to think that mark Bridger deserves to have his "parts" removed?

[whatever2]

while he's awake hopefully?

How can you honestly compare this with what is going on in Syria FFS?
Because it's a discussion on how a civilised society metes out its punishments.

suebfg, take yourself off to one of.these countries andthen say that "maybe we could learn from them".

I dont suppprt the death penalty because there have just been too many miscarriages of justice. That plus I dont believe it is a deterrent. The States in America which have the highest murder rates are those which have the death penalty.

America has an appalling attitude to himan rights and.the murder rates are higher as a.result.

I haven't read anything other than the original post. But what an absolutely disgusting original post. Quite revolting. I find it obscene that anyone would formulate the thought, let alone post it on the internet.

Life becomes cheap when human rights are lax, or unfairly applied, or just don;t exist. People devalue each other.

Oh, read it, Yellowtip.

Lionessy- you made the point that you feel the death penalty should exist in extreme cases because the victims families may be able to face a slightly less awful existence knowing the perpetrator no longer exists.

Can I suggest just some of the problems with this stance? First, not all victims families feel the same way. For one family, knowing the killer is dead may well enable them to move on with their life. But for other families it would be the total opposite: they feel that a quick death would be the easy way out, particularly in cases where the longer the killer remains alive, the more information may be forthcoming about their crimes. A justice system has to operate consistently: we can't leave it to individuals families to dictate the consequences of crime. And even if we tried to go down that route, what about multiple killers? What if their victims families weren't in agreement about whether the killer lives or dies? Should one families desire trump another's? Also, in some cases (Brady for instance) the killer wants to die anyway (also look at shipman and West who commited suicide and Huntley who has tried several times ). Some of the most hard core cases ( which would be the ones up for the death penalty if it existed) have absolutely nothing to lose by dying- it would be a release for them.

FWIW, quite apart from the valid arguments that the death penalty is no deterrent, and that in reality having endless appeals while criminals languish on death row would not save any money, I personally think a whole life in prison is probably worse than a quick death. People are getting far too hung up about prisoners TVs and table tennis: the reality is that a life in prison is a loss of hope, the loss of a future. Which is absolutely fitting but is in no way a soft option. Mark bridger has young children. He has to spend the rest of his life knowing he has destroyed theirs. He will probably live most of the time in a state of fear. I really doubt he's going to have the pleasurable life some people seem to think.

I have little to fear from countries who have the death penalty such as the United States as I am not a child murderer, thanks. Just because I support this in extreme cases does not mean I support the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia or cutting off hands etc ...

I don't support the death penalty on the basis that it's a deterrent. Clearly a life term in prison is not a deterrent for some individuals. I support it, in extreme cases, where there is no chance of rehabilitation of an individual, this person remains a danger to society and where the public would otherwise be funding the costs of keeping that person in a secure facility for the rest of their lives.

I think it is interesting that you say that the murder rates in the US are higher as a result of human rights attitudes. What is your evidence for that?

I said cases like this one. Where there was no doubt of guilt.

Who would judge who has no chance of rehabilitation suebfg? Impossible I'd say.

minouminou no I won't; the original post was just too disgusting.

But in places like Syria, you can be "tried" and executed for all sorts of "crimes", simply because execution has become a standard practice. If there's no death penalty, all crimes are treated according to their severity, from a consistent and fair scale, or moral backdrop (struggling to find the right term here).

I don't think that there would be a valid way to determine extreme cases, for many reasons. Whilst there really are a few people who, it would seem are just plain evil, there are many who are seriously mentally ill.
Extermination, under any circumstances would not to me, seem like justice, it would be extermination, plain and simple and wrong. There are, always have been and always will be miscarriages of justice (see further back in thread), and if for no other reason than that, there should not be a death penalty.

OK, Yellowtip, but I will say that there's a lot of good in it, too.

do you live under a rock yellowtip?

you had no idea some people supported the death penalty/an eye for an eye type justice?

But.. If the death penalty is no deterrent (which is the case) ....if its not cheaper ( see above points about the decades of appeals, lawyers costs which are often as much to do with technical procedures as anything else)... If it would actually be playing into the hands of killers like Brady, shipman, west and Huntley, who have all either commited suicide, attempted it or expressed a desire to die... If it isn't necessarily what the victims families would want... Can someone explain why the death penalty is a good idea ?

well maybe we have a thing or two to learn from them then.

Jesus, I've read it all now. Suggesting that we could learn something from oppressive regimes who have appalling records when it comes to human rights is ignorant at best. I know it was an attempt at a joke, but it was in incredibly poor taste.

As for the US? For the second time I will post that research and statistics from the US show that states with the death penalty have a similar (if not greater) murder rate to those states without the death penalty. Hardly the deterrent, is it?

Boomba no I most decidedly don't. I just find such people revolting.

That's good minouminou but I still don't have the stomach for it just now. So many news stories recently with foul things done but the response of those claiming moral highground being along the lines of 'Rot in Hell' or as here 'Rip his parts off'. Those people are bad. Not just stupid but bad.

oh, get over yourself

One of the most ridiculous arguments about this, I always think, is when people say 'yes, but in cases where there is no doubt'... Yeah, that would be as opposed to the people we do sentence to life but we're not entirely sure they are guilty?

It's sick and stupid and unworkable and frankly rather peculiar to go on about killing and maiming people, and to want to do it - whoever you are, and whatever your reasons.

I take it you're one of the ineffably stupid crowd then Boomba. What a dullard response.

I don't understand how you can come on here shouting the odds Yellowtip, having only read the Op.
It's been an interesting debate.

It's been the most challenging and engaging one I've been involved with for a while. Been pondering it all day, in fact.

i dont support the death penalty, if that is what you mean yellowtip

Ive been involved with this discussion since yesterday. As others have said, it has been very interesting

I consider you to be very ill mannered to interupt with your opinions, whilst refusing to read the preceding discussion

The term 'shouting' is hyperbolic Beagle.

Over the past few days I've read enough comments in the papers to not need to read yet another discussion on MN. My own comment wasn't about the general discussion, rather about the revolting nature of the original post.

Under the circumstances yellow, it may perhaps have been more politic to either read the discussion or bow out, rather than derail.