Does anyone else think the death penalty is being subtly made more thinkable?

[WhizzBangCaligula]

Or perhaps unsubtly?

There have been a few cases recently of horrific murders, some involving the torture of victims beforehand. When you read the news reports on sentencing, they always say the murderer will be eligible for parole in 17 years, or 25 years or whatever.

Most people think life should mean life or at least as much of life as possible, like till 80. When MP's in the 60's voted for the abolition of the death penalty (against the will of the majority of voters) it was on the understanding that dangerous sadistic murderers would stay in prison until they were either very old men (usually men) or they died there. It was not on the understanding that a 29 year old would be sent to prison for torture and murder, and know that they would be let out at the age of 54, when they could still have a chance of a relatively normal life in the community, or indeed still be young enough to commit the same sort of horrible crime.

If someone asks me "what would you prefer? A life sentence or the death penalty for those people who killed that 15 year old/ that poor teenage girl who was raped, tortured, burned and murdered/ all those other victims who suffered horrifically and who will never have birthdays again?" I'd say life because I don't believe in the death penalty. (Sally Clarke and Angela Cannings could be dead now if we had it.) But if they asked if I'd prefer 25 years or the death penalty, then I'd say the death penalty frankly, because 25 years for having taken someone's life and hope and future and made them face death in agony and terror and put their friends and relatives through the anguish of that kind of loss seems shockingly frivolous to me - immoral in fact. And it seems to me that the authorities are deliberately making the death penalty more attractive by having these laughable sentences.

Am I just getting old and fearful or have I spotted a plot to butter us all up so that we'll find the re-introduction of the death penalty acceptable? Is this happening in other European countries (at the moment you can't be a member of the EU if you have the death penalty, but that could change)? Or is it just that it costs too much to keep brutal murderers in prison? Why doesn't life mean life? Why is the need for justice not being met, leading people to conclude that the death penalty needs to be re-introduced? I've met loads of people recently who have been life-long opponents of the death penalty but have changed their minds as a result of a few of these cases and the knowledge that the murderers will be out in their 40's and 50's (in some cases, even in their 30's)

Oh and I know the prison service is awful and prison needs reform, but this is about sentencing.

It's stark staring mad to bang up pensioners who don't pay their council taxes, or single mums who don't pay their court fines for not having a tv license. If only we concentrated on using prison for those who are a threat to people then releasing the dangerous wouldn't be necessary. Sentences for fraud can be higher than those for sexual abuse, and all to often our judicial system values property over human beings.

That said, I would hate for the death penalty to be reintroduced. You cannot fight evil with evil. Anyway, it can't happen whilst we are signed up to the EU human rights thing.

I do think that we are being softened up on the use of torture though.

just reading about some of the prisioners on texas death row makes me totally against it

I agree with that nearlythree.

I find it really depressing that when anyone says anything thoughtful or intelligent about crime or prison reform in this country, they are immediately labelled "soft on crime".

See Tony Blair sneering at David Cameron's comments on love today. Exactly the sort of populist, stupid shit that prevents anything being done to solve the prison crisis.

down in...guatanamo bay....

Totally agree nearlythree. Especially on the torture thing.

I agree, talking about love is one of the few sensible things DC has said and to see the Labour Party turning all Old Tory over it is sooooooo depressing.

Nothing will happen drastically with the prison service in the short-medium term I suspect. People don't like to think ouf their taxes being used to deal with prison and prisoners. And people don't want prisons or rehab homes built near them.

Drugs rehab doesn't happen - funding ot there to cope with it

Reoffending behaviour courses - money and lack of staffing to run enough courses for all rpisoners

we should have reprogramming farms, not prisons.

lots of e.c.t, castrations, nasty dental treatments
tiny rooms no tv, a big exercise ring with men with whips
a massive pile of boulders for the prisoners to move six feet with toothpicks

envelopes for them to fold until their fingers set on fire
big star charts for good behaviour

an army camp where they would be licked into shape by big scarey men
they should walk stray dogs and do pensioners cleaning, mend cars for free...
actually they could be used to do a lot of good, I loved to see Boy George picking up litter,
more could be done with community service

? what answers are there?

