The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[IAN 2411]

All we have is opinions. Some are better founded than others, but who is to say which?

... and to my mind, morwyn's is the best reply to this utterly unnecessary question, which is another Daily Mail type of rant, where the wogs, the killers and the hoodlums are taking over from good old white Britain and its impeccable standards and turning it into ... God knows what ... into something like NEW YORK, heaven forbid!!!! (Just how bad is New York anyway? People seem to live rewarding lives there.)

The only thing I can agree with in ian's post is that life should mean life ... or a lot more than 12-15 years.

If my question is unnecessary MMI; then why are you taking part in this discussion? For a start it was not a question, or a statement from me I was asking for opinions and that is what discussions are all about. I was not ranting I was giving my opinion and belief and I never said it was the way to go, and neither do I read a rank paper like the Daily Mail, but it is obvious by your criticism that you do. Personally the reason I don’t read The Mail is because there is no page 3 to satisfy my perverted mind and very few glossy pictures. I see that you also make fun of my description of a lawless UK by comparing it with NEW YORK, and I can see no reason for doing that.

I do believe in rehabilitation, and I would hold up the release of a reformed criminal as a success story for the justice system - just as a hanging must be condemned as a failure. What about the rehabilitation of a murderer? I submit that it is virtually certain that most would never want to kill again, and that they could safely be released upon conviction, but for the need to make an example of them pour encourager les autres. The rest might represent a risk to society, and they will need to be kept incarcerated for a very long time.

Yea right, rehabilitate a murderer, he has just killed a bank teller while trying to rob a bank, so we will put him in a class for naughty boys, and when the psychiatrist checks him out in twenty years time, who is probably a bigger nutcase than the murderer, he can let him out on the street to kill again. I have heard all that garbage with paedophiles, and it has never worked with them. Virtually certain they wouldn’t want to kill again you say. Well, as you and I are talking about reading material MMI, where do you get your data, out of the Beano?

I am never impressed by pleas from the victim's family for revenge (they call it "justice"): it is nothing other than destructive. Nobody gains. The victim's worst and darkest desires are pandered to, but left unsated. The killer dies but that does not revive the victim, nor does it relieve the pain endured by those left behind. A "balance" is restored - an eye for an eye - but that just leaves two partially blinded people. Balance is not restored, but a new, worse, standard is set instead.

Let me once again enlighten you MMI, I have four daughters, and if one of them was murdered because of jealousy or in a random act of violence. Then be assured, you are correct the death of the murderer will never bring that daughter back, but I personally would get a lot of satisfaction knowing that his life was going to be terminated very shortly afterwards. I would even send him letters while in prison taunting him on the fact that he was going to die. I can’t help it, because it is the animal instinct in me, and yes it is lust for revenge, maybe I am a barbaric person. I will still be alive, even if i am partially blinded.

So what do we do with them? Imprison them for a very very long time, and after that, keep them in gaol a bit longer. I believe that a prisoner has a right to know if he is going to be released, and I will admit it to be a human right. I also believe that certain prisoners have a right to know they will never be released, and that, too, is a human right. I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.

Why contradict yourself, in the above you say they have human rights, but you say in the same paragraph [I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.] but surely that is a human right and a contradiction? In actual fact if you cared to check, a person in a UK prison only has basic rights.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

If my question is unnecessary MMI; then why are you taking part in this discussion?

Because, now you have raised this topic once more, it has to be responded to in case, by default, the impression is created that everyone agrees with the ideas originally expressed. Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.

... Personally the reason I don’t read The Mail is because there is no page 3 to satisfy my perverted mind and very few glossy pictures

I think I'll just let that comment stand.

Yea right, rehabilitate a murderer, he has just killed a bank teller while trying to rob a bank ...

That's a regular occurrence in the UK, isn't it? Tell me, when did the last bank clerk die in that way?

... so we will put him in a class for naughty boys, and when the psychiatrist checks him out in twenty years time, who is probably a bigger nutcase than the murderer, he can let him out on the street to kill again. I have heard all that garbage with paedophiles, and it has never worked with them. Virtually certain they wouldn’t want to kill again you say. Well, as you and I are talking about reading material MMI, where do you get your data, out of the Beano?

Oh, believe me, ian, I'm right about that. As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.

(With regard to paedophiles, and as a pure aside, I bet Sarah's Law will do nothing to make children safer (from a very low risk of abuse) than before, but it will make it much harder to trace suspects, and it will lead to vigilanteism and the inevitable attacks (and perhaps murder) of innocent people by self-righteous "enforcers" who think they have the right to extract justice on their own terms and in their own way. It's happened before, but these people are too stupid to learn. Despicable! What it will succeed in doing, however, is make it virtually impossible for an ordinary person to interact with kids at an ordinary level. Even you, as the father of four girls - I'm sure you never told me that before - might be regarded as a "risk," especially if it were known that you frequented this website.)

... and if one of them was murdered because of jealousy or in a random act of violence. Then be assured, you are correct the death of the murderer will never bring that daughter back, but I personally would get a lot of satisfaction knowing that his life was going to be terminated very shortly afterwards. I would even send him letters while in prison taunting him on the fact that he was going to die. I can’t help it, because it is the animal instinct in me, and yes it is lust for revenge, maybe I am a barbaric person. I will still be alive, even if i am partially blinded.

This is precisely what I mean. It's spleen, not justice

Why contradict yourself, in the above you say they have human rights, but you say in the same paragraph [I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.] but surely that is a human right and a contradiction? In actual fact if you cared to check, a person in a UK prison only has basic rights.

Regards ian 2411

In what way do I contradict myself?

Are you suggesting that human rights are not basic rights?