Bring Back Hanging!
-
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.
-
a_heathen_conceivably — 16 years ago(September 26, 2009 05:23 PM)
"So there should be no democracy if it risks an outcome of which you disaprove?
That sounds like classicsocialism'. You must be aGuardian' reader."
Venezuelans democratically elected socialist leader Hugo Chavez, and the US Government disapproved.
Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for Islamists Hamas (like it or not, but they
did
), due to the perceived corruption (I would not presume an opinion) of opposition 'moderates' Fatah, in an election declared free and fair by international observers; the whole 'West' disapproved and imposed sanctions; Fatah were handed power, Hamas retook power in the Gaza Strip (violently, it has to be said) in what has been declared by the West an illegal coup ever since
Chileans voted for Salvador Allende, and the CIA assisted to have him quickly toppled in a military coup by right-wing dictator General Augusto Pinoche, who tortured and/or killed thousands for supporting the other guy (the legitimate president) and his party, but this was fine because not only did the then US government approve, but he was later befriended by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher over the help which he undoubtedly did give to the Royal Air Force during the Falklands War. However this was no excuse for Maggie's shocking compliment to him years later when both were out of power "You brought democracy to your country" - exactly 180 degrees from the truth and she knew it. Far worse than George Galloway's infamous comments to Saddam Hussein (who was also, incidentally, installed in a military coup with the help the CIA).
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."- Henry Kissinger.
I do not support the reintroduction of capital punishment. If it were to become an instrument of the completely infallable British judicial system then wouldn't we be condoning executions not only in the US but China; Iran; our friends in Saudi Arabia, etc. ? Anyway it'll never happen in the UK unless one or other extremist party is democratically elected and we leave the European Union (would we get a referendum?).
"
10 Rillington Place
"
may be a dramatised account of actual events, but it is not entirely inaccurate and correctly depicts the prosecution, conviction and legal, judicial execution of a man for the crime of murder, largely on the evidence of a single witness thought to be reliable but whom was later proven to be a serial killer himself. I personally believe that Evans was innocent of murder - but even if he wasn't, his conviction was
unsafe
. Anyway hasn't his conviction since been legally overturned, long after his posthumous pardon? No apology was forthcoming, and no compensation paid, as the man was dead.
I read
"The Independent"
, and
"The Scotsman"
on Fridays (for the recruitment supplement).
"Oh look - a lovely spider! And it's eating a butterfly!"
''
,,
- Henry Kissinger.
-
user-153 — 16 years ago(September 28, 2009 09:13 AM)
I agree. Amazing, isn't it, that screenman seems to defend the assertion:
"well they were not miscarriages of justice.Evans murdered his daughter and paid the price and Bentley was involved in the murder of a policeman".
Those who consider advances in forensic science and the courts treatment of psychological issues as a fool-proof miss the point: the facts are decided by the jury. The list in recent years where mistakes made in both fields have led to miscarriages of justice (baby-shaking, to name just one) is extensive.
So it's obviously not right for people who don't fully appreciate this, or who react emotionally to the issue, or who enjoy hiding behind the ignorance of statements such as 'Bentley was involved in the murder of a policeman', should play a role in the re-introduction of the death penalty. -
screenman — 16 years ago(October 05, 2009 03:07 AM)
Hmm. I'm not quite sure which way you guys are swinging here.
I support the re-introduction of capital punishment for reasons explained quite a long way back in the thread.
I also think that if the majority of the population want it re-introduced then their wish should be granted. It strikes me as profoundly arrogant and undemocratic for a minority in that population to assume a higher moral status or claim a better understanding or education as a basis to veto the majority wish.
This is exactly what has happened with regard to the so-called European constitution. Ireland voted against it so they were brow-beaten into taking another vote. Britain has always been the eurosceptic captial and would be almost certain to throw it out. So Britain was denied a vote altogether. The euro-intelligensia call that democracy. They think they know what's best for us.
Maybe they're right. But I would sooner have my vote and vote the `wrong' way, even if it was a ticket to hell.
By the way; I also disapprove of abortion. To me that's infanticide. But I live in a society where the innocent can be legally put to death whilst murderers cannot. The courts may not sanction execution of those convicted, but the police may assasssinate suspects without trial. Crazy world. Maybe the immoral, uneducated and stupid actually know something we smart-arses don't.