| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT R 4 this morning
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 He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed, but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.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 |
OT R 4 this morning
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 He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed, but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.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? Far better to hang 'em, less fuss and more pain! |
OT R 4 this morning
"Let It Be" wrote in message ... 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 He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed, but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.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? Far better to hang 'em, less fuss and more pain! As I understand it, the first of the drugs injected is an anaesthetic, so what comes after that doesn't matter much. Steve |
OT R 4 this morning
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 He said that they have given up trying to get the sentence repealed, but he is worried that "some of the drug combinations they might use could be harmful" I thought that was the purpose of them.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. |
OT R 4 this morning
On 25/04/2014 15:53, shazzbat wrote:
"Let It Be" wrote in message ... 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? Far better to hang 'em, less fuss and more pain! As I understand it, the first of the drugs injected is an anaesthetic, so what comes after that doesn't matter much. The cheapest and quickest way to carry out a judicial killing is to hang them long drop style. The drop is related to their weight and is designed to provide enough force to break the neck and sever the spinal chord without decapitation. -- Phil Cook |
OT R 4 this morning
|
OT R 4 this morning
|
OT R 4 this morning
"Let It Be" wrote in message ...
wrote: 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 the robbing, assaulting and killing of innocent victims is less barbaric? I would suggest that you have a very long and hard look at your table of priorities! Now just to placate you, I do not believe in capital punishment in any form - it is a far to easy release for those convicted of crimes that would invoke that sentence. Far better to lock them up in a black hole, throw away the key to its door and feed the convicted prisoner on the left-over slops from the prison's pig-farm (if it has one) and dirty water. If that also offends you, then put them out to work for eighteen hours a day on hard labour - and then return them to the black hole AND still feed and water them as above! ================================================== ====== Couldn't agree more. Prison is NOT a deterrent and is much too soft. I spent two years in Camp Hill Prison here on the Isle of Wight teaching. I got on fine with the prisoners and the prison staff, it was the Home Office and their rules and regulations on me! But it is the following little story which shows just what is in the mind of those inside and their attitude. Camp Hill was a Category 'C' prison, adults with minor crimes. One on my course was in for taking away cars, he just loved driving, often returning the car from where he got it, but he said one day "Do you know Mr Crowe the government are wasting money putting me in here. It would be much cheaper for them to buy me a car so I can get my pleasure". I gave him a polite lecture on 'working for one'. I feel that prison should be a deterrent. Hard work and a warning that if they offend again the sentence will be twice as long. 2 Years will be 4. 4 Years will be 8. 8 Years will be 16. etc. I put this to the car driving prisoner and asked him 'If you knew that your next sentence would be twice as long, would you think twice before you put your hand on the door handle?' A very prompt "YES". Whether it would stop him who knows, but it would make him think about his crime. Just done 4 years and the possibility of 8????????? Mike --------------------------------------------------------------- www.friendsofshanklintheatre.co.uk |
OT R 4 this morning
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. |
OT R 4 this morning
wrote in message ... 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. You think it should be done by the victim? Ardmhor |
OT R 4 this morning
On 26/04/2014 10:15, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 09:55:50 +0100, "philgurr" wrote: wrote in message ... 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. You think it should be done by the victim? Posthumously? We read so often about drug users being found dead because the drug they used is to pure and so to strong. Why cant they use pure heroin or something then the condemned could die happy? |
OT R 4 this morning
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 -- 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 |
OT R 4 this morning
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. |
OT R 4 this morning
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. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon |
OT R 4 this morning
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 |
OT R 4 this morning
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. |
OT R 4 this morning
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. |
OT R 4 this morning
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 |
OT R 4 this morning
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. |
OT R 4 this morning
|
OT R 4 this morning
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 |
OT R 4 this morning
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 |
OT R 4 this morning
"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 |
OT R 4 this morning
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. |
OT R 4 this morning
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 |
OT R 4 this morning
"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 |
OT R 4 this morning
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] |
OT R 4 this morning
|
OT R 4 this morning
"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 |
OT R 4 this morning
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote:
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. Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from becoming victims |
OT R 4 this morning
Janet wrote:
