Mrs Lurtz is off to the States in January for a couple of months. I'd prefer she didn't go in a way, of course, but she'd organised this before we met and it's a fantastic opportunity for her. She's newly qualified barrister and is taking time out to work on appeal cases for death row prisoners in America. It's through a charity called Amicus and she's paying all her expenses herself.
Now that's a remarkable amount of commitment to have to a cause, you can't argue with that. On the other hand though, we've had some interesting arguments about the use of capital punishment. Mrs L is well against it in any possible scenario. I've used the stock 'Ian Huntley' argument and that maybe he'd be better served up as worm food than being looked after at the expense of you and I. As she basically gets paid to argue in court I stand a very slim chance of winning any of the debates I'd have with her on the subject so I thought I'd test the big brains at the GF to see if anyone's got a water tight, plausible argument either way.
For me there are three scenarios. Take your pick and stick down a couple of lines to back your vote up.
__________________
I saw the advert on my TV screen
Slimline drinks and Tetley tea
Exploit the accent of the flat capped men
Like Hell the North will rise again
The comradeship of drinking ale
The workers' revolution failed
Too pissed on shit to notice it
Never mind, wear it if it fits
Too many mistakes. Birmingham Six, Guildford 4, that Barry Geoge bloke, they'd have all been strung up. I can see the point for serial killers and child killing psychos and all, but you can't guarantee there wouldn't be innocent people killed in the name of justice. Plus it can pervert the system as some juries might be unwilling to give guilty verdicts cos they don't want to condemn someone to death.
If you're worried about the cost the best way to cut down on prison spending is to rehabillitate petty criminals better so they don't end up going back.
__________________
I'm moving out of this hospidaje, I'm afraid you'll cut me boy.
Let's see how eager the hippies are to ban capital punishment when they're being bummed in the back of a van while the corpse of the weirdo's dead mother watches on.
Kill 'em all, especially estate agents......and city bankers, fucking parasites.
__________________
Churches have condemned Super Casino, saying gambling offers a false hope to the impoverished......who should instead be putting their faith in a shiny bearded man who lives on a cloud.
Good luck to her that sounds like an awesome opportunity for some CV building.
I'm all for strict punishment, zero tolerance, broken windows policy, harsh sentencing and possibly a variation on the three-strikes rule - I want it all (coupled with some decent re-education programmes, I'm not down with simply throwing people in the bin either)
But I'm 100% against capital punishment, even if the person is guilty of the most horrific crime. No state has the right to take the life of one of it's citizens, nobody has the right to take another life for any reason at all.
Once you start down that road, and you become comfortable with the thought of the state dishing out death - who knows where it fucking ends.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luther Sloan
The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night. You're also the reason Section 31 exists - someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong.
Two things that make me against it, really: first is the fallibility of the justice system - innocent people would be killed and that is completely unacceptable. Second is the inherent hypocrisy of doing to someone the very thing that you're punishing them for doing. If you believe that murder is immoral, unacceptable, wrong, whatever then there aren't any exceptions to that; there isn't "good murder" and "bad murder", just murder.
__________________
Check the writing skills forever coming tight with the quill.
Totally against it. However, life should mean life. If someone takes the life of another in a premeditated fashion then they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. They should be in this cell for 23 hours of the day. They should be allowed a daily newspaper from the start. After 5 years they should be allowed a radio. After 10 years they should be allowed 2 hours of tv a day. They get out when they die.
They need to keep the jails free of petty criminals. Make a purse snatcher clean the streets for 4 hours a day for 2 years. That'd put them off, not sitting in a cell getting stoned. Make a shoplifter paint public buildings for 2 years. Or insulate older houses. Or tidy up parks. Make them useful and work them hard to put them off.
Any country that kills a person is automatically no better then the person they have killed. Murder is murder.
Stuff the papers/radio/tv nonsense, get them in an empty cell rocking like one of those demented bears off the telly.
__________________
Churches have condemned Super Casino, saying gambling offers a false hope to the impoverished......who should instead be putting their faith in a shiny bearded man who lives on a cloud.
