The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Hanging has been the principal form of execution in Britain since the 5th Century, although other methods such as drowning, burial alive, hurling from cliffs, beheading, boiling alive and shooting have been used at various times. Here are a few facts about the death penalty:-
1) 5th Century. Hanging first introduced as a method of execution in Anglo-Saxon Britain.
2) 1196. William Fitz Osbert became the first to hang at Tyburn (for sedition).
3) Circa 1500. Eight capital crimes defined : Treason, petty treason, murder, robbery, larceny, rape and arson.
4) 1787. Transportation replaced hanging, in practice, for many felonies. In the decade 1784 - 1793 there were 434 hangings ordered by the London and Middlesex court (which became the Old Bailey). In the next ten years this dropped to 165 and to 119 in the decade from 1804 - 1813. Prisoners convicted of a first time felony (other than murder, coining forgery and arson) frequently had their death sentences commuted to transportation and this practice carried on until around 1857 by which time very few people were being hanged for crimes other than murder. The minimum time of transportation was 7 years and could be up to the rest of the prisoner's life. Only about 5% of those sentenced to transportation actually ever returned to Britain. Transportation was formally abolished in 1868.
5) 18th March 1789. The last burning at the stake took place at Newgate when Catherine (or Christian) Murphy was executed for High Treason (coining).
6) 1814 Last hanging under the "Black Act" - William Potter for the crime of cutting down an orchard. Even the judge petitioned for a reprieve!
7) 1861. Criminal Law Consolidation Act reduced the number of capital crimes to four : murder, treason (including arson in Royal Naval dockyards), mutiny and piracy.
8) 26th May 1868. Last fully public hanging in England. Michael Barrett at Newgate for the Fenian bombing at Clerkenwell which killed seven people.
9) 1902. Holloway converted to become London's female prison.
10) 1908. The execution of persons under 16 outlawed by the Children's Act of that year.
11) 1931. Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931. Pregnant women were no longer to be hanged after giving birth. (Mary Ann Cotton became the last to suffer at Durham Castle on 24th March 1873, her baby being taken from her before execution)
12) 27th January 1999. The Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to then but it was extremely unlikely that even if anyone had been convicted of these crimes over the preceeding 30 years that they would have actually been executed. Successive Home Secretaries had always reprieved persons sentenced to death in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man where the death sentence for murder could still be passed and the Royal Prerogative was observed.
In Britain, between abolition in 1964 and 1999, the murder rate more than doubled (to around 750 per annum) and there have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the same period, according to Home Office statistics. Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965 - 1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true it does not tell one how society has changed over the those 34 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct, whilst tight gun control has reduced the number of shootings. However stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have "looked at me funny" or "been eyeing up my girlfriend" i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in America greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries (e.g. Josie Russell).
But will Britain restore capital punishment in the future? In the short term (say the next 10 years) the answer is definitely not. Successive free votes on the issue in the Commons have failed to get anywhere near a majority for restoration. There is no doubt that capital punishment is a very emotive issue and there is a strong anti death penalty lobby in this country who would put every obstacle in the way of it's return should it ever become likely.
Re-introduction of something that has been abolished is always much more difficult than introducing something entirely new.
Politically it would also be very difficult given our membership of the EU and our commitment to European Convention on Human Rights, both of which are strongly against capital punishment. The EU contains no member states that practice it and will not allow retentionist states to join. The present Labour government is implacably opposed to capital punishment and has removed it from the statute book for the few remaining offences for which it was still theoretically allowed.
There is also considerable concern at the number of convictions that are being declared unsafe by the Courts, particularly for the most serious offences such as murder and terrorism. Support for the death penalty in Britain seems to be slowly diminishing particularly amongst young people.
Yet we live in a time of ever rising serious crime. Will people become so fed up with escalating levels of crime and what they see in, most cases, as derisory punishments that they will support anything that appears likely to reduce crime and redress the balance? Or do they see the return of capital punishment as a return to barbarity?
I feel that capital punishment should be restored as it will stop people from commiting a lot of crimes. As I said earlier, most crimes have risen since the death penalty was abolished…. People will think… if I kill this person then I will die myself, and they don’t want that, so they won’t do it in the first place.
How do you feel on the subject??? Are you for or against Capital Punishment?
