of any humane way in which we could end a persons life.
There have been many people who have been imprisoned for crimes they 'undoubtedly' committed only for us to find out 30 years later that they were in fact innocent and that the incontrovertible evidence obtained against them was tainted. Ken Richey's case springs to mind. Mr Richey, and Reprieve, the organisation that helped him, aver that there are many prisoners on death row who are innocent.
The only 'benefit' that the public can derive from the death penalty is that it satisfy's our thirst for vengence. There is no other benefit. It does not deter criminals. Doesn't murder and rape still occur in Florida and Texas?
Although in favour of the death penalty, Katy (see above) touched on a major cause of violent crime in the UK - drinking excessive amounts of alcohol! If our Govt's did more to tackle the social attitudes towards drinking alcohol, that would prevent many more murders and assaults than the threat of the death penalty could ever achieve.
There have been many people who have been imprisoned for crimes they 'undoubtedly' committed only for us to find out 30 years later that they were in fact innocent and that the incontrovertible evidence obtained against them was tainted. Ken Richey's case springs to mind. Mr Richey, and Reprieve, the organisation that helped him, aver that there are many prisoners on death row who are innocent.
The only 'benefit' that the public can derive from the death penalty is that it satisfy's our thirst for vengence. There is no other benefit. It does not deter criminals. Doesn't murder and rape still occur in Florida and Texas?
Although in favour of the death penalty, Katy (see above) touched on a major cause of violent crime in the UK - drinking excessive amounts of alcohol! If our Govt's did more to tackle the social attitudes towards drinking alcohol, that would prevent many more murders and assaults than the threat of the death penalty could ever achieve.
1 to 11 of 11
