Why not the death penalty?

[Cornish Steve]

The US state of Connecticut has, for the first time in 50 years, sentenced someone to death. Steven Hayes and a second man broke into a house, beat the husband, then forced the wife to withdraw money from a bank while the rest of her family remained under hostage at home. Hayes then sexually assaulted and strangled the wife. The other man, who will be tried next year, is charged with sexually assaulting their 11-year-old daughter. She and a 17-year-old sister were tied to their beds and doused in petrol before the men set the house on fire. The girls died of smoke inhalation.

The man was found guilty by a jury, and today the judge issued the death sentence. For extreme crimes of this type, and when guilt is not in doubt, why not the death penalty? Why is there no death penalty in Britain when, as far as I recall, a majority support it?

 

[stockdam]

As abhorrent as this crime was, it is not right to kill anyone. Sometimes there are cast-iron judgements that later on are shown to be wrong or unsafe (eg Birmingham 6).

 

[The Pines]

The US state of Connecticut has, for the first time in 50 years, sentenced someone to death. Steven Hayes and a second man broke into a house, beat the husband, then forced the wife to withdraw money from a bank while the rest of her family remained under hostage at home. Hayes then sexually assaulted and strangled the wife. The other man, who will be tried next year, is charged with sexually assaulting their 11-year-old daughter. She and a 17-year-old sister were tied to their beds and doused in petrol before the men set the house on fire. The girls died of smoke inhalation.

The man was found guilty by a jury, and today the judge issued the death sentence. For extreme crimes of this type, and when guilt is not in doubt, why not the death penalty? Why is there no death penalty in Britain when, as far as I recall, a majority support it?

That is truly horrific. Personally, if I were the 'executioner', I would douse them them in petrol and burn the useless scumbags.

RE: Death penalty in the UK. I believe it's down to two major factors.

1) The possibility, however remote, of a miscarriage of justice. Recent examples would include the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, that guy Stefan who was framed for the murder of 'the Bakewell tart', etc. It must be said that during the 70's and 80's there were some truly shocking miscarriages of justice. If any of those people had been executed, despite being innocent, I can't imagine the uproar that would ensue.

2) This bull5hit that prison is a place of 'rehabilitation'. It's not. The overwhelming majority of released offenders offend again. And again. And again. The reason they are released is due to prison overcrowding, not because prison has rehabilitated them. It just needs the courage of someone to say, "these people are murdering scum, they have no place in society, they cannot change, they will always be a threat to society, and should be removed from the gene pool. Furthermore they are an unnecessary extra burden on the taxpayer". But I can't see that happening!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

If there's conclusive proof then I'm fully behind the death penalty for people like this. If they do that to a perfectly innocent family, then they don't deserve to have life themselves in my opinion.

The most worthy punishment for this sort of person is the feeling they will have when they're entering a room and know that they're about to die. That's far worse than being moved into a prison where he will get a bed, security, entertainment and three meals a day for the rest of his life.

 

[stockdam]

Are you not in danger of also inflicting more suffering on the family of the people who committed the crimes. They were not involved yet they would have to suffer on the day of the execution. I know that the person committing the murder didn't think about anyone including his/her family but "we" need to be careful that we don't bring further suffering to innocent people.

There's also the case were the person is mentally ill and this is only uncovered later. Ok I think that anyone who does this is already ill.

We also have to include the views of the victims family - some of who will want the death penalty; but some may not.

 

state sponsored murder is not a road any civilised society should go down.
Just look at the amount of miscarriages of justice that have been flagged up,now imagine how many innocent people have been put to death in the usa in resent years?

 

[stockdam]

I agree with what Chris says above. Even though my automatic and gut reaction may be to look for revenge and punish, we can never be 100% certain in 100% of the cases.

We've been given the gift of life and whilst I condemn anybody who takes a life, I cannot justify taking a life as punishment.

 

[quikshop]

As abhorrent as this crime was, it is not right to kill anyone. Sometimes there are cast-iron judgements that later on are shown to be wrong or unsafe (eg Birmingham 6).

Never thought I'd ever find myself agreeing with stockdam, but the death penalty is nothing more than State sponsored murder.

