http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … olice.html
Should we really be letting killers out on day release, innocent people die because liberal thinkers believe scum like this can be rehabilitated.
I would say that letting a killer out on a day pass is not a good idea but then I use a good deal of common sense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … olice.html
Apparently it wasn't the first time he had done it.
People who say killers like this can be rehabilitated need their heads looking at or locking up.
1st degree murderers, particularly multiple time murderers should not be released, obviously.
Equally obviously that is not a pro capital punishment argument, it's not hard to keep people in jail, it's cheaper than executing them and if evidence does appear that we got it wrong then we can release them.
But they didn't get it wrong Josak, they got it very wrong and it resulted in the death of two more people.
How anyone can say its cheaper to keep a prisoner in jail for 30 or more years at £40k a year than removing them from society forever is beyond me. Maybe that's it liberals just don't think straight.
As I said should not have been released.
No that is a simple fact, I know conservatives struggle with those. The extra legal requirements, appeals, security etc. that is required for a death sentence equals a much higher cost than imprisonment. Here in the US it costs an average of 45% more to sentence someone to death and execute them than to simply jail them for their whole life. In some states up to 300% more.
Sorry about the facts and stuff, and sorry you can't be bothered to learn them. I guess since you apparently have no interest in doing so you will just continue to be completely wrong on this very consistent basis.
The other terrifying thing of course is that more than 10% of the people sentenced to death in the US since 1976 have had their sentences commuted or been released on the basis of new evidence, particularly DNA evidence.
Making it a statistical near certainty that we have executed innocent people.
The American justice system. Based on how much money you have rather than if you did it or not.
Not exactly a shining example of justice is it Josak?
And I have searched the internet, public libraries and even spoke to my MP about the facts about wrongful convictions and none can tell me how many there are or have been here in the UK, there are of course the obvious ones but when you count them against the actual crimes its less than you anti death penalty exponents keep harping on about.
Maybe its about time the justice system changed, maybe it about time it now started protecting society rather than the criminals and maybe we should be getting rid of people like Huntley and West where the evidence was overwhelming. Some say people like Huntley will never be released but with the way the justice system and politicians and their liberal ideas are heading you never quite know.
If you can prove your system is better than the American one that would be interesting to read. Our system is far from perfect, it is also the best funded in the world and has the same rules (largely) as yours, it is still far too unreliable.
I seriously doubt the UK system is so much more accurate. Even a 1% mistake rate where execution is concerned is way too much
Also the cost which you never addressed. So double fail.
That is probably why the UK does not have the death penalty. So one can safely say they are not erroneously executing anyone there.
But Josak I said £40k a year and you forgot the numerous appeals that those in prison for thirty years or more mount anyway, here in the UK we have a situation where not only our own courts can be appealed to but the EU courts can be appealed to anyway. so you forgot that either those on death row and those not can mount an appeal against their sentence.
Plus cost should be immaterial when it comes to the safety of society.
But I thought your argument was that execution would be cheaper than keeping somebody locked up for life with all the attendant appeals!!
I do however agree that cost should never be a consideration in justice.
And have you not considered that the early release of dangerous criminals isn't down to the "soft" left but rather the hard right who believe in locking more and more people up for more and more petty crimes resulting in some prisoners having to be released early to make room for those who haven't paid their fines for not having a TV license.
My argument John is some prisoners can never be rehabilitated and but they still release them because the liberal thinkers believe its best,
I wasn't the one to mention cost anyway, I couldn't care less about the cost I am more concerned about killers roaming our streets.
Labour are not lefties, pull the other one John, they may not be your ideal socialists but they are still controlled by the left and the unions even if Milliband is trying to blag us into believing they are not.
So you don't agree that our prisons are getting more and more overcrowded!
I thought you said
"How anyone can say its cheaper to keep a prisoner in jail for 30 or more years at £40k a year than removing them from society forever is beyond me. Maybe that's it liberals just don't think straight."
The present labour party is to the right of Heaths conservative party. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
It was Josak that mentioned costs.
So the fact is that unions are right wing then John, are you serious?
Of course the prisons are over crowded John they keep letting murderers live in them.
So you never mentioned costs at all! That quote wasn't from you then!
What has the unions being left or right wing got to do with a right wing labour party? Actually, some unions are right wing but that doesn't affect the fact that the present day labour party is to the right of Ted Heaths conservative party.
And do you really believe that prison overcrowding is caused by locked up murderers! Somewhat naive.
I made the quote in response to Josak John, why? Are you disputing it or are you just trying to make something out of it that it is not? As I said the financial cost is immaterial.
The unions are cringing at the fact that they may lose control of the Labour party over their fixing scandal. The ones who are shouting loudest could not be considered as right wing at all.
