bring back hanging yes or no?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

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

Many people would argue that the slowness of the legal process adds a refinement of cruelty to the punishment. But in 18th Century England the cycle was a lot faster in most cases. Appeals against conviction were rare; the courts would typically hear several cases per court per day; and the hanging would take place on the Monday, three Sundays after the sentence was passed. 18th Century England was an extremely crime ridden and violent society. The death penalty did not deter anyone then. No oine thought they were going to be caught.

[nckgmd]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

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

Even in Victorian times they didn't do that.

Bit harsh yes but to me if you go on a rampage and shoot and kill 35 and injure 24 whether you're ill or not you have lost your right to live... Imagine the 24 that lived what they have to deal with and the families. If you bring in an insanity plea then you open the door for lawyers to abuse the system and make money...

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by nckgmd

Bit harsh yes but to me if you go on a rampage and shoot and kill 35 and injure 24 whether you're ill or not you have lost your right to live... Imagine the 24 that lived what they have to deal with and the families. If you bring in an insanity plea then you open the door for lawyers to abuse the system and make money...

If You are mentally ill then You are not responsible for Your actions,Therefore Your "Right to live" is still sacrosant,Would You hang the mentally handicapped as well ?

[nckgmd]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

If You are mentally ill then You are not responsible for Your actions,Therefore Your "Right to live" is still sacrosant,Would You hang the mentally handicapped as well ?

You can say that anyone who decides one day to pick up a gun and mow down a lot of innocent people are not in their right mind.. Mentally ill... I should point out my point of view is I believe in the death penalty. I believe in lethal injection's which I know they are having problem's with in the U.S. at the moment.. Hanging is gruesome so is the electric chair but anyone I don't care gets a gun and kill's a lot of people caught red handed they cannot be rehabilitated and I think locking them up in a padded cell for the rest of their life is just as bad.... They should be put to death by lethal injection...

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by nckgmd

You can say that anyone who decides one day to pick up a gun and mow down a lot of innocent people are not in their right mind..

There is a big difference between people with unbalanced minds and people who suffer from psychotic illnesses which cause them to lose insight and the ability to separate delusion from reality.

As I said in an earlier post, even the Victorians didn't treat the criminally insane with the savagery you advocate.

[nckgmd]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

There is a big difference between people with unbalanced minds and people who suffer from psychotic illnesses which cause them to lose insight and the ability to separate delusion from reality.

As I said in an earlier post, even the Victorians didn't treat the criminally insane with the savagery you advocate.

No the Victorian's certainly didn't.. What they did was put them on ship's and send them to Australia and New Zealand.. That's how they sorted their problem.... Where would I like my tax paying dollars to go.... To house and feed someone who has proven he can't fit into society or help a disabled person or a person who's down on his luck.... I think I'd rather spend more money on the latter two examples.... Maybe we could get our mentally ill murderers and put them on a ship and send them back to England.. The Victorian solution...

[Mal Hombre]

The Victorians transported Convicted Criminals to Australia,the insane were committed to asylums which were admittedly harsh and cruel institutions.

[rustler]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Many people would argue that the slowness of the legal process adds a refinement of cruelty to the punishment.

I saw a programme on TV where they interviewed several people on 'death row', one man had been there for 17 years! As he humbly admittted, he deserved to die for what he did, murder, but he didn't deserve the torture that followed. He had been in the death chamber twice...... !
He was finally executed......

But after 17 years......?

Those damned lawyers must have earned well out of that........ I hope they sleep well.

[rustler]

If you kill someone in the kitchen, then it can be called manslaughter, there are knives in the kitchen, and in that brief moment of insanity.......
Take that knife out of the kitchen, then it is murder.... legally, you have thought about it long enough and it is premeditated murder - you intended to kill the victim.
Here we have a man who killed loads of kids and still sits in prison - He planned his attacks for some years, but still lives, though he is guilty...... And his lawyers still argue about his 'human rights'....

I don't agree with the death penalty.... but sometimes it is difficult to argue against it.

[angler12]

Sometimes I think the death penalty is appropriate, but others, I'm not so sure. I think it should only be handed down in cases where it is unequivocally proven that the accused has committed the crime, like the two men that killed the off duty British soldier in the Street in South London, for no reason other than the fact that he was a soldier. Such people don't deserve to live and as for making them martyrs by executing them, I say fuck'em, let them be martyrs.