Stuff the papers/radio/tv nonsense, get them in an empty cell rocking like one of those demented bears off the telly.
Agree with that.
I'm of the old fashioned opinion that prison should be shit.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luther Sloan
The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night. You're also the reason Section 31 exists - someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong.
I'm of the old fashioned opinion that prison should be shit.
I like the hard labour idea. Breaking rocks that kind of thing. It would be a more effective deterent and would appeal to me if I was inside and actually felt shite about what I'd done. Also might actually get some cons to sort out the potholes on the dock road.
As for the Death penalty, well were past that debate surely?
Interesting stuff. The more I listen and the older I get the less hardcore "string 'em up" I'm getting.
There are three cases of posthumous pardons in this country and there could potentially have been dozens more if we still had the death penalty.
There's also some pretty shocking stats for this country:
Did you know that it wasn't until 1931 that the hanging of a pregnant woman was taken off the statutes? And hanging, drawing and quartering was still on the list of punishmants until 1870.
In America, since 1973, 125 inmates have been released from death row on appeal.
There's also the issue of method. I think hanging, electrocution and firing squad are all barbaric. Nebraska still executes inmates using the electric chair. There is, though, a question mark over lethal injection. The death penalty was recently stalled in the US because a question was raised about the idea of the lethal injection being painful and therefore unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment etc). Then, on the strength of the opinion of only one doctor, the executions were given the go ahead to start again. There is a backlog in death row cells all over America and the pressure is on to get as many of them 'processed' as quickly as possible. Does this leave the door open for more miscarriages of justice / unheard appeals / unsubmitted evidence / rushed decisions?
Probably.
__________________
I saw the advert on my TV screen
Slimline drinks and Tetley tea
Exploit the accent of the flat capped men
Like Hell the North will rise again
The comradeship of drinking ale
The workers' revolution failed
Too pissed on shit to notice it
Never mind, wear it if it fits
I originally voted "hang the Huntley types", probably rather rashly in hindsight.
It's tough, especially of you're a victim's relative to not feel as though you want the person who took your relative's life away to die for it. I try and put myself in their shoes whenever I think of this issue.
Me personally? I don't believe that we are strict enough as a nation when it comes to punishment. Our legal system is one of the finest in the world, however our justice system leaves a lot to be desired. I too am in favour of the hard labour idea- pointless, endless chipping away at rocks or something like that.
Life should mean life, no doubt about it. Our prisons today are fucking awful- unless you're a prisoner of course, life of fucking riley that they have. Prisoners guilty of the worst crimes in socety- ie, rapists, peadophiles and murderers- should recieve life, for taking the life of someone else. And yes I mean the rapist and peadophiles as well; they too are guilty of taking away their victims lives while they are still liviing. And in having been given a life sentence, they should be condemned to spend thier lives in a small, empty cell, with only basic ammenities.
Yes, we are a modern, forward-thinking society in the 21st Century- but the fucking do-gooders have got their fucking hands on the prisons as well. The very fact that our prisons have televisions, X-Boxes, gyms and swimming pools makes me fucking sick.
Some crimes and criminals can be rehabilitated. But the ones who are guilty of taking lives should never have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. They have taken life, and should be prepared to lose their lives.
Sometimes I get very angry and wish the death penalty on people like Huntley, the Bulger killers, etc etc, but thinking rationally there are other ways of taking their lives from them while they are still living.
__________________
"Sorry Ted, I was concentrating too hard on looking holy"
"God Ted, do you remember that feller who was so good at fashion they had to shoot him?"
"I'm no good at judging the size of crowds, Ted, but I'd say there was about seventeen million of them out there"
I like the hard labour idea. Breaking rocks that kind of thing. It would be a more effective deterent and would appeal to me if I was inside and actually felt shite about what I'd done. Also might actually get some cons to sort out the potholes on the dock road.
As for the Death penalty, well were past that debate surely?