1) 5th Century. Hanging first introduced as a method of execution in Anglo-Saxon Britain.
2) 1196. William Fitz Osbert became the first to hang at Tyburn (for sedition).
3) Circa 1500. Eight capital crimes defined : Treason, petty treason, murder, robbery, larceny, rape and arson.
4) 1787. Transportation replaced hanging, in practice, for many felonies. In the decade 1784 - 1793 there were 434 hangings ordered by the London and Middlesex court (which became the Old Bailey). In the next ten years this dropped to 165 and to 119 in the decade from 1804 - 1813. Prisoners convicted of a first time felony (other than murder, coining forgery and arson) frequently had their death sentences commuted to transportation and this practice carried on until around 1857 by which time very few people were being hanged for crimes other than murder. The minimum time of transportation was 7 years and could be up to the rest of the prisoner's life. Only about 5% of those sentenced to transportation actually ever returned to Britain. Transportation was formally abolished in 1868.
5) 18th March 1789. The last burning at the stake took place at Newgate when Catherine (or Christian) Murphy was executed for High Treason (coining).
6) 1814 Last hanging under the "Black Act" - William Potter for the crime of cutting down an orchard. Even the judge petitioned for a reprieve!
7) 1861. Criminal Law Consolidation Act reduced the number of capital crimes to four : murder, treason (including arson in Royal Naval dockyards), mutiny and piracy.
8) 26th May 1868. Last fully public hanging in England. Michael Barrett at Newgate for the Fenian bombing at Clerkenwell which killed seven people.
9) 1902. Holloway converted to become London's female prison.
10) 1908. The execution of persons under 16 outlawed by the Children's Act of that year.
11) 1931. Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931. Pregnant women were no longer to be hanged after giving birth. (Mary Ann Cotton became the last to suffer at Durham Castle on 24th March 1873, her baby being taken from her before execution)
12) 27th January 1999. The Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to then but it was extremely unlikely that even if anyone had been convicted of these crimes over the preceeding 30 years that they would have actually been executed. Successive Home Secretaries had always reprieved persons sentenced to death in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man where the death sentence for murder could still be passed and the Royal Prerogative was observed.
In Britain, between abolition in 1964 and 1999, the murder rate more than doubled (to around 750 per annum) and there have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the same period, according to Home Office statistics. Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965 - 1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true it does not tell one how society has changed over the those 34 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct, whilst tight gun control has reduced the number of shootings. However stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have "looked at me funny" or "been eyeing up my girlfriend" i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in America greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries (e.g. Josie Russell).
But will Britain restore capital punishment in the future? In the short term (say the next 10 years) the answer is definitely not. Successive free votes on the issue in the Commons have failed to get anywhere near a majority for restoration. There is no doubt that capital punishment is a very emotive issue and there is a strong anti death penalty lobby in this country who would put every obstacle in the way of it's return should it ever become likely.
Re-introduction of something that has been abolished is always much more difficult than introducing something entirely new.
Politically it would also be very difficult given our membership of the EU and our commitment to European Convention on Human Rights, both of which are strongly against capital punishment. The EU contains no member states that practice it and will not allow retentionist states to join. The present Labour government is implacably opposed to capital punishment and has removed it from the statute book for the few remaining offences for which it was still theoretically allowed.
There is also considerable concern at the number of convictions that are being declared unsafe by the Courts, particularly for the most serious offences such as murder and terrorism. Support for the death penalty in Britain seems to be slowly diminishing particularly amongst young people.
Yet we live in a time of ever rising serious crime. Will people become so fed up with escalating levels of crime and what they see in, most cases, as derisory punishments that they will support anything that appears likely to reduce crime and redress the balance? Or do they see the return of capital punishment as a return to barbarity?
I feel that capital punishment should be restored as it will stop people from commiting a lot of crimes. As I said earlier, most crimes have risen since the death penalty was abolished…. People will think… if I kill this person then I will die myself, and they don’t want that, so they won’t do it in the first place.
How do you feel on the subject??? Are you for or against Capital Punishment?
Page:
> Capital punishment will always be a controversial subject. Arguments
> for and against it will continue to fly to and fro.
especially if you start topic asking people for their opinon :)
> for and against it will continue to fly to and fro.
especially if you start topic asking people for their opinon :)
I still think we should start deporting criminals out to Australia again.