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 Janet, I stand by that statement unreservedly - and find the cutting of my post the way you have a little naughty! And to respond to your statement, as always in life, there will be errors and no amount of law passing will ever eradicate that. Now did you not read the bit in my posts where I state that I am not an advocate of the death sentence, but I do believe in the harshest possible punishment for all convicted prisoners - don't you? And I was around in 1965 when the abolition of the death penalty was enacted and read all the arguments for and against that were available then in the press (and that was a time when the media usually printed the truth and without all the misleading headlines of today - you could even find a 'bobby on the beat' then and trust him not to 'stitch you up' just to get your fingerprints on file [the use of DNA in criminal investigations was unknown then]) |
OT R 4 this morning
"Fuschia" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote: 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. Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from becoming victims So does hanging. They never reoffend. Steve |
OT R 4 this morning
On 2014-04-28 09:18:57 +0000, Martin said:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0100, "shazzbat" wrote: "Fuschia" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote: 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. Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from becoming victims So does hanging. They never reoffend. Innocent people have been hanged, just as innocent people have been released after serving long prison sentences. And guilty people have gone free. But while I do realise it's not 100% infallible DNA profiling has altered enormously the chances of a serious miscarriage of justice. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.com South Devon www.helpforheroes.org.uk |
OT R 4 this morning
In article ,
Sacha wrote: And guilty people have gone free. But while I do realise it's not 100% infallible DNA profiling has altered enormously the chances of a serious miscarriage of justice. That is claimed, but it is not true. When as staid an organisation as the Royal Statistical Society attempts to join a case as Amicus Curiae (and is rebuffed), you know that something is wrong. There are more recent cases, too, involving other ways in which it can lead to innocent people being convicted. It has changed the chances more by convicting people who would previously have been acquitted than in changing the relative risks of false conviction or acquittal. I could explain those issues in more detail, but it's very off-group, and I have no desire to encourage our troll camp followers. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
OT R 4 this morning
On 28/04/14 11:02, Sacha wrote:
On 2014-04-28 09:18:57 +0000, Martin said: On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0100, "shazzbat" wrote: "Fuschia" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote: 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. Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from becoming victims So does hanging. They never reoffend. Innocent people have been hanged, just as innocent people have been released after serving long prison sentences. And guilty people have gone free. But while I do realise it's not 100% infallible DNA profiling has altered enormously the chances of a serious miscarriage of justice. It most certainly is not infallible, particularly if the "advanced" techniques for small samples are used. Basically cross-contamination is a /real/ /practical/ problem. A dead person commits murder: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26324244 cross contamination in the autopsy room. And there was another case (in Colorado?) where police got a good DNA sample but refused to arrest the murderer. Very reasonable since, at the time of the murder, he was unconscious in a hospital ER room. Cross contamination was via the paramedic that attended both cases. |
OT R 4 this morning
"Martin" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0100, "shazzbat" wrote: "Fuschia" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote: 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. Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from becoming victims So does hanging. They never reoffend. Innocent people have been hanged, just as innocent people have been released after serving long prison sentences. And innocent people are being murdered by people who know that effectively they'll get away with it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638 Steve |
OT R 4 this morning
I feel that prison should be a deterrent. How better than to outsource our prisons, as we have done with call centres, industry etc.. I'm sure that Mr Mugabe would house our long term prisoners for a lot less than the £30'000+ per head that it costs us now, and it would fit in well with the Governments policy of cutting costs where ever they can. And being sent out to Zimbabwe to serve your sentence would be a real deterrent. I think it's criminal (sorry) that the allowance for food for a person in prison is around twice that for a person in hospital. |
OT R 4 this morning
In article ,
says... And innocent people are being murdered by people who know that effectively they'll get away with it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638 In what sense has that 15 yr old killer " effectively got away with it"? He was arrested and is in police custody. The murder of teacher Philip Lawrence (mentioned in report) would hardly make him to think a 15 yr old can "get away with murdering a teacher" since that killer was also caught and convicted. Janet. |
OT R 4 this morning
"Janet" wrote in message t... In article , says... And innocent people are being murdered by people who know that effectively they'll get away with it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638 In what sense has that 15 yr old killer " effectively got away with it"? He was arrested and is in police custody. The murder of teacher Philip Lawrence (mentioned in report) would hardly make him to think a 15 yr old can "get away with murdering a teacher" since that killer was also caught and convicted. You know as well as I do that the liberalist criminals friends will even now be lining up to claim he's had a deprived childhood/it wasn't his fault/ he was provoked/it was peer pressure/he's got a syndrome etc etc, the list is endless. He'll get a light sentence because of his age, he'll get all the computer games his heart desires, he'll get time off as well for "good behaviour", he'll then get shedloads of our money spent on him to keep his expensive new identity a secret and ensure he never has to take the risk of doing any work or suffer any deprivations. He'll probably be out by the time he's 30, having "paid his debt to society". His other victims of course, the relatives of the teacher he murdered, will never see an end to their sentence. So from their perspective he will have got away with it. Quite frankly I'd hang the little abstrad in front of school assembly tomorrow morning. Steve |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter