|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Sept 23, 2012 5:51:59 GMT -6
Peter Hitchens blog this morning.
Parliament sentenced hundreds of innocent people to death when it arrogantly abolished hanging in 1965. Many of those innocent people have yet to meet their killers, but that meeting will inevitably come.
Hundreds more, also thanks to the smugness of our sheltered power elite, will instead be horribly, terrifyingly injured.
But – because our medical skills have grown while our common sense has shrunk – they will survive to live damaged, darkened lives.
On the long list of Parliament’s victims, both dead and wounded, are many police officers. Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes, may they rest in peace, are just the latest.
Nobody can really claim to be surprised by this. In August 1966, a few months after the death penalty was got rid of, three police officers were murdered close to Wormwood Scrubs Prison.[related]
Our once-peaceful country was so shocked that a memorial service was held in Westminster Abbey for the three – Geoffrey Fox, Stanley Wombwell and Christopher Head.
But the Prince of Liberal Smugness, the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, airily dismissed calls for a return of the gallows. ‘I will not change my policy in the shadow of recent events, however horrible,’ he said, in a statement of such bone-headed obstinacy that it ought to be carved on his tombstone.
If the murder of three policemen by an armed gang of crooks, months after hanging was abolished for that very offence, was not a reason to change a policy, then what would change his mind? The answer was that nothing would.
Like all such people, he knew he was right, and ‘civilised’ – and neither the facts nor common sense would change what he pleased to call his mind.
Now, after the Manchester killings, there has been an attempt to divert us into an argument about arming the police. Almost every account of these deaths, rather oddly, stressed that the two officers were unarmed.
Why? There’s no suggestion that Fiona Bone or Nicola Hughes would have been safer if they had been armed. Do we want to turn the police into executioners? In any case, the police of this country are armed, and have been for years.
Not all of them carry weapons, but the proud boast of this country in my childhood, that we were the only major nation whose police did not carry guns, long ago ceased to be true.
We weren’t asked about it. But then again, we weren’t asked about abolishing the death penalty. No political party ever put that policy in its manifesto. To this day it has not been properly discussed.
Few people understand that supporters of the gallows never pretended it would deter all murders. They believed it deterred criminals from carrying lethal weapons.
We have in fact had two experiments to see if this is so. The death penalty was suspended in this country for much of 1948, while Parliament debated (and rejected) its abolition. It was suspended again from August 1955 to March 1957, during a similar debate. After 1957 the penalty was much weaker, though it still protected police officers.
Colin Greenwood, a retired policeman, studied the statistics and found a marked leap in violent and armed offences during 1948, followed by a return to the previous level. There was another rise in 1956-57, followed by a slight fall. There was a third significant rise in the mid-Sixties, which has continued more or less ever since.
The carrying and use of guns and knives by criminals just grows and grows. Jay Whiston, whose dreadful death I mentioned last week, is one victim of this. The Manchester police officers are two more.
But these are the cases we all hear about. Far, far more common are dreadful events in which heroic doctors and nurses save the lives of people who would undoubtedly have died of comparable wounds 50 years ago.
Last week, in my beautiful, civilised home town, Oxford, two men were jailed for attacking Kirk Smith in his home, in a petty, moronic robbery – of £20 and two phones.
Abdul Adan, 21, was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years (in reality he will serve half that) for stabbing Mr Smith four times, after first smashing his nose. Mr Smith’s wounds were appalling. They ‘bared his intestines’, as the court report puts it. Adan’s accomplice, Michael Edwards, 25, got three-and-a-half years, which of course he will not serve in full.
Did these assailants care whether they killed him? Did they, in fact, fear the law at all? How many such crimes have been and will be committed in our supposedly civilised, liberal country this year? More than you think.
Are any of us safe in our homes, or on the streets, or on late-night buses and trains, from people such as this? Will anything be done to put it right?
You know the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dogrose on Oct 1, 2012 12:01:15 GMT -6
The answer is that we are civilized now.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Oct 1, 2012 13:14:59 GMT -6
Are we? An ex friend of mine served 12 years for the murder of another friends husband. He's back inside now for rape. He loves the UK because he can get away with anything. (Thats what his sister said (and she hates him too.)
Civilised does not mean doing away with hanging. It means doing away with murderers.
|
|
|
|
Post by dogrose on Oct 5, 2012 6:16:49 GMT -6
Doing away with murderers?? No matter how many get executed, there is another one to take their place.
If only execution did away with murderers, I would not be sitting on the fence now.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Oct 5, 2012 6:30:34 GMT -6
I agree hanging 30 or 40 a year wont make a difference (and remember I dont support the DP because it deters) but IF we hanged regularly it might deter some, especially the young knife carriers who now think nothing of stabbing someone to death. We'll always have the Ian Bradys whether we hang or not but it would make the hoodies think twice.
Especially when they watched one of their gang swing.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 5, 2012 8:16:40 GMT -6
Doing away with murderers?? No matter how many get executed, there is another one to take their place. If only execution did away with murderers, I would not be sitting on the fence now. It certainly would ensure murderers do not "stack up inside", as well as once they murder not have a second opportunity to murder yet again inside those walls or if released back onto society... |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 8, 2013 15:58:01 GMT -6
The answer is that we are civilized now. ALL normal and rational people know that being so abjectly stupid that you think that the life of a murderer is of equal value to the life of the five year old girl that he raped and murdered, is as far from civilized as it is possible to get |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 8, 2013 16:19:23 GMT -6
Doing away with murderers?? No matter how many get executed, there is another one to take their place. If only execution did away with murderers, I would not be sitting on the fence now. it doesn't matter whether or not execution does away with all potential murderers. deterrence of others is an imbecilic reason for the death penalty. execution DOES ensure that that particular murderer never kills again, and that is the ONLY deterrence that has any relevance |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2013 0:51:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 13, 2013 10:46:40 GMT -6
Doing away with murderers?? No matter how many get executed, there is another one to take their place. If only execution did away with murderers, I would not be sitting on the fence now. So, that is how you can boost about a low incarceration rate. You quickly leave murderers out unto society, while the new up and coming (murderers pile up in society too. Great.... . |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 27, 2013 7:42:43 GMT -6
your adoration of totally worthless garbage who have voluntarily chosen to forfeit their right to life is despicable. your stating that the life of a five year old child is not worth as much as the life of the garbage who raped and murdered her is about as bad as it gets |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 20:48:33 GMT -6
The answer is that we are civilized now. There is no civilized way of executing someone, whether it be hanging, a bullet to the head, or lethal injection. None of it strikes me as more civilized than not. The act of executing a murderer is not civilized. Doesn't matter how it's done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 20:51:50 GMT -6
your adoration of totally worthless garbage who have voluntarily chosen to forfeit their right to life is despicable. your stating that the life of a five year old child is not worth as much as the life of the garbage who raped and murdered her is about as bad as it gets She didn't say she "adored" murderers by expressing an anti-death penalty view. |
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 28, 2013 3:55:35 GMT -6
your adoration of totally worthless garbage who have voluntarily chosen to forfeit their right to life is despicable. your stating that the life of a five year old child is not worth as much as the life of the garbage who raped and murdered her is about as bad as it gets She didn't say she "adored" murderers by expressing an anti-death penalty view. well hon, if you read the link she gave, it's primary trip is about "saving a soul". that is fine. i think that most murderers come to god prior to their execution. obviously, some don't. that is perfectly fine. however, there is NO atonement for murder on this earth. the ONLY one who can forgive murder is god. as i said, thinking that we don't have the right to take a murderer's life is assigning value to life, saying that the murderer's life is of more value than the life of the victim |
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 8, 2013 1:13:53 GMT -6
We do not have the right to stop the life of a person. Every living thing from microbe to man has the right to protect itself. |
|
|
|
Post by charon on Jul 1, 2013 4:00:47 GMT -6
She didn't say she "adored" murderers by expressing an anti-death penalty view. well hon, if you read the link she gave, it's primary trip is about "saving a soul". that is fine. i think that most murderers come to god prior to their execution. obviously, some don't. that is perfectly fine. however, there is NO atonement for murder on this earth. the ONLY one who can forgive murder is god. as i said, thinking that we don't have the right to take a murderer's life is assigning value to life, saying that the murderer's life is of more value than the life of the victim Fine! Save his soul but kill his @ss! I disagree with hanging, btw. Catherine Wheel is more my thing. These hellspawn suckers deserves nothing less. |
|
|
|
Post by liljessncda on Jul 10, 2013 0:15:51 GMT -6
I have zero understanding of why a persons deserves a life spared when they had no problem taking one or numerous lives. If your willing to kill, be willing to die.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 24, 2013 14:35:02 GMT -6
I have zero understanding of why a persons deserves a life spared when they had no problem taking one or numerous lives. If your willing to kill, be willing to die. that's just the simple, irrefutable REALITY |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 14:56:28 GMT -6
AND... here comes another one. We do not have the right to stop the life of a person?  Really and I mean really. Maybe you should tell that to the murderers that I just know you love so much. If they hadn't taken it as their right to stop the life of a person, then they wouldn't be facing the DP. Think about that before you get all high and mighty and oh so full of compassion and understanding. Try a little understanding the other way before you start typing BS here. You will get called on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Sept 24, 2013 18:37:03 GMT -6
very living thing from microbe to man has the right to protect itself. Ergo, the elimination (purportedly) of the variola major bacillus from this earth was genocide? |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 24, 2013 21:39:14 GMT -6
I am agains't any (individual) who thinks they have the right to stop lifes of other people, do so by appointing themselves as judge and jury no attorney or appeals. No family visits, phone calls, marriage, proms, holidays,no goodbyes to family. Rape/murder dispose of the body anyway they want, method of murder too. Yes, we do have a right to execute, to not do so" would make us uncivilized..or to leave a murderer out with a slap on the wrist in just a few yrs is not making us civilized. Just the opposite in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 25, 2013 12:29:20 GMT -6
She must have a point, if you folks are still arguing about it 7 months later. If you read the article she mentioned, you realize the author's suggested punishment for murder is more severe than what is currently practiced in the United States or anywhere in Europe. Permanent immurement for murder, in total isolation, with no visitation by anyone -- who could possibly be opposed to that? Even the condemned, or should I say especially the condemned, are allowed visitors in this country, and all but a handful of the condemned die of old age in prison anyway -- thanks to the incompetence and hypocrisy of "pros." Americans talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, when it comes to executing murderers. In every pro, there's an anti, trying to get out. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 25, 2013 12:57:06 GMT -6
She must have a point, if you folks are still arguing about it 7 months later. If you read the article she mentioned, you realize the author's suggested punishment for murder is more severe than what is currently practiced in the United States or anywhere in Europe. Permanent immurement for murder, in total isolation, with no visitation by anyone -- who could possibly be opposed to that? Even the condemned, or should I say especially the condemned, are allowed visitors in this country, and all but a handful of the condemned die of old age in prison anyway -- thanks to the incompetence and hypocrisy of "pros." Americans talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, when it comes to executing murderers. In every pro, there's an anti, trying to get out. Because lovingrose knows as well as the one who wrote the blog, that will never happen to murderers incarcerated. Sounds good though to stop executions. Also how many are serving only a few years for murder the slap on the wrist crap. We all know there will be no real LWOP to begin with. To add Joe, speak for yourself not all pro's are anti's, trying to get out. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 25, 2013 13:11:47 GMT -6
not all pro's are anti's, trying to get out. Most are, which is why only 1 out of 250 murderers in the United States will ever die by execution. And all but a handful of the 249 will be paroled. That's entirely the fault of "pros," as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 13:20:09 GMT -6
She must have a point, if you folks are still arguing about it 7 months later. If you read the article she mentioned, you realize the author's suggested punishment for murder is more severe than what is currently practiced in the United States or anywhere in Europe. Permanent immurement for murder, in total isolation, with no visitation by anyone -- who could possibly be opposed to that? Even the condemned, or should I say especially the condemned, are allowed visitors in this country, and all but a handful of the condemned die of old age in prison anyway -- thanks to the incompetence and hypocrisy of "pros." Americans talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, when it comes to executing murderers. In every pro, there's an anti, trying to get out. You're right Joe. I didn't notice that it was 7 months ago until after I posted. I didn't read the article because I tend to react first and then later realize that I screwed up. What can I say? OOOOOOPS!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 25, 2013 13:21:38 GMT -6
not all pro's are anti's, trying to get out. Most are, which is why only 1 out of 250 murderers in the United States will ever die by execution. And all but a handful of the 249 will be paroled. That's entirely the fault of "pros," as well. Just the pros's fault? |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 25, 2013 14:08:37 GMT -6
Yes, because (a) they're the majority and (b) they're racist. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 25, 2013 14:20:44 GMT -6
You're right Joe. I didn't notice that it was 7 months ago until after I posted. I didn't read the article because I tend to react first and then later realize that I screwed up. What can I say? OOOOOOPS!!! :D Well, the timing is not a big deal, but the reactions are interesting. If our society could punish all murderers the same, automatically, with, say, LWOP or 70 years or whatever, but HARSHLY, it would be a big improvement on what we have now. What we have now is people looking at who got killed, and/or why someone got killed -- as if that matters -- and deciding punishment from there. That's just wrong. I understand how misguided some of the antis are, thinking the world would be a better place if we all thought happy thoughts and treated everyone, including murderers, with kindness. I understand why they're against the death penalty. If they offer me an automatic sentence of LWOP for murder, though, which is what they have in Michigan, they have my attention. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 25, 2013 14:33:18 GMT -6
Yes, because (a) they're the majority and (b) they're racist. All pro's are racist too? intersesting how is it pro's are "all" racist now? And only pro's? |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 25, 2013 15:08:37 GMT -6
All pro's are racist too? intersesting how is it pro's are "all" racist now? And only pro's? The racism of antis doesn't matter to me, because they're not involved in making public policy, WhiteDiamonds. And yes, pros are racist. |
|
Really and I mean really. Maybe you should tell that to the murderers that I just know you love so much. If they hadn't taken it as their right to stop the life of a person, then they wouldn't be facing the DP. Think about that before you get all high and mighty and oh so full of compassion and understanding. Try a little understanding the other way before you start typing BS here. You will get called on it.
