Bring Back Hanging!
-
tom-1536 — 17 years ago(March 07, 2009 07:41 AM)
It seems to me that none of the previous posters have been the victim of a violent predator. Unfortunately, such was not the case with my own daughter, sexually assaulted by a pedophile. It was not even especially violent assault, as those things go. We were (and still are) thankful for that. However, the sweet and innocent sixteen year old that was the light of our lives has never been the same. She's battled depression and anxiety ever since. She never induced this animal into his assault; in fact he was my best friend and she'd known him all of her life. He fooled both of us that he was a good, normal fellow fooled us for years and years, keeping his deviant nature well hidden.
I was talked out of executing him myself, but I wish now that I had. There were those who felt he could be rehabilitated, and he did appear to be so rehabilitated that is. He served most of his five year sentence under the care of doctors, undergoing psychological therapy several times a week. Is this what you all mean when you speak of rehabilitation?
Less than two weeks after his "rehabilitation" was over and he was released, he took the life of a very young little girl after a brutal sexual assault.
Now tell me that this creature should not have been executed after he'd assaulted my daughter. Let me hear your reasoning. Impress me with your arguments. Show me your compassion. Just make certain your compassion is properly placed.
Personally, I cannot think of a punishment cruel and unusual enough! If it was up to me, I'd have him hanged, drawn, and quartered. With no hesitation whatever.
TjB -
screenman — 17 years ago(March 08, 2009 01:05 PM)
Yours is an absolutely diabolical story. Frankly, it's what I'd call a worst-case scenario. And it's precisely the kind of crime that knocks the more liberal apologists and excuseniks into a cocked hat. Any normal human-being would flay this fiend alive if they were in your shoes, no matter what judgemental platitudes they might utter under different circumstances.
I'm reminded of Lord Longford et al, clamouring for the release of Myra Hindley, claiming that she was just misunderstood, she was prey to the evil influence of Ian Brady, she was a reformed character, and that she had made a full confession and contrition etc etc. Eventually, when it looked like she might be in line for parole, Brady let slip that there were 2 other murders in which she had been complicit, and about which up to that point she had kept schtum.
I believe Longford had a nervous breakdown. And it served him right.
Personally, I would like to see a new offence of `gross violence', in which it would not affect the outcome of trial whether the victim lived or died. If the attack was deemed to have been so wicked and violent as to be incomprehensible to civilised society, it should still incur the death penalty. That would take in all of these people who irreperably harm kids, or old people, or even the other species for that matter.
My complete sympathies are with you and your kid, for what they are worth. -
johncsw — 17 years ago(March 13, 2009 12:56 AM)
First of all, I just want to express my sympathies to you.
Yes I agree that what happened was dispicable. And you're right; I don't even have any children, so I cannot even begin to imagine something like this. However as I have mentioned I am not totally without experience in this area. I would rather not give any details over the internet but I will try to explain where my point of view comes from.
The situation that I was in was perculiar in that I saw both the reaction of the family of the victim. And the reaction of the family of the criminal. As for as you say placing compassion in the right place, is there anything wrong with placing it on both sides?
To quote Gandhi "An eye for an eye, only ends up making the whole world blind"
As for the rehab issue as I said before I don't think we are in a position to say that it is impossible to say that such people cannot be reformed as we know so little about the nature of these illnesses. I think there should be more research into this area. -
screenman — 17 years ago(March 22, 2009 07:45 AM)
Diabolical behaviour is not necessarily the result of
illness'. Too often that term is used as an excuse to marginalise the culprit's action. It seems to me that those who employ it are afraid to face the fact that clinically sane and sound people can enjoy causing others to suffer. By describing such behaviour asillness', an arbitrary and false line is drawn between those who do and those who don't. Those who don't, sleep more soundly in their beds if they know that those who do areill'. In some way thesick' are reresented as having fallen below a pre-determineduniversal' standard of human civilisation. It helps to keepgood' people and theirgood' behaviour sacrosanct and unsullied. They maintain the ideal, they keep the faith. When in truth, that distinction doesn't exists. There's no such thing as aninherently fundamental goodness'. That idea derives from our Judeo-Christian mythology about gods and devils. Humans are just animals. They are the product of evolution. We are the top predator on this planet, and we didn't get there by being nice.
None of those tried at Nuremberg entered pleas of insanity. Neither did those in the Balkans or Rwanda. People commit the most brutal acts of ruthless cruelty and they do this in a mental state that is as sound as yours or mine. The recent crimes of Josef Fritzl are a case in point. That man knew exactly what he was doing from square one. And he carried on doing it for 28 years. Very likely he would still be doing it now if the secret hadn't finally got out. He has shown not one particle of guilt or remorse.
That man is not sick; he's a monster. And monster is as monster does.
Incidentally; despite all his evident humanity, Ghandi was assassinated - just like Jesus Christ. `Peaceful lives do not deliver freedom.' -
johncsw — 17 years ago(March 25, 2009 09:35 AM)
I am of the opposite opinion. I believe that writing these people of as monsters is more of a denial of the reality that these people are still human beings. They are not aliens that come down from outer space they're one of us. No matter how diabolical their acts are. I do believe that these people are sick, and we should investigate more thoroughly what causes this. Afterall our children could become ill. How would we react to that?
If human's are just animals than this entire conversation is pointless. Unless you wish to employ a justice system in the animal kingdom as well; No more child abandonment, rape, or canablism. Because thats what goes in the animal world. Or else we would have to allow the same sort of thing to happen in our society.
Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, the Kennedy Brothers etc. Yes they were all murdered, and murdered really for the good things that did and would have continued to do, but thats a debate for another day. -
screenman — 16 years ago(April 04, 2009 07:37 AM)
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Firstly; I don't write all violent people off as
monsters'. But I believe Fritzl certainly deserves that definition. Remember; he and his legal team were free to offer any defence they could think of, including one of illness - even madness.Diminished Responsibility' is the usual caveat. So, if neither he nor his lawyers saw fit to claim illness as a mitigation, is it not a presumption upon your part to suggest it yourself? Do you know better than they? Up to now you haven't offered any measure by which theillnesses' you imagine might be explained. Wickedness is surely a matter of degree. In describing someone as a monster, I do not dismiss their humanity. Monstrousness is measured by humanity. The one could not be without the other. Indeed, it is because they are human that I call them monsters. The other species do not possess sufficient cerebral function, and therefore cannot be held accountable. Even the most intelligent chimpanzee is only about equal to a 3-year-old human child. If you wish, I will compromise and say that he is a monstrous human being. But that will not diminish his crimes, nor - in my opinion - mitigate mercy. Clearly; if you do not accept the 2 principles of Darwinian evolution, then any conversation is pointless, because our animal nature is absolutely beyond any biological refute. Professor Richard Dawkins has suggested that any who fail to embrace this fact are themselves evidentially dillusional, and I am apt to agree. Yet being evolved from moreprimitive' species does not preclude a statutory code of moral conduct based upon behaviour. As a matter of fact, it is possible to observe rudimentary morality amongst our more intelligent cousins. If you haven't already; I suggest you look-over the research of Frans De Waal. He and many highly regarded primatologists now refer to the subject of identifiable behavioural restraint asethology'. Some even refer to amoral' gene. Beinganimal' doesn't mean you can't beethical'. Neither does being an ape mean you cannot be civilised. Unfortunately; being human doesn't guarantee you won't be a beast.
Any evaluation of human conduct that precludes our evolutionary heritage is not only a facetious affectation, but plain wrong. And moreover; such an evaluation is doomed to failure. For the most part; we are justmonkeys in the fast lane'. One last point, and I'll shut up. What we callGood' behaviour is not inevitable; it is an evolved trait. Amongst organisms that have evolved a gregarious lifestyle, some degree of cooperation has been an essential compromise. And that cooperation has inevitably meant exercising a degree of self-restraint amongst its members. That restraint has become the adhesive of the community. Which is whybonding' is so important and practiced so often between its members. But if there is a greater survival advantage to be got from beingwicked', then wicked behaviour will develop instead. And no amount of idealistic hand-wringing can change that. -
lastmidnite2 — 16 years ago(June 29, 2009 08:59 PM)
so in conclusion: KILL KILL KILL!, Just don't abort a baby, because human life is precious! lol. oh and by the way, Evans was innocent after all, so the argument would be more against hanging than for, wouldn't you say?
-
screenman — 16 years ago(July 07, 2009 05:08 AM)
Erm I'm not quite sure as to which points you are responding, but I think I do say at some stage that I believe the death of Timothy Evans was an indictment of capital punishment AS IT THEN WAS. We could be a lot more exacting today. In fact his retarded mental condition would nowadays almost certainly mitigate a plea of diminished responsibility. The recent execution of Mr DeMenenes by police at the Stockwell tube station in London in mistake for a terrorist was no less an affront to justice. Should we disarm the police then as we have disarmed the courts?
-
cp1957 — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 05:15 PM)
Have any of the posters actually watched the film? Written by Ludovic Kennedy it is a commentary on the vagaries and attrocity of capital punishment. Although his innocence isn't proven beyond doubt, Evans's guilt is certainly far from established given what we now know about Christie. If the state even takes just one innocent life, then it is a price not worth paying, and there are now too many examples of innocent individuals being murdered by the state. The Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six would all have been dead within weeks of their original convictions if capital punishment had still existed in Britain. Innocent people have also been murdered in the USA in the name of justice, where, despite the reintroduction of capital punishment thirty years ago it has not proved to be a deterrent. A mature, confident and just society is one that doesn't feel the need to take the lives of its own citizens.
-
Gloede_The_Saint — 16 years ago(July 12, 2009 08:47 AM)
Hey mate. Are you a fan of this film? It's doing pretty badly in my 1971 poll over at FG. Here's a link if you want to help it out. You can also see if you want to vote on my 1970 thread as well. I'm gonna send you a PM as well in case you don't read this.
Here are the links:
1970 -
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/142512129
1971 -
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/142524044
Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle -
screenman — 16 years ago(July 14, 2009 05:51 AM)
In response to
DeathToPigs'; I guess it depends what you intend the death penalty to be. If you check the threads you will see that I don't advocate it aspunishment', but as a means ofjustice'. Much as I revile these people I would not have them gratuitouslytortured'. I don't care what Brady or Huntley want. They should have no say in the matter. For me, they would get what the law prescribed - and that would be hanging. If that also happened to be what they wanted, then that's life (or in this case - death). And they're welcome to it. I don't see the efficacy of spending millions of pounds of taxpayers money on metering-out a lifetime's campaign of low-level suffering, simply to thwart them for actually wanting what they deserve.
Incidentally; neither of these guys would have wanted to die at the outset. Both steadfastly pleaded their innocence right up to and beyond their convictions. It's very easy to plead for something terrible that you know will never be given. Don't you think? -
DeathToPigs — 16 years ago(July 14, 2009 10:59 AM)
Murderers are often tortured frustrated people beaten down by life, death is often a blessing for them. Giving them a quick and relatively painless exit to satisfy the public's bloodlust isn't my idea of justice. I wonder how many people would support the death penalty if it was a relative of theirs' due to be hung and they knew they hadn't done it.
-
judd_clarke — 16 years ago(July 15, 2009 01:36 AM)
Not many, obviously. Generally, the people getting hung would be guilty though.
www.igloooftheuncanny.blogspot.com -
screenman — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 02:31 AM)
Actually, I suspect most people would not want to see their nearest and dearest hanged even if they knew they were guilty. And it's for just that reason that family members are excluded from a jury panel. Conflict of interest.