On 2014-04-26 10:48:43 +0000, Martin said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:07:41 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:28:12 +0200, Martin wrote:

Nobody wants happy heroin addicts.

I spent my later teenage years with couple who were heroin addicts.
She got pregnant so they gave up the drug. Their daughter is now a mum
and they are happy registered ex-addicts by about 40 years.

The near neighbour's teenager who took everything including LSD is now 40 and
spends most of his time as a patient in mental hospitals.


BTW they found heroin fairly easy to give up. OTOH they are still
addicted to nicotine.

Nicotine is supposed to be one of the most addictive drugs known. I gave up
smoking. It was one of the hardest things I ever did. I wasn't
surprised to read
that nicotine is more addictive than heroin and cocaine. The question is why do
so many continue using them?

Hypnosis helped me tremendously in giving up smoking. But on a radio
programme I heard someone who worked with drug users says that nobody
ever (in his long experience) went onto hard drugs unless they'd first
smoked cigarettes.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 26/04/2014 11:07, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:28:12 +0200, Martin wrote:

Nobody wants happy heroin addicts.

I spent my later teenage years with couple who were heroin addicts.
She got pregnant so they gave up the drug. Their daughter is now a mum
and they are happy registered ex-addicts by about 40 years.

BTW they found heroin fairly easy to give up. OTOH they are still
addicted to nicotine.

Steve

My point was not to give them recreational levels of Heroin, but to give
a fatal overdose the first time.

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:41:42 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-26 08:48:53 +0000, said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:57:33 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

How else would you suggest such a thing should be done, if it is to be
done at all? The victim can hardly punish the person who took their
life. So do you think close relatives should do it? Or perhaps a
firing squad where nobody in it knows who has the blank? Imo, and
disregarding the ethics or otherwise of capital punishment, if
someone's life is forfeit because they've taken another life, then from
their point of view and society's, it's far more 'civilised' to
administer that punishment via trained but uninvolved individuals,
ranging from the investigating officers, to the pathologists to the
executioner.

I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:41:42 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-26 08:48:53 +0000, said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:57:33 +0100, sacha wrote:

On 2014-04-25 15:03:56 +0000, said:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:54:16 +0100, "Let It Be"
wrote:

David Hill wrote:
On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they are
having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they carry out the
death penalty, and they were talking to an advocate for one person
awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed,
but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use
could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.
David

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the wrong drugs -
and that will never do will it?


One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's still a
barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

How else would you suggest such a thing should be done, if it is to be
done at all? The victim can hardly punish the person who took their
life. So do you think close relatives should do it? Or perhaps a
firing squad where nobody in it knows who has the blank? Imo, and
disregarding the ethics or otherwise of capital punishment, if
someone's life is forfeit because they've taken another life, then from
their point of view and society's, it's far more 'civilised' to
administer that punishment via trained but uninvolved individuals,
ranging from the investigating officers, to the pathologists to the
executioner.

I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Martin wrote:

On R.4 this morning they were talking about the trouble they
are having in the US of A obtaining drugs to use when they
carry out the death penalty, and they were talking to an
advocate for one person awaiting the death sentence.
He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence
repealed, but he is worried that "some of the drug
combinations they might use could be harmful" I thought that
was the purpose of them.

Ah, but the condemned might die in agony if the are given the
wrong drugs - and that will never do will it?

One of the drugs is an anaesthetic so there is no pain. It's
still a barbaric practice regardless of the crime.

And murder isn't?

It is the execution by proxy that is barbaric.

You think it should be done by the victim?

Posthumously?

I don't normally post on this sort of thing, so shall not continue.
The reasons that it is so barbaric is that the majority of people
on death row never had a chance - not just the (deliberate)
deprivation of their childhood, but they didn't get fair trials
(due to race prejudice, not being defended properly and more), and
quite often are mentally subnormal or were sentenced for a crime
committed when they were children. In a few cases, they have been
killed despite evidence having appeared between conviction and
prosecution showing that they almost certainly were NOT guilty.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I really think that you live on another planet other than earth with a
statement like that.

At least the perpertators of crime have an opportunity to state their case
before a court - which is far more than their murdered victims and victims
relatives get.

But as I previously stated, I am not an advocate of the death sentence as it
is a far to easy release for the convicted murderer, but I certainly believe
that their sentence should be one of whole life and made as hard and
uncomfortable as possible.

In article , lid says...