Yeah I like that notion of paying some kind of penance other than simply being denied your freedom. You should have to earn your way back into society's good books as far as I'm concerned. Community service, service in the military maybe, I don't know - but there should be some reduction in your status and a loss of some rights (maybe the right to drive, leave the country, etc) which need to be earned back in some fashion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luther Sloan
The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night. You're also the reason Section 31 exists - someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong.
100% against it in all circumstances. A state has no right to murder its citizens. That so many entirely innocent people have been (and continue to be) killed is even more tragic.
Incidentally, an innocent man is scheduled to die next Monday in Georgia. Some justice.
No. No one (IMHO) has the right to take the life of a fellow human being*. It's eye for an eye and not acceptable in an, alledgedly, civilised society.
If you were to bang someone up in a cold hard cell with no source of stimulaton/entertainment/communication to anyone, for 23 hours a day for the rest of their life, which could be 50 years.... do you not think this person would go insane and eventually take this out on a prison officer/ fellow inmate?
And if there were a lot of prisoners like this don't you think it would eventually result in rioting/ mass murder/ protests?
To keep every murderer, paedophile and rapist banged up for 60 years, feeding them and clothing them etc. is a massive waste of taxpayers money.
If there is positive, conclusive proof of the culprits commiting said crimes, and they'd have to be the most heinous, evil and consciously committed crimes, I wouldn't have a problem with them being sentanced to death I'm afraid.
If you were to bang someone up in a cold hard cell with no source of stimulaton/entertainment/communication to anyone, for 23 hours a day for the rest of their life, which could be 50 years.... do you not think this person would go insane and eventually take this out on a prison officer/ fellow inmate?
Strangely, Mrs L has argued this point but from the other angle. I've used the old "oh yeah, Huntley banged up in his cell with tv and his playstation, the bastard." Her response was to ask if I thought he was happy? After all, how long does it take anyone to get bored of sitting in one room for 23 hours playing on a playstation? Fair comment really.
I'm with the rock breaking idea. Feed them, clothe them and let them break rocks all day long, seven days a week. If they then choose to take their own life, so be it. This argument could be looked at as having disregard to the wellbeing of the prisoner and effectively sentencing him to death without actually pressing the button, so to speak, but there is an element of free will and that would be my counter argument, however weak.
__________________
I saw the advert on my TV screen
Slimline drinks and Tetley tea
Exploit the accent of the flat capped men
Like Hell the North will rise again
The comradeship of drinking ale
The workers' revolution failed
Too pissed on shit to notice it
Never mind, wear it if it fits
Their are children in care treated worse than prisoners these day.
__________________
Churches have condemned Super Casino, saying gambling offers a false hope to the impoverished......who should instead be putting their faith in a shiny bearded man who lives on a cloud.
My apologies in advance for the reference to that piece of shit 'newspaper' but this article is interesting. Even though the rag appears to be somewhat taken aback by the attitude of its own readers, having had dickheads like Jon Gaunt on their books and preaching to them daily on TalkShite, it's still a puzzling concept that 95,000 people would partake in a vote in favour of the death penalty. Maybe I'm being too generous to the mentality of those 'readers' though.
__________________
I saw the advert on my TV screen
Slimline drinks and Tetley tea
Exploit the accent of the flat capped men
Like Hell the North will rise again
The comradeship of drinking ale
The workers' revolution failed
Too pissed on shit to notice it
Never mind, wear it if it fits
"What kind of man are you? You're not a father! You've been in and out of carbonite ALL YOUR ADULT LIFE!!! You're nothing but scum!"
* applauds
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luther Sloan
The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night. You're also the reason Section 31 exists - someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong.
Totally for capital punishment. Execute them, every single one guilty of premeditated murder. I believe in creating a utopioan society and that goal cannot be achieved unless we elimimate the scum that would disrupt such a vision.
Stuff the papers/radio/tv nonsense, get them in an empty cell rocking like one of those demented bears off the telly.
As Hooch has said. If you do that then they will go insane within a year and then there is no benefit to the punishment. By them having papers and radio after a number of years and then some TV after more time, then they get to see what is happening in the World, but never ever get to experience it. To me that is the worst punishment.
