Malvern Save The Children C/D 31.12.24
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Death penality for police killers?!
58 Answers
I have just seen on the news that the former Metropolitan Commissioner Lord Stevens has reconsidered his opinion on the death penalty and now says it should be reintroduced for those who kill police officers.
What are your views on this?!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by january_bug. 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.
Coupled with the huge hike in taxes needed to fund them of course! Who's going to campaign for this!?!
If the British electorate needs to wake up to anything, it's the fact that nothing in this life is free, and if life is to mean life the Home Secretary will need millions, if not billions of extra money in his budget to fund the new prisons (and staff etc) needed to house lifers. Naturally this also applies to the argument for longer sentencing.
There's no harm in wanting longer sentencing, but people must realise the effect it will have on their wallets.
No it WASN'T was I was inferring at all.
I was simply saying that people who call for such things (any form of improvement to public service, e.g., smaller class sizes, shorter waiting lists etc) need to grasp that it comes at a price which we all must pay.
I am not 100% sure of my views on sentencing for murder, although I am utterly opposed to the death sentence.
so really you are not offering any opinion - or to quote:
"... to some extent YES - that's EXACLTY what I'm saying. Unconstructive whinging, is pointless in my opinion. If people are going to criticise something (I mean people generally, not anyone in particular) then they need to understand WHY they are doing so, and HOW they want it to be different. Otherwise it's like a petulatn teenager just saying "just cos".
Let’s not worry too much about the cost. It is said that it costs �35k per year to keep each person in prison. This is a highly dubious figure and includes such things as capital expenditure, without properly “writing down” that expenditure. Nonetheless, let’s take it as gospel.
Let’s say that each murderer spends an average of 10 years in prison currently and if imprisoned for life they would spend an average of, say, 35 years. This means that it would cost the taxpayer an additional �875k to keep each murderer in prison for life.
There are about 200 murders per annum in the UK. It would therefore take an extra �175m per annum to keep all of these murderers locked up for life. Hardly billions, but the equivalent, in fact, of about one tenth of a penny in the � of income tax revenue, or three pounds per year for every man, woman and child in the country.
Since I've erred on the generous side throughoutI haven’t considered the savings that would be made. The parole board can, of course, be abolished; the probation service would see significant savings as they would not have to “closely supervise” released lifers; the police would have some relief by not having to prevent and detect crime committed by the paroled prisoners.
So, at the end of each year, you can buy a pint and a half of beer, three lottery tickets, two large bars of chocolate, 12 cigarettes, travel two stops on the London Underground, or keep all murderers, including the one that gunned down PC Sharon Beshenivsky, in prison until they die. What would you rather do?
Let’s say that each murderer spends an average of 10 years in prison currently and if imprisoned for life they would spend an average of, say, 35 years. This means that it would cost the taxpayer an additional �875k to keep each murderer in prison for life.
There are about 200 murders per annum in the UK. It would therefore take an extra �175m per annum to keep all of these murderers locked up for life. Hardly billions, but the equivalent, in fact, of about one tenth of a penny in the � of income tax revenue, or three pounds per year for every man, woman and child in the country.
Since I've erred on the generous side throughoutI haven’t considered the savings that would be made. The parole board can, of course, be abolished; the probation service would see significant savings as they would not have to “closely supervise” released lifers; the police would have some relief by not having to prevent and detect crime committed by the paroled prisoners.
So, at the end of each year, you can buy a pint and a half of beer, three lottery tickets, two large bars of chocolate, 12 cigarettes, travel two stops on the London Underground, or keep all murderers, including the one that gunned down PC Sharon Beshenivsky, in prison until they die. What would you rather do?
You're not obliged at all J_bug - just pointing out that you seem to criticize others, but can't seem to take it yourself (and I notice you haven't bothered answering JudgeJ's excellent point)
Still, go off and huff if thats what you prefer - I thought this was a debate (or have I inferred too much again)
(And can I assume that you think the current system is fine then?)
In support of Judge J. The point raised about our committments to the European convention on Human rights seem to have been side stepped in all other debates on this issue that i have seen. The whole point is really irrelevant. We cannot bring in capital punishment for the simple reason that we do not have the power any longer to do so. Good point well made Judge.
vic - I quite CLEARLY stated that I haven't criticised the current system, and you STILL are not giving me a chance to gather my thoughts. I'm not going to pander to someone who is so impatient with me like this. Believe me - I'm used to insults on this site - so don't tihnk you or our new Ministry of Sound friend are being original in any way shape or form.
JudgeJ couldn't give a toss if he has my approval or not, so I'm not going to bother to respond. He has made it quite clear that he's above this debate -so I leave it to you to discuss it with him.
This WAS meant to be a debate -but I didn't think that made my contributions compulsory in any way. Obviously I have assumed too much.
haha most endearing - toys, pram etc. Anyway -
Of course the UK parliament has the power to rescind any law it has passed - I'm sure Europe would huff and puff - after all so many European countries are exemplary models of how to implement EU law. Anyone remember illegal french sanctions of UK beef etc etc ad infinitum. What happened? In a few year, after all the hullabaloo, a nominal penalty was exacted AFAIK. International law exists only as far as it is enforced. Although the EU is slightly tighter, the basic principles remain the same.
Besides that, Stevens should keep his mouth shut, he is becoming an embarrasment to the force and the govt. The death penalty shoudl never be reinforced - there is no evidence that it will prevent serious crime and the logical implications of state sanctioned murder are far reaching, robbing the authorities of any moral gravitas they might claim.
Of course the UK parliament has the power to rescind any law it has passed - I'm sure Europe would huff and puff - after all so many European countries are exemplary models of how to implement EU law. Anyone remember illegal french sanctions of UK beef etc etc ad infinitum. What happened? In a few year, after all the hullabaloo, a nominal penalty was exacted AFAIK. International law exists only as far as it is enforced. Although the EU is slightly tighter, the basic principles remain the same.
Besides that, Stevens should keep his mouth shut, he is becoming an embarrasment to the force and the govt. The death penalty shoudl never be reinforced - there is no evidence that it will prevent serious crime and the logical implications of state sanctioned murder are far reaching, robbing the authorities of any moral gravitas they might claim.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.