VB, you are scaring me

we have to think outside the box!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It sounds like a cross between the Foreign Legion and the St Francisville Experiment

"How to churn out hundreds of deranged psychopaths" by VoodooBanana

and of course when prisoners are released let's give 'em a cheque for 4 grand - out of tax payers money of course

think for people like the uncle who murdered his niece yes it should be brought back. What sort of sick person does that. Where evidence is 100 per cent reliable yes they deserve to have their life ended. To think of all the familys suffering due to all murders going on, especially child ones. I know we should never take another persons life but when they r released 6/7 yrs down the line, r they really going to have learnt a lesson and all evilness gone away - I don't think so. Yes its a easy way out for the scum of the earth but do we really want them back on the streets??!!!

agree re torture nearlythree. Unbelievable how it is reported as 'taken as read' that torture will be used because of the terrorist threat.

I don't think we are being buttered up as it were into wanting the death penalty again but I do think something needs to be done re our very outdated judicial system.
Sentancing imo should always reflect the nature of the crime. I think there should also be streamlining of sentancing with room for tailoring to individuals. Whilst in principle I don't agree with the death penalty (too scared about the consequences should they be found to be innocent), I do find myself thinking 'prison is too good for them' when I read some things these days. I also have to say I wonder how I would feel if it was my child abducted, tortured and killed? Hindley & Brady deserved to rot in prison without any chance of release as there is noone on this earth that could convince me either of them could ever have been rehabilitated enough not to commit those crimes again.
Life to me always should mean that - life. How does prison life ever qulaify for 'good behaviour'? Prison life is so artificial and contrived, I find it incredible anyone could seriously make a call on what a person is really like after serving time - do they really know themselves?
Peadophiles should alway remain instiutionalised just for the fact that there is no rehabilitation for them - that's the way they were born - why on earth does anyone think it common sense to keep these people on the streets when they are a known risk? I also agree with using them for medical testing.
I would much prefer to pay higher taxes to improve the judicial system and keep dangerous people off the streets than on the olympics or the bloody royal family!!

I agree with nearelyThree.

I don't believe Capital Punishment is something we should decide about pragmatically in any way at all. I don't opose it because i am woried that innocent people might die, i wouldn't suport it as a solution to expensive over-crowded imprisonment.

I oppose it because if we react to violence with violence, we are allowing murderers and violent people to dictate our morals. welose our own moral right to be right. Actually, I think that there are some people who don't deserve to live...but that is not the same as saying I think our society should kill them.

It is not civilised to kill people, however uncivilsed their own behaviour.

all ill say is that thsi is all well and good until its YOUR dh accused of rape
YOUR son who is a srunk driver
tehn of course the law is TOO HARD

Everyone who says they don't agree with the death penalty not on pragmatic grounds but on principled ones (violence and killing is wrong) where do you stand on the army? Because any state which is prepared to have and use an army, patently does believe that violence and killing is acceptable in some circumstances, however they dress it up in words like "defence" "peace-keeping" etc.

i haven't got time to read the whole trhead, but caligula - remeber that "eligible for parole" is not the same as "will be released. lifers only get parole if they admit what they've done, show remorse and behave themselves. OK - I know there have been a couple of high profile failures of this system lately, but that's how it generally is.

Also as it goes I am anti-capital punishment and a pacifist, but surely you can see that state killing in the heat of battle by soldiers is totally different from state execution? soldiers are court-martialled for executuion of enemies.

but on a related note, does anyone else find it scarey that a Labour prime minister is being outflanked from the left on law and order by the tory leader? I'm referring to DC's "politics of fear" comments, and his speech a few weeks ago on anti social behaviour.

Yes but I'm questioning the eligibility thing as well. Why should they be eligible for parole in twenty five years? Why not when they're eighty?

Will think about the difference in battle/ execution thing - must go and do some paid work now but will return later.

but if it was a straightforward murder, why not? 25 years is a long time, and if they have shown remorse and made steps towards rehabilitation I really don't see what the problem is.

a sadistic toturer would be a bit different, but I don't know of any torturers that DID get out so soon, do you? Myra Hindley didn't for all her trying. but even then it depends on the case. I'd suspect mental illness was a factor in the crime apart from anything else.

actually scratch that: 25 years is a long time whatever the crime was.

I don't really find it surprising at all. Everyone knows Tony Blair is a little to the right of traditional Labour values, that's why he's going.

And as for David Cameron expressing views that appear more left-wing than Blair's - it's quite simple. He's lying. To hoover up voters disillusioned with New Labour. Duh.