Death penalty

[Guest77]

I would have no issue with a shot to the head myself, as long as we do not have to feed them and give them television and ipods for the rest of their lives then the shot to the head will do for me and other pro death penalty wishers, again though I would only agree to it where it is caught on film or the evidence is so overwhelming there is no doubt, but anyone who plans to plant bombs in the street to hurt innocents and those fluckers who rape children deserve to die not live.

 

[BES]

The long drop hanging method developed in britian by william marwood in the late 1800's is still the most humane way if done correctly it seperates 2nd and 3rd vertebre and breaks the spinal cord.
Think ive read enough about hanging in britian to rig the gallows myself and id have no problem pulling the lever on the two who killed lee rigby.

 

[Tiny Spark]

This is something I have done much reading on over the years due to various reasons.

However my personal oppinion is that it should be brought back for certain crimes.
Most that stick in my mind have allready been mentioned, Lee Rigby's killers, ISIS etc.

There is of course the 2 main arguments against it, Those being 1 that you could condemn a inocent person and 2 it does not deter criminals.
Some argue a 3rd about it being against "Human Rights" In my mind the whole HR contract becomes null and void when you deliberatly go out to kill a un-armed soldier on the streets for no good reason.
You no longer have the right to call yourself a Human and become something else entirely.

However in regards to the other 2 arguments I have the following oppinions.

1) Crimes should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, In the past "criminals" could be beaten to confession and shoddy evidence falseified to "prove" their guilt.
With all the modern forensics and assets the Police (and other crime agencys) now have at their disposal this should no longer be a issue.

2) Again Historically speaking the death penalty did not deter people as in ancient times gone by the chances of actually getting found out or caught red handed were rather slim. Even when Stealing carried the death penalty it was common for pick pockets to steal from people gathered at executions!
Again due to the modern policing techniques etc this should not be a problem.
Most Murderers and Pedo's etc are now caught.
But lets face it the worst they get is a few years in a cosy cell and their name put on a register.

So in summary, Yes I think Terrorists, Pedo's and other scum balls on the face of the earth should be eradicated from it for the good of all man kind.

 

[RogertheBodger]

That's a very emotive argument which is trotted out by pro death penalty advocates but (hopefully) it's a situation I'll never have to face because I, nor anyone else, can realistically answer it. I think I'd prefer for the person to spend the rest of his or her life in prison rather than getting a quick release at the end of a rope but like I say, I can't guarantee I'd feel that way.
That said, I have read articles where the families of victims have said the same because it doesn't bring the person back. Imo it's not a punishment, it's revenge and I don't think revenge has a place in the criminal justice system.
To my way of thinking you either support the death penalty or you do not. You can't say that person A should hang for his crime but person B shouldn't and there have been too many miscarriages of justice for me to be comfortable with it

You must be a forgiving man Trev, to feel that way. I don’t think I could be the same if it was one of mine, but as you say, hopefully we will never know.

It’s an emotive argument yes, much more so for the thousands of relatives of victims, who I imagine would be mostly pro death penalty advocates themselves were the option to be given at trial, I can’t say I’ve read any articles in which the victim’s families have said that they would reject the death penalty if it were available, in these days of political correctness they are highly unlikely to appear in print or on TV saying ‘We really wanted the B…… Dead, it’s just not done. But in private?
The rights of the above should be the priority issue in this debate, people with real involvement, if they want ‘Revenge’ payback, justice, call it what you want, why should they not have it? Why should the rights of a killer be put first.

I can’t agree with you that people are either for or against, quite a few posters in this thread have implied that they would consider change under certain conditions, i.e. Conviction beyond ANY doubt for the killing of Children, or the abduction, rape and Murder of young women, acts of Terrorism etc. and I would put myself in that group.

Every crime brought to court is treated on it’s own merits, the circumstances, evidence, mitigating factors etc. The punishment should fit the crime. And some people would get the death sentence, some would not, think of O.J. and Pistorius, killers who got away with it.

 

[Adam W]

That's fine, that's not any form of problem, they are dead and out of circulation.... If you are under the ill found impression that it encourages others, they have already been well and truly indoctrinated it make's no difference whatsoever, so why would you invest millions keeping this scum alive in prison (life sentence) and possibly creating other problems during their incarceration??

Why give them what they want?

 

[trev]

You must be a forgiving man Trev, to feel that way. I don’t think I could be the same if it was one of mine, but as you say, hopefully we will never know.

It’s an emotive argument yes, much more so for the thousands of relatives of victims, who I imagine would be mostly pro death penalty advocates themselves were the option to be given at trial, I can’t say I’ve read any articles in which the victim’s families have said that they would reject the death penalty if it were available, in these days of political correctness they are highly unlikely to appear in print or on TV saying ‘We really wanted the B…… Dead, it’s just not done. But in private?
The rights of the above should be the priority issue in this debate, people with real involvement, if they want ‘Revenge’ payback, justice, call it what you want, why should they not have it? Why should the rights of a killer be put first.

I can’t agree with you that people are either for or against, quite a few posters in this thread have implied that they would consider change under certain conditions, i.e. Conviction beyond ANY doubt for the killing of Children, or the abduction, rape and Murder of young women, acts of Terrorism etc. and I would put myself in that group.

Every crime brought to court is treated on it’s own merits, the circumstances, evidence, mitigating factors etc. The punishment should fit the crime. And some people would get the death sentence, some would not, think of O.J. and Pistorius, killers who got away with it.

So in such a system as practiced in the USA you're far more likely to be on death row after killing someone if you're black, poor, poorly educated or a combination of all three.
Is that justice?

 

[rapparee]

I would have no issue with a shot to the head myself, as long as we do not have to feed them and give them television and ipods for the rest of their lives then the shot to the head will do for me and other pro death penalty wishers, again though I would only agree to it where it is caught on film or the evidence is so overwhelming there is no doubt, but anyone who plans to plant bombs in the street to hurt innocents and those fluckers who rape children deserve to die not live.

What about
the guilford four
the birmingham six
the maguire seven
Brian shivers
Sally Clark
These were all innocent "terrorists" and "child killers"

 

[rapparee]

To give a republican/loyalist balance i should also add the udr four

 

[Guest77]

What about
the guilford four
the birmingham six
the maguire seven
Brian shivers
Sally Clark
These were all innocent "terrorists" and "child killers"

Were they caught on film and guilty without absolute doubt? um no so they won't be included, read the posts properly first.

 

[rapparee]

They were all guilty without reasonable doubt at the time and as far as photographic evidence i wouldn't trust it jean charles de menzes was being viewed on cctv and they thought he was guilty

 

[trev]

With CGI technology improving all the time............

 

[Guest77]

They were all guilty without reasonable doubt at the time and as far as photographic evidence i wouldn't trust it jean charles de menzes was being viewed on cctv and they thought he was guilty

I have no respect for the system back then, My view about the death penalty is if you can show a video in court from say a cctv camera on a shop front where you see a terrorist actually put a bomb into a bin for example, that type of murder should the bomb go off and kill someone could be called murder 1 for example similar to the states, murder 2 could be life imprisonment where no actual film or pictures available for evidence but the usual witnesses or forensics etc, there are a one or two IRA men who should hang but have been released, I bet the families of their victims would agree with me. However without photographic overwhelming evidence I would not want to see the death penalty because of the police fitting people up.

 

[Guest77]

Lee Rigby's killers for example where there is no doubt whatsoever should be executed.

 

[plugsandsparks]

With CGI technology improving all the time............

I think some on here think Avatar the film are real actors, lol -

 

[Guest77]

Oh no the tories have just crashed the thread, don't say anything, you may get hit with the bedroom tax.

 

[rapparee]

I have no respect for the system back then, My view about the death penalty is if you can show a video in court from say a cctv camera on a shop front where you see a terrorist actually put a bomb into a bin for example, that type of murder should the bomb go off and kill someone could be called murder 1 for example similar to the states, murder 2 could be life imprisonment where no actual film or pictures available for evidence but the usual witnesses or forensics etc, there are a one or two IRA men who should hang but have been released, I bet the families of their victims would agree with me. However without photographic overwhelming evidence I would not want to see the death penalty because of the police fitting people up.

I hear what you're saying, i'm not convinced i doubt i'll be able to persuade you. You say you had no faith in the justice system then but you do now brian shivers was convicted in 2012. I don't want to come across as an apologist for solely republicans i would feel the same if it was loyalists or islamic fundamentalists, rogue soldiers etc. The state should be seen to hold the moral high ground over men who kill.

 

[Guest77]

Well I don't think you are really listening either, you seem to be talking about the Irish troubles, I am reffering to murders caught without doubt on film for example like the lee rigby murderers,I was not really reffering to the IRA or Unionist murderers, if you really want to discuss Irish issues and need to get something off your chest because I feel you have something on your mind regarding it then start another thread about it and I will be happy to join in about that subject.

 

[trev]

Do any of the pro death penalty advocates believe in god?
Isn't the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"?
Not "thou shalt not kill unless it's a state sponsored judiciary backed killing"

 

[Guest77]

No I don't trev, I do believe though Jimmy saville deserved the death penalty for sexually abusing disabled children who were paralised in hospital, and I can assure you there will be millions of people who would agree with me regarding him.

 

[trev]

I'm sure there would be Mike, just like there would be millions of people who agree with me regarding the death penalty

 

[Guest77]

I'm sure there would be Mike, just like there would be millions of people who agree with me regarding the death penalty

of course, thats why we have discussions, differing views are healthy for our democracy.

 

[rapparee]

Well I don't think you are really listening either, you seem to be talking about the Irish troubles, I am reffering to murders caught without doubt on film for example like the lee rigby murderers,I was not really reffering to the IRA or Unionist murderers, if you really want to discuss Irish issues and need to get something off your chest because I feel you have something on your mind regarding it then start another thread about it and I will be happy to join in about that subject.

Haha did you read my post at all. I said i didn't want to come across as talking solely about that, i studied it at school and find it easy to give examples from that conflict, nothing on my chest. As for lee rigbys two killers they should have maximum security prison for life. The state any state british/irish/eu/usa should be morally superior to killers.

 

[Guest77]

Haha did you read my post at all. I said i didn't want to come across as talk solely about that, i studied it at school and find it easy to give examples from that conflict, nothing on my chest. As for lee rigbys too killers they should have maximum security prison for life. The state any state british/irish/eu/usa should be morally superior to killers.

Hope so mate, knowing this country they will be out in 15 years.

 

[trev]

No.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...M6wYeo_9Zg6Jp662A&sig2=p16J6MXWU_XraPIAt7eKUg

 

[Des 56]

As for lee rigbys too killers they should have maximum security prison for life.


Hope so mate, knowing this country they will be out in 15 years.


No.

I make that 22 + 45 = 67years

Not quite then

That is unless he cops a fatal sucker punch first
Or perhaps the parole permanent holiday committee release him sooner with a new identity,free food and accommodation and anonymity lest some morally righteous person does what the state should have done

My bet is that guy will be free to enjoy his fifties,even maybe free in his forties,I for one would not be surprised

 

[trev]

If you take a look at whole life terms and (for example) minimum sentences handed down from a judge then you'll see they are rarely reduced on any grounds.
I think it's a fairly safe bet that one (possibly both of course) will die in prison and the other will be fairly elderly when released

 

[rapparee]

I am cringing at my misuse of too/two

 

[Andy78]

I won't, and can't, ever support a death penalty.
If you believe strongly that murderers are wrong then you must believe it is wrong for a human to take human life. If these are your beliefs then how can you support a death penalty ?
Morals are not chosen for the convenience of a situation or for the good of the masses, morals are ideals. Justice however is a different concept and one that is far removed from moral ideal.

 

[Des 56]

I don't support the death penalty,not because I think it is morally wrong to take the life of a murderer/terrorist, but its because of the remote possibility that the person who's life is taken is innocent

So in one sense I believe in a life for a life,but because of human failings in convictions,my belief is not safe to enforce

 

[Engineer54]

I'm not religious either but i respect others religious beliefs. However, i don't respect the beliefs of those that think it's perfectly acceptable to intentionally kill and maim as many people as they possibly can through terrorist acts in the name of their religion...

As has been stated, if and when a person has been caught in the act, or there is overwhelming evidence, via video footage etc, i'd have no hesitation whatsoever in signing a death warrant, or even pulling the trigger myself.

I can't see any point in keeping such an individual locked up for the rest of their life at horrendous costs, that can total millions (if you believe published government figures) to the taxpayer!! A simple bullet to the back of the head and the problems over, cleanly and cheaply... I don't give a ---- if some think he's a martyr, he'll be dead and gone, and won't be a potential problem within the prison system....end of!!

 

[plugsandsparks]

Top 10 countries who kill their citizens: AKA Death Penalty
1. China
2. North Korea
3. Iran
4. Iraq
5. Saudia Arabia
6. USA
7. Somalia
8. Sudan
9. Yemen
10. Japan

USA and Japan do stand out as not exactly "stuck in the middle ages" - but makes you think about what regimes make up capital punishment as a form of "deterrent" - Do we really want to join that motley crew. ?

 

[Engineer54]

I'm not saying the death penalty is used as a deterrent, it maybe for some, but most civilian criminal murders are committed on the spur of the moment, i'm not saying that every murderer should be executed either, long prison sentences is a perfectly acceptable judgement. But when it comes to fanatical scum that go out to intentionally kill as many innocent civilians as they possible can in the name of their religion or cause, then i can't see a single problem with permanently getting rid of them....

Oh and most of the countries stated above are Islamic countries and one governed by a complete nutter.... Japan actually has one of the lowest crime rates in the world!! China i could go into a lot more depth, but just remember it has the largest population of any country or even multiple countries, so not unexpectedly, is number one in your motley crew chart!!...

 

[Engineer54]

As for lee rigbys too killers they should have maximum security prison for life.


Hope so mate, knowing this country they will be out in 15 years.


No.

I make that 22 + 45 = 67years

Not quite then

That is unless he cops a fatal sucker punch first
Or perhaps the parole permanent holiday committee release him sooner with a new identity,free food and accommodation and anonymity lest some morally righteous person does what the state should have done

My bet is that guy will be free to enjoy his fifties,even maybe free in his forties,I for one would not be surprised

I don't really know how those two above figures were handed down, but generally in the UK prison terms are run concurrently so it would actually be the longest term handed down, eg 45 years.... Now if parole (or whatever they call it in the UK these days) is then considered, it will normally kick in after 2/3rds of the sentence served... I can't really see this happening in this case, before that term has been served, the Home Secretary will intervene and remove any chance of parole and can actually increase term to ''Whole Life''.

Now that's something i completely disagree with, the Home Secretary should have no say whatsoever over a high court Judges Sentence, he is a political term elected cabinet minister that is only around for a limited period of time, and is nothing to do with the JUDICIARY which should remain completely autonomous and above political aspirations, that works and delivers judgements solely within the letter of the laws of the land...
I have nothing against the HS officially asking the judiciary for a sentence review, but his involvement on making lawful decisions be limited to just that, ...referring cases to the judiciary.

 

[Slowhand]

I wonder how any of us would feel if someone was killed as a result of work we'd done believing we knew all the info ( but didn't ) about something we were installing or had a preconceived notion that we knew it all anyway and didn't need to read the manufacturers instructions or not test something because it's a forgone conclusion.
An innocent life gone because we were so clever we knew it all.
When someone is dead its too late to put things right.
I wouldn't be able to live with that......

Now imagine yourself on a jury where the charge is murder and capital punishment exists.

 

[Des 56]

I don't really know how those two above figures were handed down,but generally in the UK prison terms are run concurrently so it would actually be the longest term handed down, eg 45 years.... Now if parole (or whatever they call it in the UK these days) is then considered, it will normally kick in after 2/3rds of the sentence served... I can't really see this happening in this case, before that term has been served, the Home Secretary will intervene and remove any chance of parole and can actually increase term to ''Whole Life''.
Now that's something i completely disagree with, the Home Secretary should have no say whatsoever over a high court Judges Sentence, he is a political term elected cabinet minister that is only around for a limited period of time, and is nothing to do with the JUDICIARY which should remain completely autonomous and above political aspirations, that works and delivers judgements solely within the letter of the laws of the land...
I have nothing against the HS officially asking the judiciary for a sentence review, but his involvement on making lawful decisions be limited to just that, ...referring cases to the judiciary.

Sorry for not being clear
They are the sentence as imposed added to the age of the scum

My point being in his case there may be no whole life sentence
He may be free to have another go in his 60s at worst,before that it will be the usual case of releasing a prisoner on parole years before full sentence is served
He could be looking forward to many years wandering free

I completely agree with the comment about a politician having no role in sentence review other than referal


Whilst mentioning parole and going back to my post about making prison horrendous
Parole should be consideration of behaviour after serving the full term

It should be a case of "be a good boy and the sentence may not be increased for bad behaviour"
"Be a naughty boy" and the sentence is increased to suit

 

[BES]

I wonder how any of us would feel if someone was killed as a result of work we'd done believing we knew all the info ( but didn't ) about something we were installing or had a preconceived notion that we knew it all anyway and didn't need to read the manufacturers instructions or not test something because it's a forgone conclusion.
An innocent life gone because we were so clever we knew it all.
When someone is dead its too late to put things right.
I wouldn't be able to live with that......

Now imagine yourself on a jury where the charge is murder and capital punishment exists.

Good job you weren't in Nuremberg you would have given them community service.
Have a look for Westley allan dodd and see if you could have sentenced him to death.

 

[Des 56]

Good job you weren't in Nuremberg you would have given them community service.

or Maybe failing the electric chair after a Pat test
It being a serious shock hazard you know lol

 

[Slowhand]

Good job you weren't in Nuremberg you would have given them community service.
Have a look for Westley allan dodd and see if you could have sentenced him to death.

Have you ever sat on a jury?

 

[SPARTYKUS]

This is an interesting thread, many differing opinikns on the subject, from many people who I like & respect.

 

[Tiny Spark]

Ile start with saying I am not religeous, I respect others beliefs but have no intrest in something that can not be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
If I was religeous maybe my view would be different, I dont know but I think someone who plots and schemes to do so much harm to people have no human rights.
Lee Rigbys killers come up alot in here so I will focus on that.

Those ******* deliberatly and intentionally went out to mutilate and kill that poor man.
In those situations it makes me appreciate our armed police, As despite the crap they get they didnt kill them.
I can not say I would of done the same, Infact I would of felt quite content in ending their misserable lifes.

Am I harsh or slightly sadistic? Possibly.

Would I have the same feeling towards someone like say Oscar Pistorious? No I wouldnt.

9/11 Terrorists, Yes, Jimmy Saville Yes!

All those individuals commited in my mind crimes that simply can not be forgiven and I personally would begrudge paying to give them a cosy prison cell and 3 meals a day.
Ide much rather foot the bill for a 20p bullet and the Executioner.

Regarding Jail sentences (and this applys to all sentences not just serious crimes) I feel the system is messed up.
You have someone as ****ed in the head as Jon Venables who was rightly sent down with his mate for killing poor little James Bulger, He should of been made someones bitch or shanked inside, TBH I couldnt care less but instead he was released and then commited more crimes.
Why? Why was this low life **** released?

On the flip side you have one of my close friends who got sent down for 2 years (served) and his crime you ask?
Drunkely shouting "I should kill you!" to his ex girlfriend who was safely locked in her house with her son she wouldnt allow him to see.
He ended up in a high security prison.

So yes I think it should be brought back for certain crimes, But TBH I think the system needs fixing first.

 

[RogertheBodger]

So in such a system as practiced in the USA you're far more likely to be on death row after killing someone if you're black, poor, poorly educated or a combination of all three.
Is that justice?

Is what Justice?

I'm sure that no posters on this thread have suggested that, poor, black, poorly educated people, have been been given the death sentence just because of the background they come from. Is that what you think, I'm surprised.

 

[trev]

Is what Justice?

I'm sure that no posters on this thread have suggested that, poor, black, poorly educated people, have been been given the death sentence just because of the background they come from. Is that what you think, I'm surprised.

No one has suggested it Roger but a few have suggested, or appeared to suggest, a tiered system whereby certain types of murder would attract the death penalty while others would not.
I'm simply pointing out that in a place where such a system exists the economically and/or educationally disadvantaged and those who are black are far more likely to find themselves on a charge of capital murder than rich white people with a good standard of education.

 

[plugsandsparks]

Is what Justice?

I'm sure that no posters on this thread have suggested that, poor, black, poorly educated people, have been been given the death sentence just because of the background they come from. Is that what you think, I'm surprised.

It appears to me that if you are rich or well educated or connected to the right people, you can get yourself an half decent defence lawyer to argue the case. So I think the point is that just perhaps justice (that is "getting off") is a function of wealth and probably education. OJ Simpson and Pistorias immediately spring to mind.

 

[Guest77]

No one has suggested it Roger but a few have suggested, or appeared to suggest, a tiered system whereby certain types of murder would attract the death penalty while others would not.
I'm simply pointing out that in a place where such a system exists the economically and/or educationally disadvantaged and those who are black are far more likely to find themselves on a charge of capital murder than rich white people with a good standard of education.

Jimmy saville is white, even if he was black I would still want him dead.

 

[RogertheBodger]

No one has suggested it Roger but a few have suggested, or appeared to suggest, a tiered system whereby certain types of murder would attract the death penalty while others would not.
I'm simply pointing out that in a place where such a system exists the economically and/or educationally disadvantaged and those who are black are far more likely to find themselves on a charge of capital murder than rich white people with a good standard of education.

Maybe "tiered" is not the right word Trev, as in the difference between black or white, rich or poor, I would hate to think that was the case and would be dead set against it.

What has been suggested by some in this thread, in my opinion, is that there are different classes of Murder, first, second degree, manslaughter etc, and they would all attract different sentences in the event of a guilty verdict, added to these different sentences would be further adjustments to the sentence due to mitigating factors etc. Were the death sentence to be in force in the UK then it should only be pronounced in the most clear cut and proven of cases, as in the cases where video evidence is available and guilt is indisputable, and then only for the most evil of crimes. Equally beyond doubt is that this legal structure should be applied across the board to all levels of society, whatever their social status or color.

Perhaps the ability of the rich to hire a battery of the top defense lawyers will buy them a not guilty verdict or a reduced sentence, but if the sentence is death, that should be an even more secure conviction because the defense lawyers will have left no stone unturned during the trial.

I would say that most violent crime is carried out by the most disadvantaged sections of society, does this include a large percentage of black people, I don't know the stats, not sure we want to get into that anyway.

 

[Adam W]

The death penalty for Jimmy Saville isn't going to work, since he was dead and buried before his atrocities came to light.

Harsher sentencing, the ultimate one being the death penalty, always seems to be the cover-all deterrent to committing a crime, but that's no good if there's a good chance you'll get away with it. People wouldn't commit crimes if crime didn't pay.

 

[trev]

Jimmy saville is white, even if he was black I would still want him dead.

I think you're missing my point Mike. The fact of the matter is, as I've pointed out, in the US you're more likely to be on trial for your life if you're black, poor and not well educated.
Yes you could argue that those people are more likely to commit a murder but there have been a lot of cases where a similar murder has been committed but the accused come from different ends of the social spectrum. One person ends up on death row while the other gets a prison sentence with a light at the end of the tunnel

 

[BES]

Good job you weren't in Nuremberg you would have given them community service.
Have a look for Westley allan dodd and see if you could have sentenced him to death.

Have you ever sat on a jury?

Yes I have and your point is ?

 

[BES]

Jimmy saville is white, even if he was black I would still want him dead.

I think you're missing my point Mike. The fact of the matter is, as I've pointed out, in the US you're more likely to be on trial for your life if you're black, poor and not well educated.
Yes you could argue that those people are more likely to commit a murder but there have been a lot of cases where a similar murder has been committed but the accused come from different ends of the social spectrum. One person ends up on death row while the other gets a prison sentence with a light at the end of the tunnel

Trev.You make some good points on the death penalty in the USA. With each state having there own policy on the death penalty its possible to commit murder in one state and get put to death and 10 miles down the road in another state commit same crime and be sentanced to life with parole or in a different state life without. Since 'Furman' came down the amount of time spent on death row as gone from at a guess a matter of months in the first half of the 20th century to now 10 -15 yrs some as long as unbeleivably 30 yrs.
Yes especially in the southern 'death belt states ' race , education & wealth has always been and most likely always will determine if you get the death penalty or not. You've got to remember Texas who lead the way in executions were still executing for rape into the 1960's.
I too was againt the death penalty for the simple reason like others that 1% chance your executing the wrong person but certain cases such as the Rigby murder, Huntley , Sutcliff , Brady & Hindley and many more in this country and the likes of Dodd, Bundy , Gacy in the USA and others around the world like the guy in Norway , can't remember his name .With all the names lve metioned there was no doubt they commited the crime they were convicted of , in the Dodd case he said if he ever was released he would commit the same crimes again , these are the people who should be executed.
Many innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future in certain parts of the world and just one is too many but when there is absolutley no doubt like the names I've mention please explain why they should not be executed.

 

[Engineer54]

Sorry for not being clear
They are the sentence as imposed added to the age of the scum

My point being in his case there may be no whole life sentence
He may be free to have another go in his 60s at worst,before that it will be the usual case of releasing a prisoner on parole years before full sentence is served
He could be looking forward to many years wandering free.
As i stated above, parole tends to kick in after 2/3rds of the sentence has been served, but it has been known for parole to start much earlier

I completely agree with the comment about a politician having no role in sentence review other than referal
I find it to be totally unacceptable for a politician to start handing down prison sentences, especially ''Whole Life'' sentences...

Whilst mentioning parole and going back to my post about making prison horrendous
Parole should be consideration of behaviour after serving the full term
Parole is a term for being freed from incarceration under warrant while the sentence continues. So you can't have a parole situation when the full term has been served, the prisoner will have in effect have paid his price to soceity...

It should be a case of "be a good boy and the sentence may not be increased for bad behaviour"
"Be a naughty boy" and the sentence is increased to suit.
That goes on now, commit offences against the prison rules and the prisoner will face additional time to serve. For minor offences, sentences are handed down by the prison Governor, for serious offences a visiting County Court Judge hears the case and can hand down a longer additional sentence than the Governor can. Or if it's a very serious offence refer the case to be heard by a high court....

The law in the UK has always been a --- anyway, far too many rules in place to protect the accused than anything like there are to protect the victims....