To reconsider my feelings re. Death penalty.

[FoxgloveFairy]

Just read a story about a young guy in the US who broke into a house and, not finding anything to steal, decided to rape the female occupant. A 101 year old woman. Not a string-em-up advocate, but just looking at the arrogant grin on this young man's face in court, I feel right now I could be persuaded.

The Worlds End case recently - Angus Sinclair convicted. He is a serial murderer and rapist and they are linking him to several other crimes, including one for which another man spent years in prison. There is too much chance of innocent people being killed if we have the death penalty.

As I get older and have my own dd, I have base, murderous thoughts towards the likes of Sinclair, but I'm glad I live in a society which does not allow me or anyone else to act on those insticts.

Swingball: I agree. If my DGC were raped or murdered I would be utterly consumed with hatred and murderous thoughts.
But if I was then given an opportunity to personally torture or execute the murderer / rapist would I be able to do it and if I could do it would I then be reduced to the same level as the rapist?

A close member of my family was murdered. It happened in a country with the death penalty. Someone was convicted for the murder and executed.

It only added to the pain of my family. Our relative would not have wanted someone to die on their account, guilty or innocent, and we have no idea whether the person found guilty actually was.

paxtecum you should have posted a link, so people can read the horror story for themselves. It's worth taking away from that story that if Kiszko had been executed, then not only would have been no incentive to investigate further, but there would have been an awfully good incentive to hush things up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

How many people have died, because an innocent person has been executed, and the real killer continued ?

"Given the freedom to choose, standing face to face with the rapist in a court room, and having it explained to you exactly what he did, I wonder how many people would actually NOT consider death, if it were their mother who had been raped?"

Not everyone would. We'll assume, for the sake of Elephant's point, that the majority of people would.

What then? What is the purpose of capital punishment? Advocates often claim it is a more effective deterrent; indeed, Elephant claimed that herself on page 1 (I have MN set to 25 posts a page).

Let's have a proper think about that and the logical consequences of it. Step by step.

So, it is believed that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than prison (stats on this are highly debatable), because? Because people restrain themselves if they know the penalty for murder and rape is death, but say, "meh, it's worth it" if they know the penalty is prison? Okay, let's accept that as true.

In that case, what do you think such clear-minded, rational thinking criminals are going to do if we institute a system where the victim's family decides the penalty? If they are clear-headed enough to only murder people in countries without the death penalty, they I'd think they'd start to select victims carefully, that's what. Victims without families/loving families. Victims with families whose religious beliefs forbade the death penalty. Congratulations- you've just officially created a justice system and society where some people's lives really are worth more than others.

It's bad enough as it is, thanks.

I couldn't support the death penalty, despite having the same feelings as the OP where some crimes are concerned. It goes against something in the very heart of me, something that just tells me it's wrong.

I do think life should mean life though - and a hard life at that. Rooms should be basic with access to books only. Most time should be spent solitarily, exercise encouraged but simple outdoor gymnasiums. Food should be calorie controlled and functional (in the same way that soldier rations are). They shouldn't be killed, but they shouldn't 'live' IYSWIM.

EveDallasRetd

However, is there not a case to be made that this treatment is also barbaric ? If you oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it's barbaric, then it's no solution to offer a differently barbaric solution ?

As long as the prisoner has a roof over his head, a warm bed to sleep in, access to the outdoors and enough food to eat I really don't see how it could be considered barbaric tbh.

@QueenTilly - Your assumption is that it is desirable as a greater deterrent. No. It is more equitable and more just. A more humane step may be to just throw them into a prison with no rule of law and no welfare and let them swim with the big boys. But until the fluffy bunnies in society who advocate cuddles and comfort over correction or punishment are assuaged, we will have the glorious situation where a girl is raped by a man and can rest assured that she will spend the next 5 years (assuming he gets 5 years) working to pay her rapist's for and board, providing him with satellite television and entertainment, and contributing her wages towards his legal fight against her. Furthermore, her complaint against him may result in his future inability to work, so she could find her taxes pay for him to live off the state for the rest of his life. Now that's what I call justice.

When did we remove justice from the justice system? And who really does give a F about the victim?

There have been murderers who have killed, been imprisoned and released and have killed again. In practical terms, hanging them after the first offence would bring down the murder rate. It would be cheaper, too.

Your assumption is that it is desirable as a greater deterrent. No. It is more equitable and more just. A more humane step may be to just throw them into a prison with no rule of law and no welfare and let them swim with the big boys. But until the fluffy bunnies in society who advocate cuddles and comfort over correction or punishment are assuaged, we will have the glorious situation where a girl is raped by a man and can rest assured that she will spend the next 5 years (assuming he gets 5 years) working to pay her rapist's for and board, providing him with satellite television and entertainment, and contributing her wages towards his legal fight against her. Furthermore, her complaint against him may result in his future inability to work, so she could find her taxes pay for him to live off the state for the rest of his life. Now that's what I call justice.

you can't possibly be advocating giving rapists the death penalty, can you? You would be giving every rapist the incentive to kill his victim. great.

There have been murderers who have killed, been imprisoned and released and have killed again. In practical terms, hanging them after the first offence would bring down the murder rate. It would be cheaper, too.

there have. that's why many advocate a whole life tariff for murder (and make it mean whole life).

The problem with tariffs is that they can be changed by the next government to save money by letting the most expensive prisoners out first. If you'd hanged the murderers that problem wouldn't arise. You wouldn't have to listen to their ridiculous appeals either.

The problem with tariffs is that they can be changed by the next government to save money by letting the most expensive prisoners out first. If you'd hanged the murderers that problem wouldn't arise.

very few governments want to appear soft on crime, particularly murderers. once the charge goes up, I don't see it coming down.

also, I would bet a lot you aren't right. murderers, "life tariff" was at least 25 years, most murderers would come out fairly old. This doesn't happen frequently.

So, maybe whole life tariffs with no expense spent by the taxpayer on anything beyond basic food and water. After all, if they can't protect themselves against Bubba and his desires, they probably should have thought about that before raping someone, and if they wanted to live free from fear, maybe they should have obeyed the law.

I did say in the passage you highligted that a compromise would be to throw them into a prison with no rule of law, and let the animals fend for themselves.

Better that than expecting the victim to spend her life paying towards her rapist's living expenses.

Governments do whatever gets them votes, and believe me, if they can secure votes from prisoners, and if prisoners can become a voting block, governments will go after those votes. They don't give a F about morals or the whims of you or I. That is the nature of politics. It is about power and control, not doing good by people or acting in their best interests. Have you never wondered why taxation always go up, every year, without fail, regardless of who or what you vote for?

@QueenTilly - Your assumption is that it is desirable as a greater deterrent.

Well, yes, it was my assumption, given that's a point you argued in your very first post.

elephantspoo Tue 02-Dec-14 00:10:46It so ironic that there are one or two 'barbaric' countries in the world where stranger rape, child abuse and molestation outside of direct family members, is virtually unheard of. But the they would be, when those crimes come with a death sentence.

Have you come to believe that it isn't a greater deterrent?

DoraGora, were the appeals of Stefan Kiszko and Sally Clark "ridiculous appeals" then?

And, elephantspoo, would you advocate throwing them into a prison with no rule of law and nothing beyond basic food and water? Incidentally, when you create a prison full of "animals" with no rule of law, nothing to do and nothing to lose, how do you propose keeping them there and keeping the warders safe?

The Woolwich murderers seem to be leading the charge in the ridiculous appeals department.

Incidentally, I'll have to remind myself to look up the grounds on which the Woolwich murderers were given leave to appeal. On the face of it, that decision does seem rather like a carefully orchestrated plan to waste judicial time and effort.

People get confused about appeals. You can't appeal the verdict, only the sentence. And whilst on the face of it it may seem ridiculous now, in 30 years time, the difference between a 30 year tariff, and a 35 year tariff won't seem so ridiculous. So there's every incentive to appeal now.

No, you can appeal a verdict.

DoraGora, because you don't approve of the Woolwich appeal, does that therefore mean that any appeal is a "ridiculous appeal"? Do you seriously say that it would have been better for Stefan Kiszko and Sally Clark to hang than to be allowed to establish their innocence?

I think a lot less people (including DH, who is a Bobby) would jump straight to the death penalty if rape wasn't treated as a light offence and when a murderer is sentenced to life, they actually got life.

Unfortunately that's not the world we life in. Life in prison can mean 7-25 years, and rape? Not even going there.

A life sentence is a life sentence. Essentially anyone released from prison on a life sentence can be recalled at any time without a trial if they breach that licence. And if you think the maximum for a life sentence is 25 years, how do you account for Rosemary West?