bring back hanging yes or no?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by spitalhouse

Most people with an axe to grind tend to disregard any statistics (no mater how authoritative) that run counter to their own prejudices (or 'gut instinct' as they prefer to call it). But they will willingly accept any theory as fact which happens to reinforce those instincts, especially when they're backed-up by personal experience - no matter how limited - or the experiences of someone they know who knows someone who's the brother of the cousin twice removed of a guy who was murdered just the other day.

And there, in a paragraph, you have explained much of what passes for public discourse.

To me, getting beyond that error is "citizenship 101". Its impossible to make good policy if you can't distinguish between anecdote and data.

So many of our policy blunders come from this one civic failure.

[moreteavicar]

Originally Posted by dorcelfan

Hanging? No...but lethal injection yes...and only in such cases that can be proved beyond all doubt.

Does this mean that there should be different classes of guilt when somebody is tried for murder? He may have done it but we're not quite sure so he gets life and the he's definitely done it so it's capital punishment for him!

Sorry for being so flippant but surely if somebody is to be found guilty the burden of guilt has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt and not to the point of "the chances are he did do it but we're not sure".

I'm sure that all guilty verdicts have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt but it hasn't stopped the innocent being found guilty in the past.

[cuzzyman927]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

You are falling for sensationalism . . . you read a story about something terrible happening somewhere, and infer that its common or increasing in frequency.

So a question for you:

How many murders are there in a "barrage"? Is that more or less than there were 5,10, or 20 years ago?

I'd refer you to the FBI, who collect uniform crime statistics from around the nation. They don't have newspapers to sell, and you'll find no sensational stories. . . just the data. The data are overwhelming, and all point in the same direction. Crime rates have fallen dramatically from 50,40,30,20, 10 and 5 years ago.



Here's a link to the full report "Crime in the United States, 2009" (most recent full report)
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/index.html

Here's a link to preliminary report "Crime in the United States, 2010" [most recent data]
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...r-jan-dec-2010

Here's a link to data on all major crimes from 1990 to 2010, in tabular form
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

Oh yes we should really put a lot of credence, trust, and belief into what the FBI and the government have to say and provide in the way of statistics ... the very ones who camouflage and cover-up UFO sightings and the Roswell incident, and call the thousands who have witnessed them the crazy ones, the Kennedy assassination ... and heaven only knows what else gets swept under the proverbial carpet that the American public is made unaware and oblivious to!

You may call it sensationalism, but I am living in the real world and not a dream world. The newspapers and evening news are filled with murders and the others forms of violence and crime that I previously described. Just look around --It is even getting unsafe for some kids/teenagers to attend school ... or to even go to a Burger King these days without some nutcase or disgruntled student/employee with a gun going in and start to open fire! (Many schools/high schools must now hire and require a police officer to be on duty to patrol the halls on a daily basis!) Who would have ever fathomed 10-15 years ago that armed police officers would need to be stationed in schools/high schools?

Senseless killings, murders, drive-by shootings (gang/drug related), rapes, child molestations, abductions, home/car invasions, domestic/family murders, armed robberies, etc, etc. occurring in thousands of cities and towns throughout the country -- and they have the audacity to claim that the crime rate is down/lower! In addition, in the last 5+ years the hurting economy and the financial deficits that many cities and towns are experiencing have led to numerous police and firemen cutbacks/layoffs all over. With less police patrolling the streets it would be preposterous to believe the crime rate is on the down slide! A slumping economy and financial deficits can only equal one thing: rising crime.

You may wish to continue believing those bogus statistic reports issued and released to further bullshit the American public into believing "all is well" and into a false sense of security -- not me -- I will continue to believe in what I can actually see for myself in what is reported and contained in the newspapers, evening news, and the news channels in the way of undisputed photos, videos, and live coverage!

By the way, a "barrage" was a term that I used to describe the number of murders/killings and major crimes that occur on a weekly basis ... and when multiplied by the number of cities and towns in the US amounts to some pretty significant numbers!

With my father having been in law enforcement for nearly 35 years you might say that I got a "bird's eye view" of law enforcement and "the system" from the inside out, not from the outside in. Often times there are things that "they" would say, minimize, "squash", or to have us believe in reports that are not accurate or what they seem.
It is unfortunate, but even more and more of those "men in blue" that we were taught at an early age to trust, admire, and respect are infiltrating into the news and making headlines with various forms of corruption and misdeeds! Trust and rely upon everything that they have to say and report -- I don't think so!

[monogroover]

Originally Posted by dogsbreath

Lately a case about a women who was charged with killing her child. The prosecutor said she killed her daughter so that she could live a "Bella Vita" life. All the evidence pointed to her yet she was acquitted. There was also a trial in the 90's where all the DNA evidence pointed to the accused yet again he was acquitted. Lethal injection is more humane in today's society. So no to hanging.

I don't think lethal injection is more humane - it seems unnecessarily drawn-out, ritualistic and ultimately cruel. Whereas hanging, if done properly, is a door opened, a noose round the neck, a quick drop and lights out.

I can't support any method of execution but if we're to ask which method is the most humane, hanging is a good candidate.

[monogroover]

Originally Posted by moreteavicar

Does this mean that there should be different classes of guilt when somebody is tried for murder? He may have done it but we're not quite sure so he gets life and the he's definitely done it so it's capital punishment for him!

At the moment it's necessary to establish guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". So yes, in the event that capital punishment was made available to the courts it might be necessary to introduce a new standard of guilt; "beyond even unreasonable doubt".

I can't see that happening so in practice what would happen is that a jury will tend to be more careful when considering a case in which the death penalty is available to the court - and greater numbers of guilty defendants will get away with it.

[Markus R]

I don't believe capital punishment will ever be reinstated in the UK.
I remember when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison in November 1994 the families of his victims felt 'cheated' that he had only served 3 years of the 15 life sentences he received. His combined sentence was something like 957 years.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by monogroover

I can't support any method of execution but if we're to ask which method is the most humane, hanging is a good candidate.

I am also against execution. But if it is to be done, the best method is shooting, imho - it requires no preparation, no equipment (except for a firearm) and almost no expertise. Above all, it is painless and without ritual

[red exposure]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

This reminds me to a little story. In a faraway land, it was decided to reinstate the death penalty. This will of course need an executioner. So they put an ad in the newspaper and shortly after that 100 people came for an job interview. It took a long time and the prospective employer had a lot of questions. Finally, one of them was taken for the job and the others went empty-handed.


The frightening part is : The other 99 still running free around.

Well, if that sad day should come when we reinstate this Penalty (we have to anticipate it might happen), I can only hope we don't hastily give this task to anyone with an axe to grind, but carefully select highly professional people with a lot of scruples about the job they have to do. People such as Albert Pierrepoint held a very dubious job as Crown Executioner, but nevertheless went to a lot of trouble to size-up every condemned man/woman so that they had the most painless and instant death possible, as professional detachment from personal assumptions of guilt/innocence are paramount here (jurors also take note), as well as having zero-tolerance toward botching-up executions (badly administered lethal-injections come to mind). But I'm hoping we don't even have to consider employing anyone for this post at anytime soon....

If anyone asks for even a criminal to experience extended suffering in addition to final death, they have to ask themselves probing questions about why suffering should provide them with satisfaction that justice has been "truly served".

[billybunter]

Originally Posted by chupachups

but what if he is innocent ?

so many miscarriages of justice, so much pressure on the police to solve the crimes

perhaps he was fitted up by plod

release him immediately !!!!!!!!

I can't stand the thought of all those innocent people in prison, I am going to write to my MP and start a petition to abolish prisons completely

Good luck with your campaign. I think in this case Ian Brady is guilty.

[spitalhouse]

Originally Posted by monogroover

I don't think lethal injection is more humane - it seems unnecessarily drawn-out, ritualistic and ultimately cruel. Whereas hanging, if done properly, is a door opened, a noose round the neck, a quick drop and lights out.

I can't support any method of execution but if we're to ask which method is the most humane, hanging is a good candidate.

In the UK from around the mid-twentieth century onwards the gallows would have been located in an execution chamber immediately adjoining the condemned cell itself, with the entrance to it disguised as a wardrobe or bookcase.

At the appointed time (9am for executions carried out in London, 8am everywhere else) the executioner would enter the cell. The condemned prisoner would be handed a glass of something intoxicating to drink (but no medication or tranquillisers of any kind) before being led by the guards to the gallows, whereupon his/her limbs would be secured and a hood placed over the head just prior to the positioning of the noose.

Albert Pierrepoint (Britain's former executioner) reckoned the whole procedure shouldn't take more than around 60-90 seconds from start to finish.

Below is a YouTube link to the execution scene from the film 'Let Him Have It', which is regarded as being very accurate in its depiction of how executions would have been conducted at the time.

Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aCcYmhc6Y

Regards.