Nick Maclaren wrote:

I don't normally post on this sort of thing, so shall not continue.
The reasons that it is so barbaric is that the majority of people
on death row never had a chance - not just the (deliberate)
deprivation of their childhood, but they didn't get fair trials
(due to race prejudice, not being defended properly and more), and
quite often are mentally subnormal or were sentenced for a crime
committed when they were children. In a few cases, they have been
killed despite evidence having appeared between conviction and
prosecution showing that they almost certainly were NOT guilty.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I really think that you live on another planet other than earth with a
statement like that.

Then you are disregarding the ample research evidence of death row in
the USA, and (previously) in the UK. The proven miscarriages of justice
for reasons Nick refers to, were a major factor in abolishing the death
penalty in the UK.

Janet

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:18:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:


I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.

In any society that allows some people to kill others - chaos does
rule.

--
Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com

On 2014-04-27 08:11:55 +0000, said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:18:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:


I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.

In any society that allows some people to kill others - chaos does
rule.

In your opinion. In that of others, justice prevails. If you jail a
murderer who then gets out and does it again, that is chaos and it is
certainly not justice. Luckily, I don't have to make those decisions
but if I did, I'd probably do as some other countries do and have a
sort of 'grade' system. And I would most definitely have much stiffer
prison sentences than we have now. In some segments of society an ASBO
or a shortish prison sentence is a badge of honour, something to be
laughed at and boasted about by idiots who think it proves they're
'hard'. Double or triple the sentences and make life uncomfortable and
there would be a lot less re-offending. I was sent a photo of a 'lady'
all dressed up in her garish finery for a day at Aintree, showing off
her ankle tag. The ultimate fashion accessory.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Sacha" wrote in message ...

On 2014-04-27 08:11:55 +0000, said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:18:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:


I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.

In any society that allows some people to kill others - chaos does
rule.

In your opinion. In that of others, justice prevails. If you jail a
murderer who then gets out and does it again, that is chaos and it is
certainly not justice. Luckily, I don't have to make those decisions
but if I did, I'd probably do as some other countries do and have a
sort of 'grade' system. And I would most definitely have much stiffer
prison sentences than we have now. In some segments of society an ASBO
or a shortish prison sentence is a badge of honour, something to be
laughed at and boasted about by idiots who think it proves they're
'hard'. Double or triple the sentences and make life uncomfortable and
there would be a lot less re-offending. I was sent a photo of a 'lady'
all dressed up in her garish finery for a day at Aintree, showing off
her ankle tag. The ultimate fashion accessory.
--

Sacha
==============================================


One of the talks I give as an after Dinner Speaker at Rotary International
Meetings and WI's etc, incorporates my couple of years teaching in Prison
and also as a GPO Telephone Engineer years ago going into Parkhurst and
Albany Prisons here on the Isle of Wight. Not too many people have the
chance to go into the various grades of prison and get an insight into the
environment and the bits of my talk are always brought up later. The subject
when we get round to High Security Prisons and prisons within a prison soon
brings up Capital Punishment. As the guest speaker I 'sit on the fence', but
it is always a hot discussion. However what about those who were "Shot at
Dawn". If you don't know what I am talking about, Google Shot at Dawn read
about it and visit Alrewas and se the memorial. Then think about Capital
Punishment

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.friendsofshanklintheatre.co.uk

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:35:57 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-27 08:11:55 +0000, said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:18:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:


I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.

In any society that allows some people to kill others - chaos does
rule.

In your opinion. In that of others, justice prevails. If you jail a
murderer who then gets out and does it again, that is chaos and it is
certainly not justice. Luckily, I don't have to make those decisions
but if I did, I'd probably do as some other countries do and have a
sort of 'grade' system. And I would most definitely have much stiffer
prison sentences than we have now. In some segments of society an ASBO
or a shortish prison sentence is a badge of honour, something to be
laughed at and boasted about by idiots who think it proves they're
'hard'. Double or triple the sentences and make life uncomfortable and
there would be a lot less re-offending. I was sent a photo of a 'lady'
all dressed up in her garish finery for a day at Aintree, showing off
her ankle tag. The ultimate fashion accessory.

I think we agree about most of that but killing people can never be
right regardless of what the law says.

On 2014-04-27 09:07:15 +0000, said:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:35:57 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-27 08:11:55 +0000, said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:18:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:


I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.

In any society that allows some people to kill others - chaos does
rule.

In your opinion. In that of others, justice prevails. If you jail a
murderer who then gets out and does it again, that is chaos and it is
certainly not justice. Luckily, I don't have to make those decisions
but if I did, I'd probably do as some other countries do and have a
sort of 'grade' system. And I would most definitely have much stiffer
prison sentences than we have now. In some segments of society an ASBO
or a shortish prison sentence is a badge of honour, something to be
laughed at and boasted about by idiots who think it proves they're
'hard'. Double or triple the sentences and make life uncomfortable and
there would be a lot less re-offending. I was sent a photo of a 'lady'
all dressed up in her garish finery for a day at Aintree, showing off
her ankle tag. The ultimate fashion accessory.

