The Death Penalty is shown in every study not to have a deterrent effect so it doesn't instill any respect for others lives, you yourself mentioned a disagreement with society the rules and policing of speed issues, I tend to agree with you on that but if the penalties for speeding were harsher up to and including the death penalty, but the chances of being caught were low or the penalties were reduced by 25% but there was a traffic cop on every road I'm pretty certain which would have a better chance of making me slow down. It's the same with all crimes, no one goes out to commit a crime expecting to be caught so the punishment level is largely immaterial, it's fear of detection that will change people's behaviour. You are entirely right to say you wouldn't consider killing anyone, nor would all the other civilised members of society, just because some degenerates would doesn't mean we should reduce ourselves to their level. Killing someone makes society no safer than imprisoning them for life but it does diminish our own moral authority each time we do it. If killing one person is wrong then killing any person is wrong.
So is making me, any every other tax payer, fork out ridiculous amounts to look after them, for however many years! I'm sick of paying ludicrous amounts to government coffers to look after these individuals! And then they have the cheek to appeal and waste even more money. We are never going to agree on this matter, and it is detracting from the point of this thread, so I will say no more, other than the family and friends of these poor police officers have my utmost sympathy for what they are going through.
It costs the state of Texas more to house a Death Row prisoner for the duration of his incarceration than it does to house a Life imprisonment prisoner, and they execute more people than the next five most enthusiastic states combined Texas Prison Budgets Report and would you believe it those darn death row prisoners have the cheek to appeal as well. Heck, some of them even get released. (to be fair that doesn't happen in Texas very often at all) So the death penalty doesn't deter, doesn't instill respect for the lives of others in the criminal and costs more than locking them up which doesn't really leave much in it's favour. I'm not so sure about detracting from the point of the thread unless the point was for everyone to line up to show how much tougher on bad people they are than the next person. And on that we will always agree
It's very very sad. What you have to bear in mind, when trying to make any sense of this sort of thing, is that it is simply the law of averages. A small, but significant % of people are clinical psychopaths. They are mentally deficient in normal terms, and have no conception of morality. It's as alien to them as sound is to deaf people. That doesn't mean they should be pardoned, excused or understood. The only understanding is to recognise them for what they are. They will never change as their brains are wired up wrong. Do I think they should be bumped off by the state? No, because tempting as it is, it's a slippery slope and people's lives shouldn't be in the hands of a couple of psychiatrists. So just bang them up forever. In theory, this is what Broadmoor is for - housing the criminally insane. When the bloke's been caught and we've had all the trials and whatnot, that's probably what will happen to him. But there's no point trying to judge his behaviour by normal standards, any more than there is expecting a tribesman from Papua New Guinea to suddenly appreciate the finer points of Shakespeare in English. That Brevik guy was another one. They're as bonkers as a box of poisonous frogs.
Right so why did he kill them then why did he not respect their human rights? Sorry human rights for those who respect human rights. Moment you deliberately ignore human rights you forfeit yours. If that simple rule was there he would have no right to more then roof over head, bread and water plus hard labour and medical care when sick. Cheaper prisoning and public work done. Human rights activists do not want criminals to do public service in orange uniforms with crime they done on the back as that infringes dignity part. Good people soul he able to name and shame, that would give him disrespect lesson he needs. Second option build prison ships and sail to international waters .....
Gildofglood's post covers this perfectly, and I will copy his response as it is so succinct and well put that I wish I'd said it first:
Hate to agree but you are right. How did this guy get to this point. None of us here can even think of what thought process was going on. Left on my own yes I would batter him to death but we are all in a bigger society and we have to abide by the law. Sounds tame I know but he must have been sick in the head for years. We need to change people when they are young or they grow up to become animals. Regards Steve Regards Steve
Anna Raccoon I only wish I was articulate enough to have penned these words myself. The article expresses EVERYTHING I believe to be true about whats wrong with society nowadays!
Thank you Shadow, well expressed if I may say so. Many people, perhaps all of us, have a dark side within our natures which tempts us to look for solutions to problems by killing somebody - the "Final Solution". When we are shocked or angry, this wells up inside and temporarily overwhelms our better natures. In extreme cases psychopathy prevails and we actually kill. A less extreme reaction to a hard case is to write newspaper articles or forum posts calling for the death penalty. Fortunately in modern European society, temptation is usually resisted and wiser counsels usually prevail so that killing people is done only by criminals, not by governments. It's quite healthy for people to feel they can let off steam in reaction to terrible events, including saying intemperate things; that's freedom of speech. Let's not confuse that though with considered expressions of opinion. However weak or strong the arguments about the death penlty may be, they are no weaker or stronger today than they were last week. Individual cases do not change principles.
