|
|
Post by n01stokie on Jul 17, 2008 12:31:19 GMT
the state of this country is appalling, and one of the main problems is knife crime. The problem is that this government is too soft. I think it is time to bring back the death penalty. The law should be simple kill someone, and you are killed!!
thoughts????
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiematt on Jul 17, 2008 12:36:49 GMT
cut their hands off
|
|
|
|
Post by scfc147 on Jul 17, 2008 13:20:41 GMT
I'll start! Anyone know where that fucker Carson lives?  |
|
|
|
Post by robdog on Jul 17, 2008 13:33:41 GMT
sort it Battle Royale style.
Get 50 kids caught with knives - stick em on a small uninhabited island - give em all their knives back and it ends with only one person left alive
or
turn the Millenium Dome into Thunderdome : "2 men enter 1 man leaves"
|
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jul 17, 2008 13:37:09 GMT
the state of this country is appalling, and one of the main problems is knife crime. The problem is that this government is too soft. I think it is time to bring back the death penalty. The law should be simple kill someone, and you are killed!! thoughts???? Me and a few mates were on about this today. Totally agree with you. With science being the way it is I doubt anyone would be convicted wrongly any more. murderers, rapists, pedo's etc. Hang the fuckin lot of em.  |
|
|
|
Post by vote for pedro on Jul 17, 2008 14:22:09 GMT
Me and a few mates were on about this today. Totally agree with you. With science being the way it is I doubt anyone would be convicted wrongly any more. murderers, rapists, pedo's etc. Hang the fuckin lot of em. defo, kill the fucking lot of them it'll free up some much needed oxygen |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 17, 2008 14:25:47 GMT
Agree, even my mild mannered missus is turning to the same thoughts
|
|
|
|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Jul 17, 2008 14:29:35 GMT
Battle royale sounds perfect - it will undoubtedly cut down the number of imigrants aswell  |
|
|
|
Post by Rebelliousjukebox on Jul 17, 2008 14:40:48 GMT
No. Four main reasons:-
1) If an innocent person is found guilty, and it does happen however good the forensic science, you can release them from prison. You can't bring them back from the dead.
2) How can you demonstrate that it is wrong to murder by committing murder? Illogical.
3) The potential for abuse of the death penalty by politicians.
4) Evidence from the USA where many states have the death penalty suggests that it simply doesn't work. Homicide rates do not go down - simple as.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokecity on Jul 17, 2008 15:12:31 GMT
Ok, ok, I've got an idea, let's lock them up with playstations and all sorts of other luxuries. That'll teach 'em won't it. I bet they won't re-offend in a hurry!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jul 17, 2008 15:18:05 GMT
I'm sure these rumours of PS3's and Sky in cells and such are nothing more than that. Granted modern prisons are a far cry from the dark, damp rancid conditions of maybe the 1700s, but if I ever had to go to prison I'd cack myself, and I'm sure you'd be pretty upset about it as well if you had to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfc147 on Jul 17, 2008 15:37:33 GMT
I'm sure these rumours of PS3's and Sky in cells and such are nothing more than that. Granted modern prisons are a far cry from the dark, damp rancid conditions of maybe the 1700s, but if I ever had to go to prison I'd cack myself, and I'm sure you'd be pretty upset about it as well if you had to go. Sadly Boother the Playstation and In-cell Digital freeview TV is absolute reality! Dependant on the prisoners Incentives and Earned Privileges i.e. Their behaviour in that prison to which they reside. Prison is indeed a cakewalk dependant on the establishment you would find yourself obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by stokecity on Jul 17, 2008 15:41:33 GMT
The thing is, I was taught the difference between right and wrong as have my kids. I also had a lot of respect for the pigs police when I was growing up as they seemed to be upholding the law and protecting the innocent. Now I know differently but my kids still think they aren't just looking to persecute prosecute drivers because they're easy meat.
If jails were the same as they were in the 1700s rather than being easy street and mini-crime academies then the crime rate would be reduced.
In short, yes I'd cack mesen at being inside but it's unlikely I'd get to go there in the first place!
|
|
|
|
Post by Goarn ROORRRRYYYY! on Jul 17, 2008 16:44:40 GMT
I'd definitely bring back the death penalty, rather than locking them up and releasing them after half a sentence, ridiculous. Why do they do it? sentence the scum to life and release them after somethin ridiculous like just over 10 years? I would like to see the death penalty brought back for the scum bastards who are left walking the streets after half a sentence in a prison where the environment isn't bad enough for the people who are in there. If this wasn't brought back i'd at the least expect them to serve their full sentence with worse conditions, rather than letting them out on 'good behavior' to re offend.
|
|
|
|
Post by vote for pedro on Jul 17, 2008 17:21:39 GMT
you can not change the state of mind of a paedophile
they look on children as we look on women
they can not be rehabilitated
why should we have to pay to keep them alive for the rest of thier perverse lives
if you are 100% guilty of murder then why should you live?
|
|
|
|
Post by bettyswallocks on Jul 17, 2008 17:28:18 GMT
Ok, if you are found to be guilty of murder then the current sentance is life imprisonment. Which for some idiotic reason is around 14 years. Yes the death penalty would definatelty reduce the amount of murders but it is not just this stance which we need to be strong on. Many areas in our criminal system, whetehr that be the judiciary or parliment need to be tougher on crime. Sentances need to be harder and longer. To do this money must be first spent on jails and alot of money on reform, personally I dont really see this happening for many years and the state of society will only get worse.
Meggs
|
|
|
|
Post by ricksastokie on Jul 18, 2008 1:11:13 GMT
No. Four main reasons:- 1) If an innocent person is found guilty, and it does happen however good the forensic science, you can release them from prison. You can't bring them back from the dead. 2) How can you demonstrate that it is wrong to murder by committing murder? Illogical. 3) The potential for abuse of the death penalty by politicians. 4) Evidence from the USA where many states have the death penalty suggests that it simply doesn't work. Homicide rates do not go down - simple as. Ahh the old capital punishment chestnut. Here's my take on Rebellious Jukeboxe's objections. I'm not saying I'm right mind. 1. Limit the death penalty to when there is 100% no doubt that premeditated murder was commited. i.e. there are multiple witnesses. 2. You can't. But hey ho, serves the scumbags right. 3. Legislate that the death penalty can never be sanctioned by the Government and that five judges from across the political spectrum must consult to decide whether the death penalty is warranted. 4. Even if homicide rates don't go down it would still save the taxpayer a fortune by not having to house the scumbags until they die. That aside I personally feel that the punishment system in the UK is inconsistent, unfair and to be perfectly honest a complete mess. The whole judicial system should be dismantled and rebuilt from the bottom. There should be a punishment menu that everyone could have access to so that they would know in advance what they could expect if they commit crime. And there should be no parole. Why should someone who commits a motoring offence get a stiffer penalty than say some one who assaults another person? I also like the three strikes and you're out concept. Many people make misjudgements in their life but if you haven't got the nous to put your own life right after being convicted of a crime twice then fuck it, go to prison for the rest of your natural. Just imagine how much better our world would be if we could rid ourselves for ever of the lying, cheating, violent, fraudulent scumbags? Why should good law abiding people live in fear of these lowlifes? Lock 'em up and throw away the key, that's what I say. |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jul 18, 2008 2:43:10 GMT
you can not change the state of mind of a paedophile they look on children as we look on women they can not be rehabilitated why should we have to pay to keep them alive for the rest of thier perverse lives if you are 100% guilty of murder then why should you live? My next statement cannot be looked upon entirely favourably by everyone, either on the grounds that I appear to be endorsing paedophilia or condemning homosexuality. The fact is, 100 years ago, homosexuals were executed for what was seen to be a perverse an unnatural practise; what we now believe is that people cannot help their sexual preferences in regard to gender and treat homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals. I am in no way defending child rape, but why do we not regard paedophiles in the same way as we see homosexuals nowadays? We treat them as the lowest of the low but at the same time they cannot help what they find to be sexually attractive; the last taboos seem to be family members and children. Why is this? From a prsonal perspective I agree that forcing anyone to pose in a pornographic stance is wrong, including the case of children. But (and the limit of my awareness on this issue I will admit reaches to the... "Less than scholarly" standards of Radio One's Newsbeat) a teacher recently admitted, of his own free will, to being attracted to children and sought of his own accord help on being "cured" of this "disease". And he ended up in prison. What sort of justice is this? That one sexual perversion is okay whilst another is not? *Awaits inevitable smiting*. I am not trying to judge, I am merely making an observation, in the sincere and honest hope that someone will be able to enlighten me as to why some sexual preferences are okay and others are not. |
|
|
|
Post by Dazzlerscfc on Jul 18, 2008 2:46:40 GMT
Battle Royal is class ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dazzlerscfc on Jul 18, 2008 2:47:36 GMT
But yes, Couldn't agree with you more, and have you noticed 95% of criminals to knife people in the UK are black? Funny since 99% of the population is white.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rebelliousjukebox on Jul 18, 2008 8:27:00 GMT
No. Four main reasons:- 1) If an innocent person is found guilty, and it does happen however good the forensic science, you can release them from prison. You can't bring them back from the dead. 2) How can you demonstrate that it is wrong to murder by committing murder? Illogical. 3) The potential for abuse of the death penalty by politicians. 4) Evidence from the USA where many states have the death penalty suggests that it simply doesn't work. Homicide rates do not go down - simple as. Ahh the old capital punishment chestnut. Here's my take on Rebellious Jukeboxe's objections. I'm not saying I'm right mind. 1. Limit the death penalty to when there is 100% no doubt that premeditated murder was commited. i.e. there are multiple witnesses. 2. You can't. But hey ho, serves the scumbags right. 3. Legislate that the death penalty can never be sanctioned by the Government and that five judges from across the political spectrum must consult to decide whether the death penalty is warranted. 4. Even if homicide rates don't go down it would still save the taxpayer a fortune by not having to house the scumbags until they die. That aside I personally feel that the punishment system in the UK is inconsistent, unfair and to be perfectly honest a complete mess. The whole judicial system should be dismantled and rebuilt from the bottom. There should be a punishment menu that everyone could have access to so that they would know in advance what they could expect if they commit crime. And there should be no parole. Why should someone who commits a motoring offence get a stiffer penalty than say some one who assaults another person? I also like the three strikes and you're out concept. Many people make misjudgements in their life but if you haven't got the nous to put your own life right after being convicted of a crime twice then fuck it, go to prison for the rest of your natural. Just imagine how much better our world would be if we could rid ourselves for ever of the lying, cheating, violent, fraudulent scumbags? Why should good law abiding people live in fear of these lowlifes? Lock 'em up and throw away the key, that's what I say. Thank you (and karma) for a serious answer to my post. To reciprocate and reply, seriously I hope, to your points:- 1. Limit the death penalty to when there is 100% no doubt that premeditated murder was commited. i.e. there are multiple witnesses.Obviously would reduce the liklihood of innocent people being executed, but would also, I'd suggest, lead to corruption of evidence to make it seem there was 100% certainty, particularly given the tendency of the tabloids to whip up a frenzy and declare someone guilty before proven so, e.g. Robert Murat. Wouldn't put it past some of the papers to pay witnesses to give the "right" evidence. 2. You can't. But hey ho, serves the scumbags right.Can't argue with that. 3. Legislate that the death penalty can never be sanctioned by the Government and that five judges from across the political spectrum must consult to decide whether the death penalty is warranted.Are judges not supposed be non-political anyway? Even with any such legislation, governments would still find a way round it - I certainly wouldn't trust them. 4. Even if homicide rates don't go down it would still save the taxpayer a fortune by not having to house the scumbags until they die.Maybe. I'm not saying I'm right mind. |
|
|
|
Post by trebor63 on Jul 18, 2008 9:12:59 GMT
I guess it comes down to should prison be punishment or rehabilitation. For offences such as shop lifting, fighting and other anti social but not too serious crimes I think prison but not with a set sentence' I think offenders should stay in there until the powers that be decide they have improved their attitudes / behaviour enough to be released.
Petty offenders who go back (say for theft) a THIRD time should have a much more severe punishment. Its obvious they are taking the piss out the rehabilitation system and again I'd then give them very long sentences or even chop their hands off (seems barbaric but feck em) My van window has been smashed three tiimes in the last 18 months so some dole loving druggy shithead doesn't have to beother working for a living, and frankly if I catch them I would kill them (and I mean kill)
However cold blooded murder, violent rapes (I know there are lots of grey areas in many rape cases) and paedos should NEVER be given a chance to rehabilitation. Why should they? They ended at least one persons life and then expect to be given theres back NO WAY! Victims don't get a choice so why should they?
If the evidence is anything other than 100% watertight the death penalty shouldn't come into play but the option SHOULD be there imo. Prisons would be very very much more basic too. A bed basic food and a small cell and that would be it! Nio telly no phone calls no socialising NOTHING!
Labour tough on crime tough on the causes of crime 'like my arse'
|
|
|
|
Post by Goarn ROORRRRYYYY! on Jul 18, 2008 14:28:33 GMT
Well, if someone murdered someone you loved, and got a shite prison sentence like 10 years or something around that, you wouldn't be best pleased and would want them dead, and after the law has failed ya, in some cases you'd give them what they deserve yourself, cause they do deserve it, the scum bastards. If the death penalty was brought back for the 100% certain cases then the family of the victims wouldn't feel let down by the law, at least giving them some satisfaction, although limited, it's something.
|
|