I think we agree about most of that but killing people can never be
right regardless of what the law says.

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now. Murder is the ultimate
barbarism, though there may well be extenuating circumstances but for a
planned murder designed to be rid of someone 'inconvenient', or a
murder as the result of acting out of anger against a stranger, for
example, there are no extenuating circumstances, imo. There will be
murder which is the result of long-term mental or physical violence,
there will be murder by those not in full control of their mental
faculties but that is why I wrote of 'grades'. Not everyone who kills
does it out of real wickedness.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

"sacha" wrote in message ...

On 2014-04-27 09:07:15 +0000, said:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:35:57 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-27 08:11:55 +0000, said:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:18:55 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2014-04-26 13:47:43 +0000, said:


I have no solution to suggest. If you take the argument to it's
logical conclusion the executioner is also a murderer. In a conflict
situation that is how he/she would be treated.

But we're not talking about a time of conflict when - frankly - chaos
rules. We're talking about in a normally-functioning society, or as
normal as it gets. So we're talking about upholding the rule of law IF
the law provides for execution, whereupon the executioner is an
instrument and upholder of the law.

In any society that allows some people to kill others - chaos does
rule.

In your opinion. In that of others, justice prevails. If you jail a
murderer who then gets out and does it again, that is chaos and it is
certainly not justice. Luckily, I don't have to make those decisions
but if I did, I'd probably do as some other countries do and have a
sort of 'grade' system. And I would most definitely have much stiffer
prison sentences than we have now. In some segments of society an ASBO
or a shortish prison sentence is a badge of honour, something to be
laughed at and boasted about by idiots who think it proves they're
'hard'. Double or triple the sentences and make life uncomfortable and
there would be a lot less re-offending. I was sent a photo of a 'lady'
all dressed up in her garish finery for a day at Aintree, showing off
her ankle tag. The ultimate fashion accessory.

I think we agree about most of that but killing people can never be
right regardless of what the law says.

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now. Murder is the ultimate
barbarism, though there may well be extenuating circumstances but for a
planned murder designed to be rid of someone 'inconvenient', or a
murder as the result of acting out of anger against a stranger, for
example, there are no extenuating circumstances, imo. There will be
murder which is the result of long-term mental or physical violence,
there will be murder by those not in full control of their mental
faculties but that is why I wrote of 'grades'. Not everyone who kills
does it out of real wickedness.
--
Sacha
================================================== ======

I proved that in my posting and my conversation with the car thief and
doubling the sentence and KNOWING that was going to happen next time. Did
you not grasp that?

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.friendsofshanklintheatre.co.uk

I will not tell you my opinion, as I would not put it right in English,
but here is a nice article by Paul Lutus about the topic. He's asking
some questions and gives some answers. Making us think will not be
punished, I hope :

http://www.arachnoid.com/opinion/cap...unishment.html

--
GnuPG/OpenPGP 4096R/3216CF02 2013-11-15 [expires: 2015-11-15]
sub 4096R/2751C550 2013-11-15 [expires: 2015-11-15]

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Janet

"Janet" wrote in message
t...

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Janet
================================================== =============

I can answer than one Janet. The mentality of the offender. This is a true
story you will not believe, but I assure you it is 100% true. I had a
prisoner on one of my courses in the prison who to start with, I thought I
was going to have trouble with, however, when during the course a little bit
of trouble did look as if it were brewing, 'he' was the one to quell it, but
that is not the story. The course I had written and was running was to City
and Guilds Certificate Qualification with the idea of giving them at least a
start with a trade. The ideal situation was for the prisoner to finish the
16 week full time course to as near to the end of their sentence as
possible. This one, sorry I won't name names, this one finished the course
in June and was released at the end of his sentence in July. 2 years GBH (so
you can see why I was delighted when he quelled the possible uprising in my
room!!)

July ..... gone.

In August I saw him walking towards me across the main area at Camp Hill in
prison dress. 'What the hell are you doing in here?' I asked. "Two and a
half years" 'What for?' (Now whilst I had full access to their records if I
wanted them I never bothered. It was only during conversation in the class
room that offences, such as the car driver I spoke of earlier, came to
light) "Well I went back home and doffed the bloke what put me inside last
time"

I would love to know what has happened to him since the mid to late 70's
when I was there.

So what do you do with someone like that?

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.friendsofshanklintheatre.co.uk