I had occasion to meet Vera Baird QC several times during her three year period as Solicitor General. Unusually for a politician, she was willing to speak frankly about what she believed, even if it was an unpopular view and/or at variance with government policy. I rather liked her, even if I didn't necessarily agree with her (e.g. about rape cases). She was a bit unlucky that the closure of the Redcar steelworks three months before the general election scuppered her chances of re-election to Parliament in 2010.
Well that rule is correct but there is also plenty of criminals that know exactly what they are doing and that it is wrong. They are not sycos on kill rampage. Organised crime comes to mind in for example Russia or Italy. They will not flinch when they have to kill you but they will kill you if they have to as in if it is better business choice. They do not go out kill random bloke or even police as that is high profile bad for business. Death penalty will not scare someone who is not all there but a family man but working as soldier for organised syndicate will think twice if it is worth it. That is why human rights should go on hold during sentencing for those who chose to ignore them.
Poor ladies Oh turns out he was on bail ... There was not sufficient evidence to bang him up or hold him for the first two murders. Free to kill again that's where the system fails . I think if someone is suspected of a deadly serious crime and poses a threat to society then you have to be able to keep tabs on them. As for the death penalty arguments we had that recently on here ...
Right so obviously unless mental killer there is no killings? So closer to home, I assume that all gang members shooting each other or stabbing each other in London and UK are mental cases? They do not do it knowingly (as in as they are mentally challenged they do not exactly know what they are doing), they do not stalk the gang member from another gang and them attack/kill him? I guess that is all done by mental people with no motive with no real planning. Right man wake up and smell the roses. There are people out there who are killing other people knowing full well consequences to said person, what they are doing and possible outcome to them. They have many different motives. Soldiers are perfect example of that, you like it or not when they shoot enemy soldier it is planned with full knowledge of consequences to said person. When soldiers are interview and asked about it they have a very common and similar response. Many if not most say they do not want to do it but at the end it is war or it is them or me. Unless you want to say all soldiers are also mental and do not understand consequences? Many criminals apply similar reasoning but rather then "this is war" it is business plus situation when it is them or other criminal is also possible. You must be aware there is illegal market in human organs for transplant, if there was none why there would be a low prohibiting sale if them? How do you think those organs are gathered for sale? You have two kidney's so some could willingly sell it but doubt anyone would willingly sell a heart, both lungs or liver. Those things you kind off need to live. Just that criminal activity shows there are people out there that will murder someone and not care about it. However they are far from mental as they do it for profit, they have a long term plan and it is a big operation. So while Sopranos was a good show organised crime is out there and they do not walk around killing random bloke for pleasure, there is reasoning behind what they do. Serbia says it has witness about organ harvesting | Nation & World | The Seattle Times Chinese organ trafficking ring dismantled - Telegraph
Lucasz, I think you misunderstood what I was saying about clinical psychosis. It's not that these people don't know what they are doing. They do. Perfectly. The difference is that they don't care, because they have no concept of empathy. They just don't empathise with other people. So they are totally indifferent to others' suffering - perhaps even enjoy the sense of power it gives them when they cause it. Many hardened criminals are probably psychopaths like these. They get to the top and "respect" from their peers because they will stop at no violence. Uber-violence just doesn't bother them. Think of the Joe Pesci character in Scorcese's "Casino". They can be very bright, very cunning, totally egotistical (of course). But they are wired up wrong. They are, if you like, born bad, or at least have had a certain character type exacerbated through their early experiences.
Glidd ok I did misunderstand your post. Yes I will say huge percentage of hardened violent criminal are most likely that. However there is still number of them that kill only if needed or good for business and do not take pleasure in it. People like that are mostly delegating someone to do the killing but still they give the order. It is also fact that such people are usually found in bigger criminal organisations. I am not talking gangs but cross country illegal businesses like women traffickers. They are very violent people but as long as you do not cross them you are not bothering them.
Don't think my response posted... I worded myself wrongly. They knew who they wanted for that killing but did not have enough evidence so yes innocent until proven . However when the police feel that a person is of danger to society and likely to kill or commit a serious offence then I feel they m bb
I think I get what you're saying but the thing to bear in mind is that this is such a rare (possibly unique) event in this country that there's probably nothing that could have been done to prevent it within the law and that the law as it stands, innocent until proven guilty, not being held without charge, not being locked up without due process is the end result of a judicial process that goes back to Magna Carta in 1215 and works consistently. Yes, with hindsight if Cregan had been locked up the two Police Officers would still be alive but without that benefit there's no way of knowing what would happen and the law says that without evidence you can't be charged, which is exactly right. You can't legislate for psychopaths, all you can do is lock them away where they can't do any more harm.
