|
Post by Eminey1 on Feb 21, 2013 10:45:53 GMT -6
Thanks joey and crikey it is nice to see another blast from my past on here xxx
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Feb 22, 2013 4:03:25 GMT -6
Im glad this thread hasn't been buried by petty name calling at least. Most of the time you start talking about executing children and some of the Antis go crazy but happy to see this has been a pretty decent discussion. I feel its important because as we saw here yesterday (a 13 year old sexually assaulted a 4 year old) children are not beyond terrible crimes and I like to know how others would go about punishing them.
|
|
|
Post by Eminey1 on Feb 22, 2013 4:14:16 GMT -6
Im glad this thread hasn't been buried by petty name calling at least. Most of the time you start talking about executing children and some of the Antis go crazy but happy to see this has been a pretty decent discussion. I feel its important because as we saw here yesterday (a 13 year old sexually assaulted a 4 year old) children are not beyond terrible crimes and I like to know how others would go about punishing them. So true Steve, it is easy for threads to become more of a mud slinging ground rather than a grown up discussion. I hold my hands up sometimes for being a proverbial mud slinger, it is sometimes very easy to do so when it is a subject close to your heart. Maybe a poll would be good for this particular issue?
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Feb 23, 2013 2:04:14 GMT -6
If the kid is seriously psycho, lock him in a mental institution until he is the minimum age for the DP. Then if he is still cray-cray, get the needle.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 26, 2013 4:45:12 GMT -6
why would it shock you. thompson and venables were, and are, garbage. as i said, age has NO relevance. a murderer is a murderer. i would have no problem hanging a ten year old murderer. just have to be careful to not give them too long of a drop Sorry I did not see part of my post that said that poor little James was any less dead because he will murdered by children not adults. Thinking of the immense suffering endured by that poor defenceless baby breaks my heart and makes me hold onto my little by so much tighter. We have to remember that children of eleven committed this terrible act, we cannot as a civilised society go hanging children. A what age would you see this punishment as acceptable? Maybe we should put my little boy up on a charge of animal cruelty for kicking a cat at the age of eighteen months? I am all for bringing back the death penalty in the UK, in fact I would shout it from the rooftops with pride, but for children, nope sorry I am outta that argument. I do feel that the killers of James recited a far too lenient sentence and much more should have been done to protect society from these killers rather than a few years with a play station behind bars. But in saying that there has to be some balance, hanging children to me is not balanced it is just wrong! We will never know whether the killers would have reformed having spent some serious time behind bars, whether they would have reoffended but what I do believe in is that is would have been massively wrong in today's society to take the lives of eleven year old children. the problem with that is that you are assigning value to life. allowing thompson and venables, or any other "child" to live after they have brutally murdered someone, is saying that their life is worth more than the life of the victim. the right to life is sacrosanct. the ONLY legitimate reason to deprive anyone of that right is when they make the willful, conscious choice to deprive someone else of their right to life. as i've said, the ONLY legitimate defense for murder is insanity, according to mcnaughten. EVERYONE, without exception, regardless of age or anything else, who knows that murder is wrong, yet murders someone, voluntarily CHOOSES to forfeit their right to life
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 26, 2013 4:51:10 GMT -6
Im glad this thread hasn't been buried by petty name calling at least. Most of the time you start talking about executing children and some of the Antis go crazy but happy to see this has been a pretty decent discussion. I feel its important because as we saw here yesterday (a 13 year old sexually assaulted a 4 year old) children are not beyond terrible crimes and I like to know how others would go about punishing them. contrary to popular belief, i truly do not relish knock down drag out fights. i NEVER start one, but of course, if someone else does, i'm more than willing to play. i fully understand the girls' reticence to execute child murderers. it's a female disease. they are mothers, and as such, try to think that all kids are good. the problem is that it is a totally emotional argument, with no logic or basis in fact, and as such, a losing one. what is astounding to me is when a male, who is supposed to think with his head instead of his heart, advances the same emotional bs