 

[Beachcomber]

I agree with the reasons againt it as detialed above.

What we simply need to do is make sure prison is prison not butlins.

4 people in a 6x8 cell 20 hours out of 24 with a bucket in the corner.

No telly / DVD player / gym / hobby room / library / free training in the trade of your choice etc ,etc - a proper dose of prison victorian style would go a long way.

 

[papverpoppies]

I agree with the reasons againt it as detialed above.

What we simply need to do is make sure prison is prison not butlins.

4 people in a 6x8 cell 20 hours out of 24 with a bucket in the corner.

No telly / DVD player / gym / hobby room / library / free training in the trade of your choice etc ,etc - a proper dose of prison victorian style would go a long way.

I am torn on this one......

If the above did happen, then maybe taking away the murders freedom for the rest of their natural life is a far worse punishment, then killing them.
But, it will never happen, because even murderers are allowed 'human rights'!

Also, if it was someone we loved who had been murdered in this dreadful way, I suspect that we might want more than 'locking them up', easy to sit and write no, no no to the death penalty if (thank heavens) we have never suffered such a wicked crime against someone we love or know.

Those poor poor people, what sort of person could do that?
What an evil World we live in at times.

Poppy xx

 

[I Love Spreadsheets]

Because of the risk of putting someone to death who is innocent I dont think the death penalty is the right track. However I think that there should be a life means life sentence. I believe current guidelines mean if you are sentenced to life you can be out in 10-12 years.

If your in for life and you are proven to be innocent something can be done about it. Not so many options when someone is dead.

There is another problem with the death sentence. There is no humane way of doing it. In the USA no doctors take part in the execution so the drug cocktails are put together by prison staff. This often goes wrong with some prisoners taking up to 3 or 4 attempts to kill, some are left fully conscious but unable to breathe etc. It seems the Asian countries that use firing squads have the most humane methods.

 

[stockdam]

"The other man, who will be tried next year, is charged with sexually assaulting their 11-year-old daughter. She and a 17-year-old sister were tied to their beds and doused in petrol before the men set the house on fire."

As a father of two girls about the same age then I would not rest until the person that did it was dealt a similar and sickening justice. Forgiveness would never enter my mind as the person who did it does not deserve it. However that doesn't mean that I would be right nor should the state follow similar emotional logic. Unfortunately the nature of the crime would overcome any logic and restraint that I have.

 

[estwig]

"The other man, who will be tried next year, is charged with sexually assaulting their 11-year-old daughter. She and a 17-year-old sister were tied to their beds and doused in petrol before the men set the house on fire."

As a father of two girls about the same age then I would not rest until the person that did it was dealt a similar and sickening justice. Forgiveness would never enter my mind as the person who did it does not deserve it. However that doesn't mean that I would be right nor should the state follow similar emotional logic. Unfortunately the nature of the crime would overcome any logic and restraint that I have.

I got two girls about the same age, completely agree with you, I would want to see the man suffer, no logic, no compassion. And who is anyone to take that right away from a parent.

The family needs to reconcile this and live with it as best they can. Killing the man who committed this atrocity, will hopefully help.

 

[stockdam]

I got two girls about the same age, completely agree with you, I would want to see the man suffer, no logic, no compassion. And who is anyone to take that right away from a parent.

The family needs to reconcile this and live with it as best they can. Killing the man who committed this atrocity, will hopefully help.

I agree on what I would want personally.....I can barely imagine the torment that the close family are going through in these types of crimes.

However, where I don't agree is that the state should execute the man.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Forgetting about the certainty or otherwise of the conviction, and the understandable emotional response of those close to the victim or those that identify with the victim, does not the ritual taking of a life by the state make it no better than the original crime?

Barrie

 

[estwig]

The state should execute the man.

All too often the perpetrator is seen as some kind of victim, the family of the perpetrators victims are forgotten. The family has a right, a right to see justice done to it's utmost.

If it was your kids, you'd want blood, don't deny that of someone else.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Here's an account of what happened. The only member of the family to survive was the husband/father. Here's an interview he gave today.

