bring back hanging yes or no? - Page 2

olivierd · August 4th, 2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharkhunter

Yes. When I look at a face such as that of Ian Huntley or Levi Bellfield I just want to do the job myself.

It's true that the executioners have very pretty faces.

William Marwood

William Calcraft

**Mad Koala Bear** · August 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM

Quite simply, no.

**Mal Hombre** · August 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM

Fred West wasn't too afraid of hanging.

**steve40** · August 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM

in cases of child murderers, serial killers and known fanatical terrorists, i would say hang those pieces of filth and it would save us money by not having to pay to keep them in prison so in those cases i would say to them enjoy the drop.

**Markus R** · August 4th, 2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Fred West wasn't too afraid of hanging.

Neither was Harold Shipman

**Greenman** · August 4th, 2011, 06:59 PM

It is easy to get caught up in the whole bring back hanging yes or no thing because obviously for such heinous crimes like paedophilia and murder as well as indiscriminate bombing and rape it should be BUT I agree with our American colleague above, you had better be 100% sure of the facts and have evidence to back it up or you could be killling an innocent person-remember justice has been proven to be corrupt at times and in the past people have been executed and only now it has come to light that vital evidence could have saved them. And I wonder what sort of person would have the stomach to actually carry it out. You could argue that we had here some really awful ways to lose your life, like beheadings, normal hangings and being hung, drawn and quartered which is not a pretty sight-but it is quick whereas something like being stoned(and I don't mean being drunk) by a rampaging mob, electricution or lethal injection could be seen as prolonging the agony which personally is even more barbaric from one human to another.

I would cite the recent case of the woman who was blinded by acid by her husband and wanted to get revenge by doing the same thing, in that she was ready to pour drops of acid onto his eyes-literally an eye for an eye as she said, but decided not to go through with it and wanted compensation instead-she was urged to not do this by her family-so my question is, yes we ought to punish the worst crimes imaginable as stated here but gaol(jail) solitary for life-and life MUST mean life not just a sentence that might be commuted for good behaviour in the future. Facts must be presented and be 100% irrefutable otherwise you could kill or lock up someone who is proved later to be innocent.

**sweatyhat** · August 4th, 2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

In theory yes. But too many mistakes can be made. And I don't think it is a deterrent. In fact letting scum like Ian Huntley Rose West and others rot in jail is a better punishment than hanging.

You're right, Billy,

In the years leading up to her death, Myra Hindley was climbing the walls, begging to be freed. Only Lord Longford thought her "a nice girl."

Peter Coonan (nee Sutcliffe) has been to court claiming his "human" rights are denied by his whole of life sentence. He's also going stir crazy.

**Sharkhunter** · August 4th, 2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

In theory yes. But too many mistakes can be made. And I don't think it is a deterrent. In fact letting scum like Ian Huntley Rose West and others rot in jail is a better punishment than hanging.

It is as much a deterrent in that it removes the offender from circulation - and saves the taxpayer a shedload of money. I cannot even begin to think how much it costs to keep someone like Huntley, Bellfield or Rose West locked away - I think you could probably cover two high-paid company executives and have more than a little change.

**Sharkhunter** · August 4th, 2011, 07:08 PM

Check this story out for example. 74 years between the seven of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oolboy-16.html

Fan · August 4th, 2011, 07:16 PM

Hanging for some offences yes, such as child murder and terrorist acts; but not as a result of a majority jury decision: after all they have been known to get it wrong! Evidence must be absolute and irrefutable, but in this day and age of video technology and DNA science, that surely isn't too much to ask.

August 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM	#13
Mal Hombre El Super Moderador Join Date: May 2009 Location: Adoptive Monkey Hanger Posts: 58,117 Thanks: 772,459 Thanked 855,389 Times in 57,547 Posts	Fred West wasn't too afraid of hanging. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If in doubt, Just ask Yourself What Would Max Do ? It is a porn site,But its a Classy porn site. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

August 4th, 2011, 06:59 PM	#16
Greenman Live Legend of VEF Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Underground lair somewhere in the world Posts: 20,353 Thanks: 30,936 Thanked 383,484 Times in 19,356 Posts	It is easy to get caught up in the whole bring back hanging yes or no thing because obviously for such heinous crimes like paedophilia and murder as well as indiscriminate bombing and rape it should be BUT I agree with our American colleague above, you had better be 100% sure of the facts and have evidence to back it up or you could be killling an innocent person-remember justice has been proven to be corrupt at times and in the past people have been executed and only now it has come to light that vital evidence could have saved them. And I wonder what sort of person would have the stomach to actually carry it out. You could argue that we had here some really awful ways to lose your life, like beheadings, normal hangings and being hung, drawn and quartered which is not a pretty sight-but it is quick whereas something like being stoned(and I don't mean being drunk) by a rampaging mob, electricution or lethal injection could be seen as prolonging the agony which personally is even more barbaric from one human to another. I would cite the recent case of the woman who was blinded by acid by her husband and wanted to get revenge by doing the same thing, in that she was ready to pour drops of acid onto his eyes-literally an eye for an eye as she said, but decided not to go through with it and wanted compensation instead-she was urged to not do this by her family-so my question is, yes we ought to punish the worst crimes imaginable as stated here but gaol(jail) solitary for life-and life MUST mean life not just a sentence that might be commuted for good behaviour in the future. Facts must be presented and be 100% irrefutable otherwise you could kill or lock up someone who is proved later to be innocent. __________________ There was only ONE Greenman, and you accepted no substitutes! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Rest in peace MaxJoker-you will be sorely missed. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 20,000: Milestone reached!

August 4th, 2011, 07:08 PM	#19
Sharkhunter Gusset Man & Jizzmaster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Wanking, but not the city in China Posts: 2,037 Thanks: 5,197 Thanked 34,659 Times in 2,021 Posts	Check this story out for example. 74 years between the seven of them. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oolboy-16.html __________________ "Birth Control Tip #2431: Shoot your load in a girl's mouth or on her face instead of inside her sweet bits. Result: no expensive burden, stretch marks or saggy tits". To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

August 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM	#12
Mad Koala Bear Vintage Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 869 Thanks: 30,809 Thanked 10,733 Times in 850 Posts	Quite simply, no.

August 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM	#14
steve40 Vintage Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: here at vef Posts: 824 Thanks: 5,616 Thanked 8,800 Times in 778 Posts	in cases of child murderers, serial killers and known fanatical terrorists, i would say hang those pieces of filth and it would save us money by not having to pay to keep them in prison so in those cases i would say to them enjoy the drop.

August 4th, 2011, 07:16 PM	#20
Fan Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 173 Thanks: 10,032 Thanked 4,466 Times in 188 Posts	Hanging for some offences yes, such as child murder and terrorist acts; but not as a result of a majority jury decision: after all they have been known to get it wrong! Evidence must be absolute and irrefutable, but in this day and age of video technology and DNA science, that surely isn't too much to ask.