Not like coastal regions, but bland outbakc areas. Just sit them in some inescapable compound, with a few vegetables growing in the ground. If they want to live, they have to learn to behave.
Not that we care, since they'll never be allowed back to the UK.
Not like coastal regions, but bland outbakc areas. Just sit them in some inescapable compound, with a few vegetables growing in the ground. If they want to live, they have to learn to behave.
Not that we care, since they'll never be allowed back to the UK.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. The main objective of capital punishment is not deterrence, but punishment. In the first place, it is not called capital deterrence. It is called capital punishment because the state has the God-given right to punish the murderer for his crime. Second, the deterrence argument is a farce in a land where the death penalty is so sparsely used. If the extreme punishment were consistently and regularly carried out, we might see that deterrence is very much a factor!
Two basic reasons exist for the death penalty in the Old Testament. First, is the fact that all human being are created in the image of God and life is therefore precious (Genesis 1:26-27). The connection of the death penalty for murder, at this point, comes from Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Taking away the life of another is the highest crime that can be committed against another, or society. The reason is the intrinsic value of human life in its divine connection.
Capital punishment will always be a controversial subject. Arguments for and against it will continue to fly to and fro.
Two basic reasons exist for the death penalty in the Old Testament. First, is the fact that all human being are created in the image of God and life is therefore precious (Genesis 1:26-27). The connection of the death penalty for murder, at this point, comes from Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Taking away the life of another is the highest crime that can be committed against another, or society. The reason is the intrinsic value of human life in its divine connection.
Capital punishment will always be a controversial subject. Arguments for and against it will continue to fly to and fro.
My point exactly - use them as some kind of free council labour force so they could actually put something back as part of their punishment
I know this is slightly off topic ....
Did you see that Jeffry archer has been attending parties and going out for meals and stuff while he has been a 'prisoner'.
I know he is no danger to society so there is really no need to keep him locked up, but couldn't he be doing something more useful to society than eating at posh restaurants and drinking champaign. Like a bit of picking up litter or cleaning up housing estates.
Did you see that Jeffry archer has been attending parties and going out for meals and stuff while he has been a 'prisoner'.
I know he is no danger to society so there is really no need to keep him locked up, but couldn't he be doing something more useful to society than eating at posh restaurants and drinking champaign. Like a bit of picking up litter or cleaning up housing estates.
I'm against Capital punishment but I do think prisons these days are just too soft.
Bring back the chain gangs, make the people who commit crimes actually pay something back to society - whats wrong with getting these people to actually do some good old fashioned hard labour as part of their initial punishment and rehabilitation programme.
Just sticking them in a carpeted room with a telly and a Playstation is not proving to be enough of a deterrent.
Bring back the chain gangs, make the people who commit crimes actually pay something back to society - whats wrong with getting these people to actually do some good old fashioned hard labour as part of their initial punishment and rehabilitation programme.
Just sticking them in a carpeted room with a telly and a Playstation is not proving to be enough of a deterrent.
BlondeBombShell wrote:
> But you are teaching them a lesson they will obviously never
> forget.... the majority of prisoners who get out of prison usually
> commit the same crime they went in there for once they get out. It is
> telling the public "you kill - you will die yourself"
You are not 'teaching them a lesson they will never forget'. Capital punishment is just that Punishment NOT reform. The only argument I can see any merit in for capital punishment is that it isn't fair to make the tax payer pay for the housing and care etc. of Murderers.
>
>
> Anyway someone has to pull the lever, push the switch, inject the
> drug
> etc...... Its not really very fair on them. I couldn't go home and
> sleep at night after doing that.
>
> The person would have applied for the job and will know what they will
> know what they are getting themselves into.... it's not as if they
> will be pulling people off the street and saying "you're gonna
> kill so and so today and you have no choice....."
I'm not sugesting that you do tell people that they have no choice, I just think resonable people wouldn't want the job, and anyone who did take the job would have to have their motives checkede (if it were possible)
>
> Do you know that the Rampton hospital, the one that Ian Huntly is in,
> takes them to weekly cinema visits and they have there own TV in there
> room, with magazines and all the luxuries you can imagine..... This
> was in a newspaper and one of the ex security men was being
> interviewed in the report.
Rampton is for ill people, people who may not have any control over what they are doing, and people who may be very confused. They are in Rampton because they are a dangor to society not as a punishment. Any one off us caould fall prey to mental illness at any time.
> I think prison is bliss now-a-days. Although I have also heard that
> Holloways is a nasty prison and the guards are nasty. I'm not saying
> that everyone who commit the worst crimes should been killed for their
> punishment.... but i think that if there is substancial evidence
> proving that the person killed with out a doubt
Although you may be able to find people guilty beyong reasonable doubt, I think what you are suggesting calls for them to be found guily beyond any doubt which is nearly impossible. Also, is it fair to say the death sentance may only be given in cases where there is enough evidence to give it, this is surely unfair. Since a person is innocent until proved guilty cases where people are not proved guily shouldn't be given a guilty verdict. I don't think you can segregate between 'we are almost sure this person is guilty' and 'we are definitly sure this person is guilty'. The justice system has to be able to give either a Guilty or Not guilty verdict. To start partitioning Guilty Verdicts would make a laughing stock of our justice system (c.f. America). Wether you like it or not, there are always going to be wong verdicts and until we find away to stop wrong verdicts I think the death sentance is unethical.
> they should be
> punished in the only way they will understand.......
Justice isn't about punishment it is about either reform of a prisoner or keeping the public safe. Punishment without reform is barbaric in my opinon.
> But you are teaching them a lesson they will obviously never
> forget.... the majority of prisoners who get out of prison usually
> commit the same crime they went in there for once they get out. It is
> telling the public "you kill - you will die yourself"
You are not 'teaching them a lesson they will never forget'. Capital punishment is just that Punishment NOT reform. The only argument I can see any merit in for capital punishment is that it isn't fair to make the tax payer pay for the housing and care etc. of Murderers.
>
>
> Anyway someone has to pull the lever, push the switch, inject the
> drug
> etc...... Its not really very fair on them. I couldn't go home and
> sleep at night after doing that.
>
> The person would have applied for the job and will know what they will
> know what they are getting themselves into.... it's not as if they
> will be pulling people off the street and saying "you're gonna
> kill so and so today and you have no choice....."
I'm not sugesting that you do tell people that they have no choice, I just think resonable people wouldn't want the job, and anyone who did take the job would have to have their motives checkede (if it were possible)
>
> Do you know that the Rampton hospital, the one that Ian Huntly is in,
> takes them to weekly cinema visits and they have there own TV in there
> room, with magazines and all the luxuries you can imagine..... This
> was in a newspaper and one of the ex security men was being
> interviewed in the report.
Rampton is for ill people, people who may not have any control over what they are doing, and people who may be very confused. They are in Rampton because they are a dangor to society not as a punishment. Any one off us caould fall prey to mental illness at any time.
> I think prison is bliss now-a-days. Although I have also heard that
> Holloways is a nasty prison and the guards are nasty. I'm not saying
> that everyone who commit the worst crimes should been killed for their
> punishment.... but i think that if there is substancial evidence
> proving that the person killed with out a doubt
Although you may be able to find people guilty beyong reasonable doubt, I think what you are suggesting calls for them to be found guily beyond any doubt which is nearly impossible. Also, is it fair to say the death sentance may only be given in cases where there is enough evidence to give it, this is surely unfair. Since a person is innocent until proved guilty cases where people are not proved guily shouldn't be given a guilty verdict. I don't think you can segregate between 'we are almost sure this person is guilty' and 'we are definitly sure this person is guilty'. The justice system has to be able to give either a Guilty or Not guilty verdict. To start partitioning Guilty Verdicts would make a laughing stock of our justice system (c.f. America). Wether you like it or not, there are always going to be wong verdicts and until we find away to stop wrong verdicts I think the death sentance is unethical.
> they should be
> punished in the only way they will understand.......
Justice isn't about punishment it is about either reform of a prisoner or keeping the public safe. Punishment without reform is barbaric in my opinon.
Rosalind wrote:
> But then you have committed the crime that they committed in the first
> place, and therefore you are just as bad.
>
But you are teaching them a lesson they will obviously never forget.... the majority of prisoners who get out of prison usually commit the same crime they went in there for once they get out. It is telling the public "you kill - you will die yourself"
> Anyway someone has to pull the lever, push the switch, inject the drug
> etc...... Its not really very fair on them. I couldn't go home and
> sleep at night after doing that.
The person would have applied for the job and will know what they will know what they are getting themselves into.... it's not as if they will be pulling people off the street and saying "you're gonna kill so and so today and you have no choice....."
Do you know that the Rampton hospital, the one that Ian Huntly is in, takes them to weekly cinema visits and they have there own TV in there room, with magazines and all the luxuries you can imagine..... This was in a newspaper and one of the ex security men was being interviewed in the report.
I think prison is bliss now-a-days. Although I have also heard that Holloways is a nasty prison and the guards are nasty. I'm not saying that everyone who commit the worst crimes should been killed for their punishment.... but i think that if there is substancial evidence proving that the person killed with out a doubt, they should be punished in the only way they will understand.......
> But then you have committed the crime that they committed in the first
> place, and therefore you are just as bad.
>
But you are teaching them a lesson they will obviously never forget.... the majority of prisoners who get out of prison usually commit the same crime they went in there for once they get out. It is telling the public "you kill - you will die yourself"
> Anyway someone has to pull the lever, push the switch, inject the drug
> etc...... Its not really very fair on them. I couldn't go home and
> sleep at night after doing that.
The person would have applied for the job and will know what they will know what they are getting themselves into.... it's not as if they will be pulling people off the street and saying "you're gonna kill so and so today and you have no choice....."
Do you know that the Rampton hospital, the one that Ian Huntly is in, takes them to weekly cinema visits and they have there own TV in there room, with magazines and all the luxuries you can imagine..... This was in a newspaper and one of the ex security men was being interviewed in the report.
I think prison is bliss now-a-days. Although I have also heard that Holloways is a nasty prison and the guards are nasty. I'm not saying that everyone who commit the worst crimes should been killed for their punishment.... but i think that if there is substancial evidence proving that the person killed with out a doubt, they should be punished in the only way they will understand.......
> and this is only my point of view... i feel that is someone kills
> someone else and it is 100% certain they did the crime..... i think
> they should be punished by giving them the punishment they are being
> punished for..... if you get what i mean.....
But then you have committed the crime that they committed in the first place, and therefore you are just as bad.
Anyway someone has to pull the lever, push the switch, inject the drug etc...... Its not really very fair on them. I couldn't go home and sleep at night after doing that.
> someone else and it is 100% certain they did the crime..... i think
> they should be punished by giving them the punishment they are being
> punished for..... if you get what i mean.....
But then you have committed the crime that they committed in the first place, and therefore you are just as bad.
Anyway someone has to pull the lever, push the switch, inject the drug etc...... Its not really very fair on them. I couldn't go home and sleep at night after doing that.
Belldandy wrote:
> Hmm two things;
>
> 1) If a women rapes another woman or a man then how do you think they
> should be punished ? Castration would be a bit of an
> impossibility.....
>
> 2) Why should a person be killed ? Most religion's, including
> christianity, islam, buddhism e.t.c all make the point that "an
> eye for an eye" isn't right. Even if you're an atheist then human
> rights alone must say something. Does it make people feel better ?
> Heck, if it makes someone feel better lets kill some more eh ?
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
well i meant having a historectomy......
and this is only my point of view... i feel that is someone kills someone else and it is 100% certain they did the crime..... i think they should be punished by giving them the punishment they are being punished for..... if you get what i mean.....
> Hmm two things;
>
> 1) If a women rapes another woman or a man then how do you think they
> should be punished ? Castration would be a bit of an
> impossibility.....
>
> 2) Why should a person be killed ? Most religion's, including
> christianity, islam, buddhism e.t.c all make the point that "an
> eye for an eye" isn't right. Even if you're an atheist then human
> rights alone must say something. Does it make people feel better ?
> Heck, if it makes someone feel better lets kill some more eh ?
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
well i meant having a historectomy......
and this is only my point of view... i feel that is someone kills someone else and it is 100% certain they did the crime..... i think they should be punished by giving them the punishment they are being punished for..... if you get what i mean.....
Page: