The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
At present all 'offenders' have their human rights protected by European and UK law.
For those who have taken away other people's human rights in abuse, murder or other serious offences, is this right?
There are several arguements for and against which constantly crop up in these sort of discussions:
FOR Human Rights
If we act as the offender has acted then we are as bad as the offender. Likewise, a death penalty would condone killing for a murderer.
It doesn't matter if the offence is serious or not, all prisoners should be treated the same and there is always the chance that they have been wrongly convicted.
AGAINST Human Rights
If prison is not harsh enough then offenders will not have a reason to stop offending, they know that they are going to somewhere that will be comfortable and guarantee a hot meal. In fact, some may offend just to get in to prison and provide a better life.
The grey area:
The biggest grey area here is probably the mental, and to some extents the physical status of the offender. Should we look closer at where they are 'in their right mind' and then what should happen to those serious offenders who are a danger or (even more of a grey area) may later provide a danger to the public.
For those who have taken away other people's human rights in abuse, murder or other serious offences, is this right?
There are several arguements for and against which constantly crop up in these sort of discussions:
FOR Human Rights
If we act as the offender has acted then we are as bad as the offender. Likewise, a death penalty would condone killing for a murderer.
It doesn't matter if the offence is serious or not, all prisoners should be treated the same and there is always the chance that they have been wrongly convicted.
AGAINST Human Rights
If prison is not harsh enough then offenders will not have a reason to stop offending, they know that they are going to somewhere that will be comfortable and guarantee a hot meal. In fact, some may offend just to get in to prison and provide a better life.
The grey area:
The biggest grey area here is probably the mental, and to some extents the physical status of the offender. Should we look closer at where they are 'in their right mind' and then what should happen to those serious offenders who are a danger or (even more of a grey area) may later provide a danger to the public.
Page:
HM wrote:
> It would have to be a designated man/lady (the executioner) and
> in a set room. And for the death of that one particular
> prisoner. What happens in that room for that set period is
> outside the law.
You can't have something decided in law outside of the law, it just doesn't make sense. You set laws to make a guideline for ALL to live by, not for some.
There are other flaws. Often people have found that the prisoner is unremitting during the time they are killed (I'm not using 'put to death' because technically they are being killed, however you want to dress it up) and this means that the victim or their family is often left without the feeling of closure or even justice (it's an often documented side-effect).
In theory it would be more logical to let the victim or their family kill the prisoner if you are suggesting that this is the correct punishment for the crime, but it's far too easy to let someone else do it and wash their hands of the event.
> It would have to be a designated man/lady (the executioner) and
> in a set room. And for the death of that one particular
> prisoner. What happens in that room for that set period is
> outside the law.
You can't have something decided in law outside of the law, it just doesn't make sense. You set laws to make a guideline for ALL to live by, not for some.
There are other flaws. Often people have found that the prisoner is unremitting during the time they are killed (I'm not using 'put to death' because technically they are being killed, however you want to dress it up) and this means that the victim or their family is often left without the feeling of closure or even justice (it's an often documented side-effect).
In theory it would be more logical to let the victim or their family kill the prisoner if you are suggesting that this is the correct punishment for the crime, but it's far too easy to let someone else do it and wash their hands of the event.
It would have to be a designated man/lady (the executioner) and in a set room. And for the death of that one particular prisoner. What happens in that room for that set period is outside the law.
and then who kills the guy who killed the prisoner?
I would support the death penalty - but only in extreme cases (absolute evidence that the person was responsible for mass death or crimes against people).
In a way, these cases never get a chance to get to that stage. Derek Bird, Raoul Moat, Ian Huntley - all evil, despicable men, but they are already dead. Ok, they all killed themselves - be it before arrest or in prison, but the world is probably a little bit safer (and financially better off) without them.
There are some good cases where the death penalty should stand, but at the same time, the grey area of where to draw the line on what crimes deserve it is going to be tricky.
Similarly - if you say you need to have killed 15 people for it to stand and someone kills 14, then do you not think they may just go out and get that kill for the sake of it. Or if they've killed 13, thinking they could get another without it getting life-threatening. (Extreme example there I know, but criminal minds are difficult to fathom out, so setting any levels of punishment could end up a negative factor in itself)
In a way, these cases never get a chance to get to that stage. Derek Bird, Raoul Moat, Ian Huntley - all evil, despicable men, but they are already dead. Ok, they all killed themselves - be it before arrest or in prison, but the world is probably a little bit safer (and financially better off) without them.
There are some good cases where the death penalty should stand, but at the same time, the grey area of where to draw the line on what crimes deserve it is going to be tricky.
Similarly - if you say you need to have killed 15 people for it to stand and someone kills 14, then do you not think they may just go out and get that kill for the sake of it. Or if they've killed 13, thinking they could get another without it getting life-threatening. (Extreme example there I know, but criminal minds are difficult to fathom out, so setting any levels of punishment could end up a negative factor in itself)
i don't believe in 100% accuracy. No matter how small, there will always be some amount of doubt. And death is a one way road. The death penalty is a lazy man's view of justice. It's saying "We want justice, but we don't want to pay for it". Whilst I agree that paying for a prisoner's life through taxes is just abit ridiculous, I'd rather pay to keep them alive and locked up, than to pay for them to be killed and buried.
Not sure I trust in the legal service enough to believe it will ever be 100% accurate or that outside forces can't influence things...
The thread, as these things do, seems to have meandered away from human rights to our views on the prison system.
pb wrote:
> I agree with most of it, but disagree with the Death Penalty.
>
> If it's purely for keeping people from committing crime it
> doesn't work. Look at the US and other countries that still have
> it.
For myself I don't believe in the death penalty purely for keeping people from committing crimes. I believe in it as a way of ridding our society of people who should ever be let out of prison. I know that is a simplistic answer and point of view but I've yet to find anyone who can change my mind for me.
> And what happens with those cases where a seemingly open and
> shut case has turned out that the prisoner wasn't actually the
> right person in the end, how do you then bring them back from the
> dead?
I did mention that I'd winced after posting I believed in the death penalty but it doesn't change my stance.
>
> With cases where we are almost certain or 100% sure (if that's
> ever possible)
I believe that the same forensics that now prove people innocent (or at least introduce reasonable doubt) of committing crimes many years ago can also prove 100% guilt.
Everything else we seem to agree on :)
pb wrote:
> I agree with most of it, but disagree with the Death Penalty.
>
> If it's purely for keeping people from committing crime it
> doesn't work. Look at the US and other countries that still have
> it.
For myself I don't believe in the death penalty purely for keeping people from committing crimes. I believe in it as a way of ridding our society of people who should ever be let out of prison. I know that is a simplistic answer and point of view but I've yet to find anyone who can change my mind for me.
> And what happens with those cases where a seemingly open and
> shut case has turned out that the prisoner wasn't actually the
> right person in the end, how do you then bring them back from the
> dead?
I did mention that I'd winced after posting I believed in the death penalty but it doesn't change my stance.
>
> With cases where we are almost certain or 100% sure (if that's
> ever possible)
I believe that the same forensics that now prove people innocent (or at least introduce reasonable doubt) of committing crimes many years ago can also prove 100% guilt.
Everything else we seem to agree on :)
The prisoners seem to have a better life than the homeless people on our streets. In other words, it's not prison at all. I mean come on, they get the likes of Sky TV. Our house doesn't even have Sky TV. They also get the basics, food and bed. And what I found ridiculous, they get a wage! Ok, they have to put up with some pretty rough company, but apart from that, it sounds better in there than it does out here.
My views are in the post below! :D
For non-serious offences then it's fair enough to make prisons a deterrent without making them too uncomfortable, there certainly needs to be a clear divide between prisoners who have committed different crimes as we know from statistics that petty criminals can be persuaded to go further after meeting others in prison.
For serious crime (which I'd count as murder (not homicide), rape, serious child offences) then prisoners shouldn't even mix with one another, they should be given trained councillors to work through issues in the hope of re-rehabilitation, regular psych evaluations and basic amenities (a cell with basic functions and food to sustain them but nothing fancy).
For those who are considered mentally unstable for whatever reason there should be better help, Asylums have a stigma to them but the modern equivalent would be nothing like what people think of as these old fashioned institutions.
For non-serious offences then it's fair enough to make prisons a deterrent without making them too uncomfortable, there certainly needs to be a clear divide between prisoners who have committed different crimes as we know from statistics that petty criminals can be persuaded to go further after meeting others in prison.
For serious crime (which I'd count as murder (not homicide), rape, serious child offences) then prisoners shouldn't even mix with one another, they should be given trained councillors to work through issues in the hope of re-rehabilitation, regular psych evaluations and basic amenities (a cell with basic functions and food to sustain them but nothing fancy).
For those who are considered mentally unstable for whatever reason there should be better help, Asylums have a stigma to them but the modern equivalent would be nothing like what people think of as these old fashioned institutions.
Ooops - you replied while I typed out my last post ><
Page: