bring back hanging yes or no?

[JAMTOMO]

The day begins to break
A muffled drums begins to sound
A crowd begins to gather in the square
The presence of the hangman in his terrifying mask
weighs heavy on the minds of all those there...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icniZeb4sMU

[LadyLuck]

The state of Tennessee recently opted to allow the use of the electric chair in place of lethal injection when the drugs are not available. Dust off Old Sparky.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/us/tennessee-executions/

The recent execution in Oklahoma that did not go as planned... I have mixed emotions about it. I am a stern supporter of the Constitution which guarantees us protection against cruel and unusual punishment. At the same time it's difficult to consider the crimes that some of the condemned have committed (the guy on Oklahoma buried a girl alive) and then have any consideration for whether they are punished i a cruel fashion.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

used rope has no giver to it and the bastards choke to death and do not go out with a broken neck.

You appear to know a lot about these things - seems a bit like sadism to me !

[scoundrel]

The death penalty is popular in no inconsiderable measure because it encourages the others, as Marshal Joffre would have put it. It is not deterrent because if people were worried about consequences there would be a lot less crime anyway. Most criminals do not expect to be caught, or else they would not do it. It is by improving policing and by reforming society so that the petty crimes are dealt with before the behaviour pattern escalates that you will make the streets safer and reduce the murder rate. Where the death penalty has always served a true purpose is that it was good for the morale of the (mostly) law abiding part of the population that justice is seen to be done when someone like Bellfield or Huntley is caught. Some crimes are so heinous that a really severe sanction is needed so that the people can be satisfied that the world is not going to the dogs.

I am against the death penalty for one reason only; we have such a track record of hanging the wrong people. Our justice system is rubbish. The American one varies from state to state but the justice system of Texas, which executes more people than all the rest of the US states put together, is appalling, far worse than the British one. Does anyone really believe that there are no innocent people on Death Row in Texas, or that the innocent ones will not be executed too? Plenty of people think that the loss of innocent lives in judicial executions is an acceptable price for haing this form of justice, but I do not think this. When I saw the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six being released, exonerated, after many years in prison and after the tabloid rags had ranted for years about what a scandal it was that they weren't hanged, I made up my mind about the death penalty. As a society, we are not fit to have it.

This does not mean we need to be soft on crime. As a matter of fact I think we are far too soft on the worst offendors, serial murderers, serial rapists and serial arsonists and the like. We should have more capacity for Class A Maximum Security prisons such as HMP Wakefield (a very disturbing place where my father was once a prison visitor); there should be more prisoners sentenced to whole of life. In principle, anyone who would have been sentenced to death and very unlikely to receive a commutation of sentence from the Home Secretary back in the day should now be getting whole of life. The large majority of them will be quite young and will be facing a minimum of 40 years in the cage and absolutely no chance of ever being let out, not even when they are dying. By the time they've done 20 of those years, most of them will be sorry they weren't hanged, and will need watching to stop them committing suicide. I would be very against letting them commit suicide; I want them to suffer, not to die.

I do not oppose the death penalty on humanitarian grounds, no indeed not.

[9876543210]

In general, I'd have to say I don't support the death penalty but I also have some reservations.

In Wisconsin we don't have the death penalty at the moment (some Republican state legislators are talking about bringing it back) but we've had a few people over the years who definitely deserved it.

A few years back we had a guy named Jeffrey Dahmer who was about as psychotic as you can get. He'd find very yound gay boys, lure them to his apartment and then kill and eat them. I think he wound up killing around 20 people. He started out by dismembering small animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

Some years before that we had another guy named Ed Gein. I guess he only killed two people but he apparently liked to tan people and make things from their skins.

http://serialkillersofwisconsin.weebly.com/ed-gein.html

And just a bit south of the border in Illinois there was another maniac named John Wayne Gacy who liked to dress up as a clown and killed at least 33 young men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

Should such people be allowed to live considering their atrocities? I guess I would say no. But there should be absolutely no doubt the person is guilty. With these three there was no doubt of their guilt. But if there is a shred of doubt then there should be no death penalty.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Should such people be allowed to live considering their atrocities? I guess I would say no. But there should be absolutely no doubt the person is guilty. With these three there was no doubt of their guilt. But if there is a shred of doubt then there should be no death penalty.

There was not a shadow of a doubt that the Birmingham Six were guilty. There was damning forensic evidence which proved that they had been handling explosives. Also, all of them confessed in police interviews, as the various officers of the West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad were happy to testify, under oath. The only problem with all this irrefutable and damning evidence is that it was all lies and fabrications, concocted on purpose to make sure that six innocent men went down. They were framed better than Everest Double Glazing. In the face of such willingness to swear away the lives of innocent men, how can there never be a shred of doubt? The law only provides for reasonable doubt, because the law recognises that complete certainty is not a practical standard.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The law only provides for reasonable doubt, because the law recognises that complete certainty is not a practical standard.

I understand exactly what you're saying. And pretty much knew I'd get called on "absolute certainty". Its probably accurate to say that you rarely ever get that.

With the three I mentioned there was no doubt of their guilt. Don't know about Gein but I think Dahmer and Gacy both admitted their guilt. So for them I didn't feel badly when they passed on.

Also, being American Indian, I'm more than familiar with "railroading". Its virtually impossible not to know lots of people who are sitting in prisons for things they didn't do. Which is why I said that "generally, I don't agree with the death penalty".

Not an easy question. And I'm not saying I'm right. Just that there are some people that really don't deserve life.

When you think about it, would you have let Hitler or any of his henchmen live if they hadn't committed suicide? There doesn't seem to be much doubt of their complicity.

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The death penalty is popular in no inconsiderable measure because it encourages the others, as Marshal Joffre would have put it. It is not deterrent because if people were worried about consequences there would be a lot less crime anyway.

It's not a deterrent because it takes a lifetime to carry out the sentence.

[nckgmd]

Yes but only in cases where there's no doubt.. Not if a jury or Judge decides your guilty.If it came down to jury's and judges Lindy Chamberlain would of been hung. But for example Martin Bryant who committed the Port Arthur Massacre.. Some people will say he was mentally ill but to me it doesn't matter. He was caught with the gun in the act, he did it. Plenty of witnesses. I don't think there should be any appeals what so ever. If you are caught red handed a quick trial showing absolute proof then out the back... Finished....

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by nckgmd

..... Some people will say he was mentally ill but to me it doesn't matter........

So you're for executing the clinically insane - seems a bit harsh to me

Even in Victorian times they didn't do that.