The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I want to re-ignite the debate about capital punishment. With th events of the last two weeks concerning those missing girls culminating in the arrest of two people, I advocate a return of capital punishment. I don't care how they do it, but these sort of people don't deserve to live - prison is too good for them.
What do you think? Please none of this humanitarian crap defending them though - humanitarianism wasn't high on the two in question when they committed the crime, was it?
What do you think? Please none of this humanitarian crap defending them though - humanitarianism wasn't high on the two in question when they committed the crime, was it?
Page:
Rosalind wrote:
> Pop for BlondBombShell
erm... thanks
> Pop for BlondBombShell
erm... thanks
Pop for BlondBombShell
RM18, thanks a lot for 're-ingiting the debate on capital punishment'.
How can you sleep at night :o)
This is my last post.
do not take this as my admitting defeat, its just that I can't be a*sed taking part in an endless debate
How can you sleep at night :o)
This is my last post.
do not take this as my admitting defeat, its just that I can't be a*sed taking part in an endless debate
Badgerman wrote:
> Beldandy, what would you do if your own children had been sexually
> abused (Which quite posibly happened to Holly and Jessica) and then
> killed?
>
> Would you still keep your views as they are?
Again, you're not sticking to the facts but lapsing into mass media hysteria - so far we know those girls were killed, nothing else. Potentially anything could POSSIBLY have happened but all that ACTUALLY is known to have happened is they were killed.
You're saying having children gives you the right to demand Capital Punishment ? So were alll saying that Capital Punishment is only for child killers ?
Whatever the crime is, simply killing the criminal who perpetrated that crime does nothing. Is it a deterrant ? No, its seen as unlikely that a person whose going to do these kind of crimes is going to be all that bothered about being caught as they belive they won't be caught anyway. Would Capital Punishment make abductors less likely to kill those they've abducted ? Again, no. If someone has worked themselves up to do that kind of thing then they'll largely believe they won't be caught. In the current situation it appears to be pure chance that the bodies have even been found.
The best deterrant is prevention, and where that fails, a lightning fast response such as that seen in the USA because in many cases the first 24 hours is the essential time to break the case open. After that initial 24 hours you're running on luck and the public unless the criminal has been especially careless. In a recent case ( I forget the exact name ) in the USA the guy in charge of what the FBi feared was either a murder or an abduction basically went on TV and said the Police were going after him and not stopping until they had him. hat do we get, something that said the Police had no idea and were desperate.
We need improvements in our Police and state agencies to enable faster responses with more eqiupment and personnel so we can solve these crimes faster and stop abductions becoming murders.
Capitla Punishment is not part of that solution, in America it's proved to be no deterrant so why should it here ? We're more lawless in the UK than the States in every way.
~~Belldandy~~
> Beldandy, what would you do if your own children had been sexually
> abused (Which quite posibly happened to Holly and Jessica) and then
> killed?
>
> Would you still keep your views as they are?
Again, you're not sticking to the facts but lapsing into mass media hysteria - so far we know those girls were killed, nothing else. Potentially anything could POSSIBLY have happened but all that ACTUALLY is known to have happened is they were killed.
You're saying having children gives you the right to demand Capital Punishment ? So were alll saying that Capital Punishment is only for child killers ?
Whatever the crime is, simply killing the criminal who perpetrated that crime does nothing. Is it a deterrant ? No, its seen as unlikely that a person whose going to do these kind of crimes is going to be all that bothered about being caught as they belive they won't be caught anyway. Would Capital Punishment make abductors less likely to kill those they've abducted ? Again, no. If someone has worked themselves up to do that kind of thing then they'll largely believe they won't be caught. In the current situation it appears to be pure chance that the bodies have even been found.
The best deterrant is prevention, and where that fails, a lightning fast response such as that seen in the USA because in many cases the first 24 hours is the essential time to break the case open. After that initial 24 hours you're running on luck and the public unless the criminal has been especially careless. In a recent case ( I forget the exact name ) in the USA the guy in charge of what the FBi feared was either a murder or an abduction basically went on TV and said the Police were going after him and not stopping until they had him. hat do we get, something that said the Police had no idea and were desperate.
We need improvements in our Police and state agencies to enable faster responses with more eqiupment and personnel so we can solve these crimes faster and stop abductions becoming murders.
Capitla Punishment is not part of that solution, in America it's proved to be no deterrant so why should it here ? We're more lawless in the UK than the States in every way.
~~Belldandy~~
Beldandy, what would you do if your own children had been sexually abused (Which quite posibly happened to Holly and Jessica) and then killed?
Would you still keep your views as they are?
Would you still keep your views as they are?
Badgerman wrote:
> People that commit crimes as hanus as murdering two little girls
> should be killed.
>
> People like that have given up all human rights and deserve to die.
>
> Like the old saying goes
>
> "An eye for an eye"
You think it would be a good idea to let the public decide for whom human rights are suspended ? I just don't get this ! Last September over two thousand people died in the WTC attack - America asked Europe to extradite several people who would face the death penalty in the US if convicted and Europe refused and general public opinion was that Europe was right. Now its all changed because two people are dead ?
As usual the British public is demonstrating its rather short attention spans and simply jumping onto the proverbial band wagon with this whole thing. Pretty soon debate over Capital Punishment, what should happen to the two accused e.t.c is going to overshadow the deaths of those two girls.
Then in a months time the public will have forgotten them. Don't think it won't happen - it will, it happened with 9/11, its happened with Sarah Payne, its happened with the Middle East, India, the famine in Africa, - as soon as it stops becoming good tv viewing thats it, next story; this is wrong and we shouldn't forget, but most of us will.
As for "an eye for an eye"......if anyone wants to live that far in the past then go ahead. I don't know what it says if you'd gain satisfaction from the killing of two more people, I mean why stop at two eh ? Lets kill every child murderer ! Lets form a big crowd and toss these people into it and let mob justice rule...... I think not.
Capital Punishment comes down to this, for its supporters anyway; Could you be the one to shoot, inject or personally hang a criminal with others watching you, and then watch them die ?
~~Belldandy~~
> People that commit crimes as hanus as murdering two little girls
> should be killed.
>
> People like that have given up all human rights and deserve to die.
>
> Like the old saying goes
>
> "An eye for an eye"
You think it would be a good idea to let the public decide for whom human rights are suspended ? I just don't get this ! Last September over two thousand people died in the WTC attack - America asked Europe to extradite several people who would face the death penalty in the US if convicted and Europe refused and general public opinion was that Europe was right. Now its all changed because two people are dead ?
As usual the British public is demonstrating its rather short attention spans and simply jumping onto the proverbial band wagon with this whole thing. Pretty soon debate over Capital Punishment, what should happen to the two accused e.t.c is going to overshadow the deaths of those two girls.
Then in a months time the public will have forgotten them. Don't think it won't happen - it will, it happened with 9/11, its happened with Sarah Payne, its happened with the Middle East, India, the famine in Africa, - as soon as it stops becoming good tv viewing thats it, next story; this is wrong and we shouldn't forget, but most of us will.
As for "an eye for an eye"......if anyone wants to live that far in the past then go ahead. I don't know what it says if you'd gain satisfaction from the killing of two more people, I mean why stop at two eh ? Lets kill every child murderer ! Lets form a big crowd and toss these people into it and let mob justice rule...... I think not.
Capital Punishment comes down to this, for its supporters anyway; Could you be the one to shoot, inject or personally hang a criminal with others watching you, and then watch them die ?
~~Belldandy~~
<- Pappa Lazarou -> wrote:
> Ever thought maybe some people like prison? Or worse still, don't
> care where they end up. Those people don't fear being locked up.
> They simply think, with enthusiasm, about who they can hurt when they
> get out.
And some people would prefer death to prison, as some hang themselves/slit wrists, etc. while in prison. You have said you want them punished, if they prefer death, punishing them is to keep them alive in prison for their lifetime. And anyway, those who don't care, like prison, etc. do you really think there are many of them? I'd be guessing, but I'd say those type of people would be a tiny minority of people, so what are you going to do, base the whole justice system around a tiny minority of criminals?
> Ever thought maybe some people like prison? Or worse still, don't
> care where they end up. Those people don't fear being locked up.
> They simply think, with enthusiasm, about who they can hurt when they
> get out.
And some people would prefer death to prison, as some hang themselves/slit wrists, etc. while in prison. You have said you want them punished, if they prefer death, punishing them is to keep them alive in prison for their lifetime. And anyway, those who don't care, like prison, etc. do you really think there are many of them? I'd be guessing, but I'd say those type of people would be a tiny minority of people, so what are you going to do, base the whole justice system around a tiny minority of criminals?
Read Mr. Happys post again. The people you are talking about are those Mr. Happy sited as 'inherintly evil' and he did say these should be locked up, and for good, as if some people are naturally evil, then they are beyond help. But they are in the minority. Unless you are ready to say everyone in prison is inherently evil, then you can't say they are all beyond help.
If you give people the means to survive and prosper without the need for crime, then it's likely (more likely anyway...) that they won't revert to their old ways. And by the way, if someone is mentally unstable they may have no control over their actions. Pleading insanity is probably over-used in the modern day justice system, but if a person really is not of sound mind you cannot justify killing them. The 'real' person inside may have had no control over what they were doing. The killer is the insanity. In effect the real person is innocent.
If you give people the means to survive and prosper without the need for crime, then it's likely (more likely anyway...) that they won't revert to their old ways. And by the way, if someone is mentally unstable they may have no control over their actions. Pleading insanity is probably over-used in the modern day justice system, but if a person really is not of sound mind you cannot justify killing them. The 'real' person inside may have had no control over what they were doing. The killer is the insanity. In effect the real person is innocent.
it's fairly obvious that we are never going to resolve this. I do not accept I am wrong any more than you do.
I believe some people, through their actions, show themselves to be sub-human, without any real thought for their own or others well-being. There are rules in life. Those who choose to 'screw those rules' need to be punished. The best punishment policy is an eye for an eye in my view.
In your view, I could be sat here at my PC thinking "I'm going to kill all my friends tomorrow". Then carry it out, safe in the knowledge I will at least go on living. Sure, my lifestyle will be a lot worse, but no worse than the poor people in 3rd world countries. The important thing is I'll be alive, and still able to influence others, in my much reduced circle of influence. And my victims will not. For they will be dead. Life is the biggest gift you get. You are saying those who take others without any thought, deserve to have one themselves.
Ever thought maybe some people like prison? Or worse still, don't care where they end up. Those people don't fear being locked up. They simply think, with enthusiasm, about who they can hurt when they get out.
These people need to be put down like rabid dogs, as I said earlier.
I believe some people, through their actions, show themselves to be sub-human, without any real thought for their own or others well-being. There are rules in life. Those who choose to 'screw those rules' need to be punished. The best punishment policy is an eye for an eye in my view.
In your view, I could be sat here at my PC thinking "I'm going to kill all my friends tomorrow". Then carry it out, safe in the knowledge I will at least go on living. Sure, my lifestyle will be a lot worse, but no worse than the poor people in 3rd world countries. The important thing is I'll be alive, and still able to influence others, in my much reduced circle of influence. And my victims will not. For they will be dead. Life is the biggest gift you get. You are saying those who take others without any thought, deserve to have one themselves.
Ever thought maybe some people like prison? Or worse still, don't care where they end up. Those people don't fear being locked up. They simply think, with enthusiasm, about who they can hurt when they get out.
These people need to be put down like rabid dogs, as I said earlier.
I'm afraid papa you are wrong. Capital punishment has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent in the USA. Their prisons are still full and their serious crime figures ever rising. I have made the point in this thread before, but I will say it again, whatever sanction you have for a crime is ultimately ineffective because criminals do not contemplate the implications of their actions in the heat of the moment. Fine you may get some Mafia bigshots who are aware of the legal implications of their crimes, but they do not make up the majority of cases dealt with by courts. Here the counter-argument splits into two equally compelling routes.
Firstly, in order to deter crime you must thus increase the chance of being caught rather than the severity of the punishment. If a criminal was in no doubt that they would be caught if they committed a crime, the chance of them going through with it would be minimal. This could be achieved by the establishment of a national DNA library, which would effectively allow a far greater number of crimes to be solved using far less resources.
Secondly, you must consider that the two people charged in association with the deaths of Holly and Jessica are not going to represent the majority of people who commit capital crimes. As in America, the majority of those who would be on death row would be those poor in finances and education, from racial minorities. People who need help not punishment. From your argument, the main thrust appears to be that the death penalty must be employed because it is the ultimate sanction and therefore the ultimate deterrent.
Unfortunately it is the ultimate solution as well, that is the final action that can be taken because all other opportunities to reduce crime have been missed. If you want to reduce crime then it would be far better to target it at its beginnings than destroy it at the end of the road anyway. It is better to stop a crime before it is commited than punish after it has been done. In order to do this you must tackle the roots. And they are poverty and poor education, addiction to drugs and social problems. The vast majority of crime could be reduced if the government tried to clean up deprived areas, improve schooling and aimed for a more equal welfare system.
To reduce crime further surely it would be better to treat these criminals rather than kill them? To help them gain an education inside prison. Maybe prison would be cushier, but that could prove more effective. Instead of coming out better criminals who had wasted years of their life, they might emerge as skilled workers with opportunites who had profited from their sejourn at her majesty's pleasure.
I do accept that some people are inherently evil and no amount of treatment will stop them returning to crime, but these should be the only people in our prisons, not a minority. Crime reduction must be the aim of the death penalty, and it has been proven not only to be ineffective, but to have superior alternatives.
Firstly, in order to deter crime you must thus increase the chance of being caught rather than the severity of the punishment. If a criminal was in no doubt that they would be caught if they committed a crime, the chance of them going through with it would be minimal. This could be achieved by the establishment of a national DNA library, which would effectively allow a far greater number of crimes to be solved using far less resources.
Secondly, you must consider that the two people charged in association with the deaths of Holly and Jessica are not going to represent the majority of people who commit capital crimes. As in America, the majority of those who would be on death row would be those poor in finances and education, from racial minorities. People who need help not punishment. From your argument, the main thrust appears to be that the death penalty must be employed because it is the ultimate sanction and therefore the ultimate deterrent.
Unfortunately it is the ultimate solution as well, that is the final action that can be taken because all other opportunities to reduce crime have been missed. If you want to reduce crime then it would be far better to target it at its beginnings than destroy it at the end of the road anyway. It is better to stop a crime before it is commited than punish after it has been done. In order to do this you must tackle the roots. And they are poverty and poor education, addiction to drugs and social problems. The vast majority of crime could be reduced if the government tried to clean up deprived areas, improve schooling and aimed for a more equal welfare system.
To reduce crime further surely it would be better to treat these criminals rather than kill them? To help them gain an education inside prison. Maybe prison would be cushier, but that could prove more effective. Instead of coming out better criminals who had wasted years of their life, they might emerge as skilled workers with opportunites who had profited from their sejourn at her majesty's pleasure.
I do accept that some people are inherently evil and no amount of treatment will stop them returning to crime, but these should be the only people in our prisons, not a minority. Crime reduction must be the aim of the death penalty, and it has been proven not only to be ineffective, but to have superior alternatives.
Page: