Same_as_before
Well-known member
I agree, but they thought incorrectly he had or was about to commit a terrible attrocity. I make mistakes mine do not matter.
Would you have murdered Hitler in 1936? It's an impossible question to answer.
Should the UK reinstate Capital Punishment?
- Thread starter Juninho10
- Start date
Would you have murdered Hitler in 1936? It's an impossible question to answer.
Shaboro1986
Active member
Okay, instead of capital punishment. If absolutely proven someone murdered someone, life should mean life, and have them in a quarry breaking rocks, sleeping on a hard floor with only bread and water
I'm not criticising the officers directly involved; their actions were genuinely heroic. It was a tragic sequence of events. With the benefit of hindsight, we can identify errors, but I'd be very reluctant to apportion blame.
Borobuddah
Well-known member
Are you Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Shaboro1986
Active member
Wtf has that got to do with it. I'm on about prisoners which have definitely been proven to commit atrocities, should be made to do hard time. Not a comfy prison cell
r00fie1
Well-known member
No one has fully answered the question as to whether state sanctioned killing is used as a dterent or a punishment, or both?
It keeps the state paid murderer in a job:-
whether its "Chopper Square" in Saudi Arabia
or "death row" in USA
For me, state execution is not a moral, but a political question.
The majority of comments on here allude to murder as a reason for the state to execute someone.
State execution can and has been used for many other "crimes".
Is a "crime of passion" a reason to be killed by the state? [The French have such crimes included in their law].
Should Armed Forces Personnel ordered to open fire on unarmed civilians be tried for murder - or their officers? If found culpable, should the state kill them?
If a person has a "confession" forced out of them by torture by our intelligence services - which is alleged to include "acts of terrorism" - should they be executed?
Or do we adopt a judicial system which acknowledges "due process" - and the right to appeal?
Does the State have the right to withold information to protect its agents and obstruct justice - if a person is executed for alledged crimes and later proven not guilty and pardoned after their death?
Do we have a robust enogh justice system which is impartial and fair?
Can we guarantee there will never be political, personal or state interference in a case, or intimidation of witnesses, or witholding of information by the police or providing false information to secure a conviction....
I dont believe we have such a robust system in place.
Even if the sun shone out of Ian Duncan Burnett`s arze [hes the Lord Chief Justice] the system is open to deliberate interference, deliberate manipulation and abuse.
To allow State Execution is to abolish "due process" and suspend any system of justice; to replace it with fear of ultimately taking someones life.
Thats not justice.
It keeps the state paid murderer in a job:-
whether its "Chopper Square" in Saudi Arabia
or "death row" in USA
For me, state execution is not a moral, but a political question.
The majority of comments on here allude to murder as a reason for the state to execute someone.
State execution can and has been used for many other "crimes".
Is a "crime of passion" a reason to be killed by the state? [The French have such crimes included in their law].
Should Armed Forces Personnel ordered to open fire on unarmed civilians be tried for murder - or their officers? If found culpable, should the state kill them?
If a person has a "confession" forced out of them by torture by our intelligence services - which is alleged to include "acts of terrorism" - should they be executed?
Or do we adopt a judicial system which acknowledges "due process" - and the right to appeal?
Does the State have the right to withold information to protect its agents and obstruct justice - if a person is executed for alledged crimes and later proven not guilty and pardoned after their death?
Do we have a robust enogh justice system which is impartial and fair?
Can we guarantee there will never be political, personal or state interference in a case, or intimidation of witnesses, or witholding of information by the police or providing false information to secure a conviction....
I dont believe we have such a robust system in place.
Even if the sun shone out of Ian Duncan Burnett`s arze [hes the Lord Chief Justice] the system is open to deliberate interference, deliberate manipulation and abuse.
To allow State Execution is to abolish "due process" and suspend any system of justice; to replace it with fear of ultimately taking someones life.
Thats not justice.
Barnsy
Well-known member
'Little or no effort to rehabilitate'.
Do you have clear evidence to support this statement I wonder?
Rehabilitation is a key feature of the criminal justice system. There is a desire to get offenders back into society, living decent lives.
Whether you think this is a successful strategy is a different matter.
Barnsy
Well-known member
Ignore the phrase 'PC Brigade' , it needs to be shelved alongside the terms 'Snowflake' and 'Voting with our Feet'.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
If we bring back hanging what do we do about the people who are hung and then later found innocent. It may be only say 15% but there will be some.
It may also be harder to get murder convictions if hanging is brought back for murder, because the jury could be committing people to death they then could be more careful is saying guilty.
It may also be harder to get murder convictions if hanging is brought back for murder, because the jury could be committing people to death they then could be more careful is saying guilty.