Something similar happened to friends of ours around here (we had sons on the same soccer team). A man entered their home and murdered the wife. Her son arrived home from school the very moment it happened, so he was murdered too. An hour later, the daughter arrived home from school and found the bodies. The murderer did this because the father, years before, had not hired him for a job - simple as that. He carried the grudge for years, sending them Christmas cards, for example, with the eyes of characters poked out.

I had a chance to speak with the father (Trevor) a year later. The daughter was still having a hard time. I spoke with Trevor again, a year after that, and he and the daughter were still struggling. Within a year of that, Trevor died of cancer. You can't help but think that it was brought on by the tragic events. The daughter, in the end, had to move out of town and now lives with her aunt.

In this case, after a five year wait, the case was brought to trial. The guy was so obviously guilty; there was no doubt at all. His hatred was evident to all at the trial. He received the death sentence. It will probably be ten years before he's executed. In the meantime, the father is dead, the mother is dead, the son is dead, and the daughter still lives with the agony of it all.

When it's people you know, it hits home so much harder. Personally, even though I believe in compassion and forgiveness at the personal level, I do believe that people must face justice for their actions - so I do support the death penalty. Why should a murderer so full of hate and so cruel be allowed to live when he denied that right to two wonderful people? Why consider his family when a young girl faces a lifetime of remembering how she found her mother's and brother's dead bodies? Justice must be impartial to all parties. The death penalty is clinical, the dispassionate execution of justice. The crime was cruel, hateful, disgusting. I don't equate the two at all.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Forgetting about the certainty or otherwise of the conviction, and the understandable emotional response of those close to the victim or those that identify with the victim, does not the ritual taking of a life by the state make it no better than the original crime?

Barrie

It's a completely different situation and it's far, far better than the original crime. This horrendous event happened to a completely innocent family who were just minding their own business and getting on with their lives. If the guilty person didn't do that, then he would also be allowed to continue his life in peace.

If it was 'no better', then that would involve the state killing a perfectly innocent man for no apparent reason. However, that couldn't be further from the case.

 

To say 'we cannot bring in the death penalty because of mistakes we made in the past' is crazy really. Justice was a mess twenty or thirty years ago, and lots of corners were cut, this doesn't happen just so much today, and we have a pretty decent effort at appeal, etc now too. Also the physical and DNA evidence makes a large percentage of cases pretty much water-tight, which was not available back then.

One other little point, which is not for this argument, but maybe another time - some of the 'innocents' mentioned in previous posts may not actually be just as innocent as you all believe - it is merely the way they were shown to be guilty that made their convictions unsafe. That is a far cry from actually being innocent. Some political wranglings, and some owning up on the part of specific policemen made these high-profile cases get thrown out - in fact a few years later most would have gotten out as part of the Good Friday Agreement anyway.

I am totally FOR the death penalty, and I reckon the sooner we start to publicly hang a few child killers and serial murderers, the sooner we send a message to the rest that we will not tolerate their behaviour.

I visited a friend in jail a few times and was shocked to see some of the paedo's and rapists in there who were given special treatment. They are the VIP prisoners and the ODC's cannot even look at them sideways for fear of having their privilges revoked. I was totally sickened when my friend pointed out a young lad who was inside for raping a child, yet he had a full visit from girlfriend, kids and parents, all sitting happily like he had committed nothing worse than a traffic violation.

We need to stop the 'they are sick' and 'we need to rehabilitate' nonsense and start to 'punish' people for their crimes. If you go to jail, you should be made to work and work hard. If you are guilty of a very serious crime, then you should be held for long enough to go through a rigorous appeal process, and then killed. I am not happy paying taxes to have you kept in luxury whilst the victims and their families are left to get on with whatever is left of their lives.

Rehabilitation is a myth, a very small minority of people actually rehabilitate, and they probably would have anyway, regardless of the prison regime. If we punished people sufficiently, they would think twice before they reoffended.

As for the criminals families - they are not even in the equation. The criminal and the victims families are the only people who need to be considered - and that means punishment for the criminal and support for the victims/family. If the criminals family is a tad upset then they should look to their offspring for the fault in that, not the state.

There are people who commit crimes and who never do it again. I know of a few personally who went to jail in their younger days and they are as decent a person now as anyone I know. So definitely prison took them off a wayward path alright, but this is not the case in the majority.

It is simple:

Prison should mean punishment

Loss of freedom only is not enough.

Death for the serious offenders

No more segregation for the rapists/child killers - they commited the crime, so do the bloody time and take your chances - the kids/women you murdered and raped had little human rights given to them at the time, so why do you expect to have them now?

Simples

 

[Sage1974]

When the death sentence was abolished in South Africa the unreasonable criminals ran around the areas with no holds barred. They shot, stabbed, raped and hijacked vehicles.

If you are hijacked there is a good chance you are going to die. They hold no mercy.

Also your children could become infected with the aids virus because they infect a vile with their blood and other children within the school will inject your child with the vile.

These are things that came about because the death penalty was stopped.

Thats why I am now in the UK. I am English and was born here. I feel safe here even though there are weirdo's about but nothing in comparison to the true freaks out there.

So if you live in the UK please do not judge until you have walked and lived in a country where it is REALLY scary to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

These English gangstas are babies in comparison. The African ones kill for fun......

and for breakfast

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

If we punished people sufficiently, they would think twice before they reoffended.

It also has the added benefit of making people think twice before they even offend in the first place. I bet a lot of people who go down the route of such heinous crimes will have nothing to live for in the real world, so the prospect of essentially being looked after in prison with no cares and three square meals per day won't seem so unattractive to some.

Just look at some of the gangs in London. A lot of kids in those areas have a pretty blasé attitude towards prison. I bet a number of them would think twice about stabbing someone if they knew that they would be sentenced to death if they were caught.

 

I know the gang culture is bad, and I know a lot of the young ones will use knives etc very quickly, but I would not be too quick to give the death penalty unless it was a really heinous crime.

Lots of ex-gang members grow up to be decent citizens, and some make mistakes when they are young that they will not repeat in later life.

There has to be a way of dealing with the gang-culture without capital punishment, and I think a lot of it is because we do not punish at all at present.

I was stabbed once by a couple of youths, who I instantly punished myself on-site. I would not have wanted them killed for their stupidity, but I was more than happy to show them the error of their ways. I have only ever seen one of them since then, (which was about 15-20 years ago), and he has grown up to be a pretty decent adult. The other one has moved away. I was lucky, in that the weapon they chose was designed primarily for slashing, not stabbing, so the damage was nothing too bad. I suppose it could have went badly, given slightly different circumstances.

Those who deserve the death penalty are serial rapists, child killers, etc. To kill everyone who takes a life becomes a lot more complicated.

It has to be the premeditated, vicious stuff that gets the death penalty, not everyone who takes a life. I also think that young people should have a chance at rehabilitation, though they need a sterner time whilst inside, and a sentence that matches their crime.

 

I alos wonder, if we tattoed 'child abuser' onto the forehead of everyone who committed the despicable crime, and then gave them the normal punishment they get now, how many more would reconsider before they actually committed the act in the first place?

A breach of human rights? I suppose so - but what rights are afforded to their victims?

 

[Sage1974]

I know the gang culture is bad, and I know a lot of the young ones will use knives etc very quickly, but I would not be too quick to give the death penalty unless it was a really heinous crime.

Lots of ex-gang members grow up to be decent citizens, and some make mistakes when they are young that they will not repeat in later life.

There has to be a way of dealing with the gang-culture without capital punishment, and I think a lot of it is because we do not punish at all at present.

I know what you are saying and I agree with you 100 %. I also believe that the criminals that originated in this thread are way, way beyond that.

Those who deserve the death penalty are serial rapists, child killers, etc. To kill everyone who takes a life becomes a lot more complicated.

It has to be the premeditated, vicious stuff that gets the death penalty, not everyone who takes a life. I also think that young people should have a chance at rehabilitation, though they need a sterner time whilst inside, and a sentence that matches their crime.

There is very little chance at rehabilitation in this day and age when the penal system is so very out of touch which is to say why they re-offend.

I so wish that they get the balance right within our lifetime.

 

[Sage1974]

I alos wonder, if we tattoed 'child abuser' onto the forehead of everyone who committed the despicable crime, and then gave them the normal punishment they get now, how many more would reconsider before they actually committed the act in the first place?

A breach of human rights? I suppose so - but what rights are afforded to their victims?

Oh great, lets go crazy banchee!!!!

There was a young man who is now 22 who had as he called it "sex" when he was 18 and striped a young girl to have sex with her and she was an 11 year old girl.

In his opinion she was up for it. Her side of the story is that she was blindsided and has been deeply affected by the incident since.

He is generally a good person but needed to be punished for his offences. He will serve four years, two years in prison and two years with a tag. Every year he must sign the sex offenders register. Every day she lives with the agony that this offence has instilled upon her little life. Now and forever her life has changed. The awful thing is that she feels that when ever she hears his name, she feels that she is responsible for him going to jail and that is one of the sentences of the victim.

His life is messed up, so is hers. There are no winners.

Tattoo's with the criminal offences upon their forheads does no good. All it will do is make everyone aware of who he is and what he has done. However what if he is out of his mind and dissalusioned like in this case and needs help like the judicial system do not provide or make the necessary professionals aware?

What do you think the public will make of that if we riddicule someone who was never properly analysed psycologically in the first place?

I think the judicial system is so very behind to not do something to try to rectify his disturbed perception.

We don't need the public making their own percieved, weird interpretations of the event.

We need reform. Not tattoo parlours.

 

[Sage1974]

Branding anyone as an example, to a person who did not think he/she did anything wrong in the first place will not cause him/her to act any way different in the heat of the moment because they have a distorted view.

Having the death sentence a reallity to others who know that they have a part sane part insane balance will know that the sane part will hopefully sway their decision to act against their insane urges and persuade them to make the right choice.

Another problem is the judicial system in the UK is happy to incarcerate people but not to rehabilitate them. There is not enough one to one therapy.

Im not an expert in this. All I know is that branding people is as far out there as is hijacking.

One extreme to another.

 

lol, don't panic Captain Mannering, it was merely a little outrageous thought to stimulate more than an actual suggestion. Obviously we live in a civilised society, and there are rules we will have to abide by. Besides who would put a needle near one of those sort of people and actually be able to resist the urge to slip it into their neck

My point was merely to highlight the lack of respect for the human rights of the victim, which seems to always be forgotten about when we look at the rights of the perpetrator.

This country is completely crazy in the lengths it goes to to protect the criminal from the general public, but a lot less effort is put into protecting the general public from the nutters in the first place imho.

 

[Sage1974]

I just remembered something. A few years ago I remember my sales director coming back from a pilgrimage to mecca.

We all asked how it was and he was describing many aspects of his trip. One thing he did mention is that there is no crime. He then started to list the punishments if anyone did commit a crime and thats why they don't do it.

Theft - your hand cut off.
Adultery - death
etc

About a week later it was the Christmas party. The whole company dressed up and enjoyed a nice meal at a top hotel.

He then propositioned me. I doulbt he would have done that in Saudi Arabia considering that we were both married at the time.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

To answer the OP.
Shami Chakrabarti and those of her ilk.

 

[dagr]

First, there's little or no proof that the Death penalty works as deterrent.

Second, I have a problem with someone going through the justice system for doing something wrong then having this same justice system apply the same wrong doing. On a more trivial level, it's like watching a chav parent slap their kid about the head for being physically violent towards another kid.

On the Pro-Death penalty side:

1) You can get a real sense of revenge, putting you in touch with your most basic animal instincts.

2) If done quickly, society can save a lot of money.

3) Let's me laugh at those Christians who are pro-Death penalty when they insist the Bible DOES give them moral licence to kill, because we all know the 10 commandments don't really mean "Thou shall not kill", but are open to interpretation, based on translating issues, etc. (shorthand for "the Bible doesn't mean sh*t").

(Personally, only point 2 above merits reflection).

 

[vvaannmmaann]

What is the alternative to "Thou shall not kill" ? Sounds quite straightforward to me.

 

[Dawg]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned scroungers yet.

(Has The Daily Mail online gone behind a paywall?)

 

[stugster]

I alos wonder, if we tattoed 'child abuser' onto the forehead of everyone who committed the despicable crime, and then gave them the normal punishment they get now, how many more would reconsider before they actually committed the act in the first place?

A breach of human rights? I suppose so - but what rights are afforded to their victims?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11718467

 

[quikshop]

Justice must be impartial to all parties. The death penalty is clinical, the dispassionate execution of justice.

And that's at the heart of this. It is state-sponsored killing. Dispassionate, clinical and immune to the facts of the case.

Perhaps you should also execute the father of the murderer because it was his (theoretical) abuse and neglect that fashioned his son into the killer he became? Without his actions, his son would never have commited those crimes.

This goes to whether you believe a society reaps what it sows - the good, bad and down right ugly, or was the murderer born evil and therefore getting rid of him in isolation solves the problem?

There is an argument to be made in favour of the eye-for-an-eye mantra, natural justice where the victim (if they survive) throw the switch that ends the criminals life.

 

[Sage1974]

Perhaps you should also execute the father of the murderer because it was his (theoretical) abuse and neglect that fashioned his son into the killer he became? Without his actions, his son would never have commited those crimes.

People have suffered abuse to the point where it messes them up mentally but they always have FREE WILL. Thats what seperates us. How is it that some people strive where others don't dispite their upbrining?

To use parental abuse/neglect is a feeble excuse.

You know right from wrong and you have a choice. If you don't know right from wrong it must be that you are ill. Such as FAS babies. They tend to not be able to disinguish right from wrong. For everyone else it is their own choice.

 

[quikshop]

People have suffered abuse to the point where it messes them up mentally but they always have FREE WILL. Thats what seperates us. How is it that some people strive where others don't dispite their upbrining?

Separates us from what?? Free will is a perception (some might say an illusion caused by complex thought processes driven by instinctive needs, but lets not go there ), not an actual thing you can type in capitals as though its somehow more relevant than nurture or nature's influences.

We are not all the same, therefore some will be more susceptable to influences, aggression, abuse, kindness etc etc and the outcomes are all different.

 

[Hayles]

Execute them. Really don't care how it's done. Don't care if it doesn't work the first time and they're in a bit of pain for a few minutes either...

In cases where it's 100% proven that the person is guilty (ok, not ALL cases are absolutely 100% proven, but there are some!) of such a terrible crime, end that person's life.

It doesn't mean we're sinking to their level - in this particular case they terrified the family for hours before killing them, I'm not suggesting we do that to them (though I'd be happy to undertake the task if allowed?!), so we're not sinking to their level.

If we're too soft to execute them, then I agree that life means life. Lock them up with no luxuries. Don't let them have any visitors. Make their life as miserable and uncomfortable as is possibly human.

In cases of paedo's - do the same. They have urges that to them are 'natural' - no amount of talking will change them. It's like telling a straight person that from now on they have to have feelings for their same sex. You can't change what you feel inside. These sicko's are sicko's, the end. So either lock them up somewhere and never let them loose in society, or, with their permission maybe?, kill them. I for one wouldn't have been upset if Rose or Fred West had of been executed....would you?

(I'm a nice person though, honest!)

 

[cmcp]

For extreme crimes of this type, and when guilt is not in doubt, why not the death penalty? Why is there no death penalty in Britain when, as far as I recall, a majority support it?

because it's sick, because it's sick, and because not everyone is sick. nothing ever makes murder acceptable.

im quite sure if i were related to a victim i'd feel serious resentment, hate and anger. i might even want to kill someone, but that's just as wrong as the crime itself. it's sick.

no one can play god (if he existed)

 

[vvaannmmaann]

because it's sick, because it's sick, and because not everyone is sick. nothing ever makes murder acceptable.

im quite sure if i were related to a victim i'd feel serious resentment, hate and anger. i might even want to kill someone, but that's just as wrong as the crime itself. it's sick.

no one can play god (if he existed)

So what is your solution?

 

[cmcp]

i don't have a solution but you know what, i don't need one to know that something is wrong.