Bring Back Hanging!
-
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. -
screenman — 16 years ago(October 20, 2009 11:53 AM)
Right, the contributions are a bit out of kilter chronologically, but here goes
Firstly, in response toUser153' I began this thread for the express purpose of inviting other people's opinions upon the subject of pre-meditated killing. And if you look back you will see that I have responded with diligence and due courtesy. Your implied claim that I disregard contributions in preference to personal prejudice or preconceived ideas is therefore evidentially self-contradicting. I will readily engage in rational discussion with any who wish to do so. Secondly, in response todjeinbrum': In general, a newspaper does notrepresent' anyone except those who contribute to it. It has no electoral mandate. Buying a paper is not casting a vote. Notwithstanding this; if you would care to offer any particular item ofbile spouted by the Daily Mail' which you believe is relevant to this thread, I for one would be happy to debate its merits.