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 26, 2013 4:52:28 GMT -6
Im glad this thread hasn't been buried by petty name calling at least. Most of the time you start talking about executing children and some of the Antis go crazy but happy to see this has been a pretty decent discussion. I feel its important because as we saw here yesterday (a 13 year old sexually assaulted a 4 year old) children are not beyond terrible crimes and I like to know how others would go about punishing them. So true Steve, it is easy for threads to become more of a mud slinging ground rather than a grown up discussion. I hold my hands up sometimes for being a proverbial mud slinger, it is sometimes very easy to do so when it is a subject close to your heart. Maybe a poll would be good for this particular issue? i NEVER do flame wars with girls
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 26, 2013 4:53:45 GMT -6
If the kid is seriously psycho, lock him in a mental institution until he is the minimum age for the DP. Then if he is still cray-cray, get the needle. you can't do that. if he is truly, legally insane, he's not culpable to begin with
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 2, 2013 16:52:15 GMT -6
I think capital punishment should be available for those age 16 and above. Though I think capital punishment should be limited for offenders aged between 16-20 for those who have shown a serious pattern of violence in their lives (either demonstrated through a prior criminal record or documented accounts) or sexually based or torture based murder. I would hold those over 21 to a higher standard. That is, they should be able to control their anger and rage against people. I think Thompson and Venables should have served a much longer prison sentence. I read an interview in Australian media of a man who was Thompson's parole officer for a while and his opinion is that Thompson is unlikely to re offend, but he wasn't a nice guy or reformed, but had enough control to not do it again. I agree. Hell I think even younger. The way you do it is you to weigh the Aggravating to mitigating circumstances with more scrutiny. Kids are proving to be more sophisticated in all aspects then 20 years ago. There is correlation that kids brains are developing faster now because because of the rapid access to information that was not present before the Google era. We are seeing some very atrocious crimes that are well thought out and very calculating from younger kids now. IMO if it looks like there is very minimal mitigating circumstances than I say hang them high.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Mar 2, 2013 20:48:47 GMT -6
I think if you are old enough to fight in a war and die for your country you are old enough to die for your crime.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 3, 2013 0:00:43 GMT -6
I'm a fan of keeping to executing adults. That said, how did we as a society arrive at 18 to designate adulthood? Why not 17 or 19? That is defined age of consent, when you can now enter the armed forces, vote and enter into legal agreements without a parent or guardian. I do not think that there is any real quantitative reason for it. It sounds like it was more of a societal reason that was determined in the post 20's. Speculation, suggest it was to enforce purity laws on woman, as well as reaction to child labor laws in those times. In essence it is arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 3, 2013 1:47:51 GMT -6
I lifted this from one of my blogs but its an interesting look at how we were in Great Britain:
On or about this day in 1629, one John Dean, described in court documents as “an infant between eight and nine years,” was hanged in Abingdon, England for setting fire to two barns in the nearby town of Windsor.
This juvenile felon was indicted, arraigned and found guilty all on the same day, February 23, “and was hanged accordingly.” The actual date of his execution is not known, but it can’t have been long afterward because the wheels of British justice ground very quickly in those days. The age of criminal responsibility in Britain at the time was seven years old. (It was later raised to eight, and in 1963 to ten, where it remains; there have been calls to raise it again.) Accordingly, anyone seven years or older could be charged with a crime and face the same penalties as someone seventeen or forty-seven — including the death sentence.
But do remember that this does not mean that vast numbers of children were executed, quite the contrary. As records show, death sentences were certainly routinely passed on 7 -13 year olds but equally routinely commuted. Girls were only typically hanged for the most serious crimes whereas teenage boys were executed for a wide range of felonies.
The youngest person to have been hanged in Britain was in 1708 of a boy called Michael Hammond aged 7, hanged in King's Lynn at the South Gate along side his sister Ann aged 11.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 3, 2013 11:11:12 GMT -6
I lifted this from one of my blogs but its an interesting look at how we were in Great Britain: On or about this day in 1629, one John Dean, described in court documents as “an infant between eight and nine years,” was hanged in Abingdon, England for setting fire to two barns in the nearby town of Windsor. This juvenile felon was indicted, arraigned and found guilty all on the same day, February 23, “and was hanged accordingly.” The actual date of his execution is not known, but it can’t have been long afterward because the wheels of British justice ground very quickly in those days. The age of criminal responsibility in Britain at the time was seven years old. (It was later raised to eight, and in 1963 to ten, where it remains; there have been calls to raise it again.) Accordingly, anyone seven years or older could be charged with a crime and face the same penalties as someone seventeen or forty-seven — including the death sentence. But do remember that this does not mean that vast numbers of children were executed, quite the contrary. As records show, death sentences were certainly routinely passed on 7 -13 year olds but equally routinely commuted. Girls were only typically hanged for the most serious crimes whereas teenage boys were executed for a wide range of felonies. The youngest person to have been hanged in Britain was in 1708 of a boy called Michael Hammond aged 7, hanged in King's Lynn at the South Gate along side his sister Ann aged 11. that's when things were done right. most kids know that murder is wrong by the time that they are seven. as i have said before, that is the ONLY thing that is relevant. the imbecilic notion that a kid should be excused for murder because he doesn't comprehend the finality of death is ridiculous on its face
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Mar 5, 2013 1:47:35 GMT -6
If the kid is seriously psycho, lock him in a mental institution until he is the minimum age for the DP. Then if he is still cray-cray, get the needle. you can't do that. if he is truly, legally insane, he's not culpable to begin with Then screw the mental institution, lock them in juvie. If they kill again after that, then its time to start thinking about a Potassium Chloride cocktail.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Mar 5, 2013 16:21:08 GMT -6
Im glad this thread hasn't been buried by petty name calling at least. Most of the time you start talking about executing children and some of the Antis go crazy but happy to see this has been a pretty decent discussion. I feel its important because as we saw here yesterday (a 13 year old sexually assaulted a 4 year old) children are not beyond terrible crimes and I like to know how others would go about punishing them. contrary to popular belief, i truly do not relish knock down drag out fights. i NEVER start one, but of course, if someone else does, i'm more than willing to play. i fully understand the girls' reticence to execute child murderers. it's a female disease. they are mothers, and as such, try to think that all kids are good. the problem is that it is a totally emotional argument, with no logic or basis in fact, and as such, a losing one. what is astounding to me is when a male, who is supposed to think with his head instead of his heart, advances the same emotional bs Jumbo I forgot how much I enjoyed your posts... so honest... so simplistic..... they really are refreshing. Ok from my own personal experience ..... I don't think having sympathy for a kid is emotional bs. I think kids from good backgrounds, who kill randomly are 1 issue, I think that kids are less able to deal with issues such as abuse and at times it destroys them - literally. Who were the young lads in America whose father allowed them to live with pedophiles and then, the pedophile helped him kill his own father? Do I think a kid like that should et the DP - no, because Jumbo, even a big man like you was a little boy once who cried for him momma and needed looking after - Had you been forced to do depraved things day after day when you were 7, I think you would be a different guy. Now Jumbo - this doesn't mean you don't punish an emotionally disturbed young danger to society - maybe they never leave secure accommodation - but execution, for kids, nah Now Jumbo - I know your going to tell me your balls are bigger than mine cos you would fry a 4 year old, but seriously - nobody is going to buy that even you were not corruptible - once
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 6, 2013 4:34:31 GMT -6
you can't do that. if he is truly, legally insane, he's not culpable to begin with Then screw the mental institution, lock them in juvie. If they kill again after that, then its time to start thinking about a Potassium Chloride cocktail. huh uh. someone who truly is insane cannot be held responsible, because they TRULY do not know that murder is wrong. i agree with some of atkins, in that, someone who meets the definition of insanity according to mcnaughten, should not be executed. what was indefensible in atkins, was the stupidity that a retarded person shouldn't be executed. the simple REALITY is that, if your iq is only ten, but you know that murder is wrong, you deserve to be executed for committing murder.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 6, 2013 4:54:34 GMT -6
contrary to popular belief, i truly do not relish knock down drag out fights. i NEVER start one, but of course, if someone else does, i'm more than willing to play. i fully understand the girls' reticence to execute child murderers. it's a female disease. they are mothers, and as such, try to think that all kids are good. the problem is that it is a totally emotional argument, with no logic or basis in fact, and as such, a losing one. what is astounding to me is when a male, who is supposed to think with his head instead of his heart, advances the same emotional bs Jumbo I forgot how much I enjoyed your posts... so honest... so simplistic..... they really are refreshing. Ok from my own personal experience ..... I don't think having sympathy for a kid is emotional bs. I think kids from good backgrounds, who kill randomly are 1 issue, I think that kids are less able to deal with issues such as abuse and at times it destroys them - literally. Who were the young lads in America whose father allowed them to live with pedophiles and then, the pedophile helped him kill his own father? Do I think a kid like that should et the DP - no, because Jumbo, even a big man like you was a little boy once who cried for him momma and needed looking after - Had you been forced to do depraved things day after day when you were 7, I think you would be a different guy. Now Jumbo - this doesn't mean you don't punish an emotionally disturbed young danger to society - maybe they never leave secure accommodation - but execution, for kids, nah Now Jumbo - I know your going to tell me your balls are bigger than mine cos you would fry a 4 year old, but seriously - nobody is going to buy that even you were not corruptible - once many times, they are not simplistic enough, but, thank you. the one thing that i won't tolerate in real life is dishonesty. i am totally honest, and require the same from anyone that i associate with. the only one that gets away with being otherwise is my ol' lady, and not often. i NEVER say ANYTHING, on a board, or in real life, that i do not mean. i think i remember the case you are talking about, although there are far too many such cases. obviously, regardless of what kind of childhood that you have had, you know right and wrong at least by the time that you are ten or twelve. in the case of a father allowing pedophiles to molest his kids, obviously, the father is worse than the pedophiles. legally, killing him was wrong, even though it was morally right. in such a case as this however, if i were on the jury, i would convict the kid of murder, because he didn't kill the pedophile as well. had he killed both his father AND the pedophile, i would acquit him. for the record, i did have a lousier childhood than most of the fools around. i was not abused or anything, but, from the time that i was 12 until i was 16, as the eldest of nine kids, i was the sole support of my family. i went to school, then had to hoe weeds, mow lawns, etc to get money for us to eat. it used to really *deleted* me off to have to walk a mile and a half back up the hill after i'd been working five or six hours, and see the other kids playing baseball, but i was too damn tired to do anything. nonetheless, i NEVER robbed a liquor store, or stole a car. there is not an individual living in the u.s. today who has it as hard as i did when i was a kid. if i did it right, there is no excuse for EVERY swinging you know what to not do it right
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 11:23:32 GMT -6
Jumbo, I fully agree with you. There are offences that children or teenagers might do in a childish drive like shoplifting as a proof of bravery. But in the case of murder or never ending felonies, children from schoolgoing age are well aware that such harms seriously others. As a child as well, I did know very well how evil it is to murder or heavily hurt others. By doing such, a burst of dam within the mind has happened with following further danger for other people. If somebody with around the same age group will be killed for evil deeds, this will teach yet teenagers inhittingly that evil crimes will never be taken.
Alex
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Mar 6, 2013 17:44:30 GMT -6
Jumbo, I fully agree with you. There are offences that children or teenagers might do in a childish drive like shoplifting as a proof of bravery. But in the case of murder or never ending felonies, children from schoolgoing age are well aware that such harms seriously others. As a child as well, I did know very well how evil it is to murder or heavily hurt others. By doing such, a burst of dam within the mind has happened with following further danger for other people. If somebody with around the same age group will be killed for evil deeds, this will teach yet teenagers inhittingly that evil crimes will never be taken. Alex I am yet to see any evidence that the DP deters anyone, least of all young people? Actually, the one bit of anti evidence that IS convincing is that states with the DP often have higher murder rates, eg TExas and I would venture, the majority are young men. Do you have any ? Of course, just because the DP does not deter does not make in wrong, it is justice and what is right. I don't however believe there is any evidence that states or countries with the DP have a more reflective populace.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Mar 6, 2013 17:45:54 GMT -6
Jumbo I forgot how much I enjoyed your posts... so honest... so simplistic..... they really are refreshing. Ok from my own personal experience ..... I don't think having sympathy for a kid is emotional bs. I think kids from good backgrounds, who kill randomly are 1 issue, I think that kids are less able to deal with issues such as abuse and at times it destroys them - literally. Who were the young lads in America whose father allowed them to live with pedophiles and then, the pedophile helped him kill his own father? Do I think a kid like that should et the DP - no, because Jumbo, even a big man like you was a little boy once who cried for him momma and needed looking after - Had you been forced to do depraved things day after day when you were 7, I think you would be a different guy. Now Jumbo - this doesn't mean you don't punish an emotionally disturbed young danger to society - maybe they never leave secure accommodation - but execution, for kids, nah Now Jumbo - I know your going to tell me your balls are bigger than mine cos you would fry a 4 year old, but seriously - nobody is going to buy that even you were not corruptible - once many times, they are not simplistic enough, but, thank you. the one thing that i won't tolerate in real life is dishonesty. i am totally honest, and require the same from anyone that i associate with. the only one that gets away with being otherwise is my ol' lady, and not often. i NEVER say ANYTHING, on a board, or in real life, that i do not mean. i think i remember the case you are talking about, although there are far too many such cases. obviously, regardless of what kind of childhood that you have had, you know right and wrong at least by the time that you are ten or twelve. in the case of a father allowing pedophiles to molest his kids, obviously, the father is worse than the pedophiles. legally, killing him was wrong, even though it was morally right. in such a case as this however, if i were on the jury, i would convict the kid of murder, because he didn't kill the pedophile as well. had he killed both his father AND the pedophile, i would acquit him. for the record, i did have a lousier childhood than most of the fools around. i was not abused or anything, but, from the time that i was 12 until i was 16, as the eldest of nine kids, i was the sole support of my family. i went to school, then had to hoe weeds, mow lawns, etc to get money for us to eat. it used to really *deleted* me off to have to walk a mile and a half back up the hill after i'd been working five or six hours, and see the other kids playing baseball, but i was too damn tired to do anything. nonetheless, i NEVER robbed a liquor store, or stole a car. there is not an individual living in the u.s. today who has it as hard as i did when i was a kid. if i did it right, there is no excuse for EVERY swinging you know what to not do it right Are you even honest when the wife asks the dress question? I wasn't really talking about teenage angst , more child abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 21:24:55 GMT -6
In our days, the DP is very rarely carried out in most countries. It is rather a joke. Therefore, it will not hinder many people to do a crime. For, even murder does not mean that the DP will be passed onto you and then carried out. For lowering the rate of crimes, at least every murderer must be put to death. However, this cannot be put forward unless several Western states will do the same. Otherwise, the one state to do so will become isolated internationally and be boycotted. Only mighty and big states like the PR of China can put forward policies that draw the anger of other states onto it. By the way: It is a myth that many children had been put to death until 200 years ago. This had only been the case in outstandingly turbulent times. Mostly, persons below the age of 14 were granted reprieves. From 14 onwards however, you were seen as old enough to be sentenced as adult.
Looking at the amount of severe crimes during the last few centuries in Britain shows that it has risen steadily since the DP had been carried out less and less.
The high rate of crimes has certainly some other reasons like the easy access to weapons. Singapur shows that harsh sentences on severe crimes and those done again work.
Alex
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 8, 2013 3:23:33 GMT -6
Jumbo, I fully agree with you. There are offences that children or teenagers might do in a childish drive like shoplifting as a proof of bravery. But in the case of murder or never ending felonies, children from schoolgoing age are well aware that such harms seriously others. As a child as well, I did know very well how evil it is to murder or heavily hurt others. By doing such, a burst of dam within the mind has happened with following further danger for other people. If somebody with around the same age group will be killed for evil deeds, this will teach yet teenagers inhittingly that evil crimes will never be taken. Alex I am yet to see any evidence that the DP deters anyone, least of all young people? Actually, the one bit of anti evidence that IS convincing is that states with the DP often have higher murder rates, eg TExas and I would venture, the majority are young men. Do you have any ? Of course, just because the DP does not deter does not make in wrong, it is justice and what is right. I don't however believe there is any evidence that states or countries with the DP have a more reflective populace. there is not. the deterrence lunacy is the stupidest argument that pros use, and should NEVER even enter into the discussion. no rational person cares whether an execution deters anyone else from committing murder. it deters the executed murderer from ever doing it again, and that is the ONLY deterrence that matters
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 8, 2013 3:27:08 GMT -6
many times, they are not simplistic enough, but, thank you. the one thing that i won't tolerate in real life is dishonesty. i am totally honest, and require the same from anyone that i associate with. the only one that gets away with being otherwise is my ol' lady, and not often. i NEVER say ANYTHING, on a board, or in real life, that i do not mean. i think i remember the case you are talking about, although there are far too many such cases. obviously, regardless of what kind of childhood that you have had, you know right and wrong at least by the time that you are ten or twelve. in the case of a father allowing pedophiles to molest his kids, obviously, the father is worse than the pedophiles. legally, killing him was wrong, even though it was morally right. in such a case as this however, if i were on the jury, i would convict the kid of murder, because he didn't kill the pedophile as well. had he killed both his father AND the pedophile, i would acquit him. for the record, i did have a lousier childhood than most of the fools around. i was not abused or anything, but, from the time that i was 12 until i was 16, as the eldest of nine kids, i was the sole support of my family. i went to school, then had to hoe weeds, mow lawns, etc to get money for us to eat. it used to really *deleted* me off to have to walk a mile and a half back up the hill after i'd been working five or six hours, and see the other kids playing baseball, but i was too damn tired to do anything. nonetheless, i NEVER robbed a liquor store, or stole a car. there is not an individual living in the u.s. today who has it as hard as i did when i was a kid. if i did it right, there is no excuse for EVERY swinging you know what to not do it right Are you even honest when the wife asks the dress question? I wasn't really talking about teenage angst , more child abuse. of course. the ONLY correct answer to the dress question is "what do you think?" of course, that will usually lead to another question, and eventually, the answer must be "i don't think so"
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 8, 2013 3:30:53 GMT -6
In our days, the DP is very rarely carried out in most countries. It is rather a joke. Therefore, it will not hinder many people to do a crime. For, even murder does not mean that the DP will be passed onto you and then carried out. For lowering the rate of crimes, at least every murderer must be put to death. However, this cannot be put forward unless several Western states will do the same. Otherwise, the one state to do so will become isolated internationally and be boycotted. Only mighty and big states like the PR of China can put forward policies that draw the anger of other states onto it. By the way: It is a myth that many children had been put to death until 200 years ago. This had only been the case in outstandingly turbulent times. Mostly, persons below the age of 14 were granted reprieves. From 14 onwards however, you were seen as old enough to be sentenced as adult. Looking at the amount of severe crimes during the last few centuries in Britain shows that it has risen steadily since the DP had been carried out less and less. The high rate of crimes has certainly some other reasons like the easy access to weapons. Singapur shows that harsh sentences on severe crimes and those done again work. Alex it is so simple. it is truly pathetic that most people can't grasp the reality. NO criminal thinks that he/she is going to get caught. obviously, if you are not caught, the death penalty, nor anything else is going to concern you
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Mar 11, 2013 16:04:25 GMT -6
In our days, the DP is very rarely carried out in most countries. It is rather a joke. Therefore, it will not hinder many people to do a crime. For, even murder does not mean that the DP will be passed onto you and then carried out. For lowering the rate of crimes, at least every murderer must be put to death. However, this cannot be put forward unless several Western states will do the same. Otherwise, the one state to do so will become isolated internationally and be boycotted. Only mighty and big states like the PR of China can put forward policies that draw the anger of other states onto it. By the way: It is a myth that many children had been put to death until 200 years ago. This had only been the case in outstandingly turbulent times. Mostly, persons below the age of 14 were granted reprieves. From 14 onwards however, you were seen as old enough to be sentenced as adult. Looking at the amount of severe crimes during the last few centuries in Britain shows that it has risen steadily since the DP had been carried out less and less. The high rate of crimes has certainly some other reasons like the easy access to weapons. Singapur shows that harsh sentences on severe crimes and those done again work. Alex it is so simple. it is truly pathetic that most people can't grasp the reality. NO criminal thinks that he/she is going to get caught. obviously, if you are not caught, the death penalty, nor anything else is going to concern you I agree with you 100%. If criminal were that logical it would be easy to deter them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 13:50:51 GMT -6
Not every criminal may be pushed off from evildoing by the death penalty. However, they do their first crime some time ago. The death penalty may push off some people to begin a criminal career or to do further crimes after their time in a prisoner camp after their first crime. Looking at long-time statistics prove for Britain that the crime rate had been rising since the death penalty has been carried out less and less.
It is also true that somebody put to death can never again do harm to others.
Alex
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 13, 2013 2:25:58 GMT -6
"for Britain that the crime rate had been rising since the death penalty has been carried out less and less." Its carried out less and less because we kinda abolished it in 1965
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 16:49:44 GMT -6
Yes, in 1965, Britain has done away the death penalty. I am speaking about the times before that when the number of those put to death has begun to become lower and lower. This has begun at the beginning of the 19th yearhundred.
Alex
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 13, 2013 20:04:36 GMT -6
If not hanged, then caged for life. Actually, facility for the criminally insane with Felix as his therapist ;D . He may be an anti but he has no love for this type. Sent from my LS670 using proboards "Caged for life," now called "The other death penalty" by anti-DP activists who have admitted in "The Progressive" magazine that "caged for life" is just a tactical claim to help get the death penalty abolished.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 20, 2013 6:42:31 GMT -6
If not hanged, then caged for life. Actually, facility for the criminally insane with Felix as his therapist ;D . He may be an anti but he has no love for this type. Sent from my LS670 using proboards "Caged for life," now called "The other death penalty" by anti-DP activists who have admitted in "The Progressive" magazine that "caged for life" is just a tactical claim to help get the death penalty abolished. caged for life should mean just that. it does here. just yesterday, a 26 year old broad was convicted of murdering her newborn twins. the judge allowed the two counts of first degree murder to be joined, and sentenced her to life. she will not be eligible for parole for 51 years. she will be at least 77, and there is no guarantee that she'll be paroled then
|
|