I do understand that you believe anyone who is not a total socialist is considered as right wing, far right wing or down right fascist
I believe the prisons are overcrowded because there are criminals in them John.
.At 31 March 2013 the prison population in England and Wales was 83,769, a 4.3% decrease on the previous year. Of this figure 10.725 (13%) are foreign nationals.
The prison population surpassed the 80.000 mark for the first time in 2008.
So know you agree that you did make that quote! There's progress for you.
Not "may lose control" they lost control over the party they established many years ago, they hang on in hope.
And why do you believe that the loudest shouter can't be right wing?
Again, you said that prisons were overcrowded because they were full of murderers, not because they were full of criminals.
I could go back and find your quote but you know you said it.
I said because they let murderers live there John and that's approximately 4000 (5%) of the England and Wales prison population.
They still have huge control and that's why Milliband won the leadership vote over his brother.
And the union shouting the loudest at the moment is Red Len McCluskies Unite. Are you telling me they are right wingers?
Sorry John did you think that it wasn't Silverspeeder who said it?
So 5% of the prison population are there for murder and that accounts for the overcrowding! And you would like to see them all dead, even the ones who will never offend again.
One left wing union does not make all unions left wing and it certainly doesn't make the Labour party left wing.
Hint, why am I not a member of the Labour party?
And did I think it wasn't Silverspeeder who said what? It seems to me that you are the one denying having said things posted with your name on them.
Sorry John I think you have lost the plot.
Getting rid of those who have taken someone else's life away has nothing to do with prison overcrowding, prison costs, whether they will reoffend again. what race they are, what sex they are, what sexuality or whether they have a square head or not.
Its about punishment, the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.
Or can you think of a worse crime than taking someone's life away?
I've lost the plot!!
How is the person who takes away a killers life any better than the killer?
Now you are on a different track altogether John, are you saying society should not be able to punish criminals?
Easy John you intimated that the person administering the punishment would be just as bad as the one who is to receive it.
That does not mean that I believe criminals should go unpunished.
Only that killing is evil no matter who does the killing.
Then the punishment obviously doesn't fit the crime.
I take it that means that you agree that the death penalty is wrong then.
No John I think those who seek to kill others for profit or pleasure should receive the punishment that fits their crime. The loss of their own life.
And what about all the ones who kill neither for profit nor pleasure? (Which is most of them)
Love, hate, anger, betrayal. Driving dangerously. A million and one reasons not connected with pleasure or profit.
I have never heard of anyone premeditating killing someone by driving dangerously John.
Crimes of passion John are usually associated with pleasure or profit john. Don't forget profit may not always be monetary.
Even gang murders could be seen as a form of profiting.
A recent case saw a man charged with deliberately driving his car at a group of people. It was luck that none were killed.
But what percentage of murders are gang related?
In a typical year around half of all murders occurring in Los Angeles and Chicago are gang related.
That's a lot.
And that is just the ones they solved.
He used his car as a weapon , it wasn't dangerous driving John.
If you would like to look it up I think you will find there are a high number of gang related deaths, even in the UK.
I shall have to disagree with you about that death of murderer is never justifiable.
Oh officer, I admit that I tried to kill these people with my car but I was driving very safely!
Using a car as a weapon isn't dangerous driving!! Priceless.
I asked you what percentage of murders were gang related, you seemed so sure that I thought you must know!
And anyway, as most gang related murders are of other gang members, probably also murderers, doesn't that meet with your approval? You know, people who kill being killed as revenge.
Police would have to prove intent John for the dangerous driver to be charged with murder otherwise he would be charge with death by dangerous driving or manslaughter.
Where did I indicate that I knew the percentage of gang murders in the UK, the very reason they are not equated is the general public would be horrified.
As you profess to know that gang murders are between each other do you have the figures then John?
You are playing with words, very unsuccessfully. You are trying to argue that somebody who uses their car as a deadly weapon isn't driving dangerously. A ludicrous proposition.
You said "If you would like to look it up I think you will find there are a high number of gang related deaths, even in the UK."
I live in a city with a rather high level of gang activity. Press reports, backed up by police statements, indicate that most gang killings are gang on gang.
The recent case of Cregan seems to back this up. He killed several rival gang members and finished his killing spree by murdering two policewomen. A rival gang leader has put a price on his one remaining eye for killing the police women. No sentimentality involved, just a desire to be left alone by the police and the recognition that Cregans actions would have the reverse effect.
I also live in a large city John, we have just had the murder of a teen unrelated to a gang but stabbed in the back by a member of a gang.
I think even Stephen Lawrence was killed by a gang.
As I said not everybody murdered by a gang is another gang member.
There is no offence of murder by dangerous driving.
What is your point? I have never said that all gang murders are gang on gang, just most of them. Your two examples don't disprove that.
No, there isn't an offence of murder by dangerous driving, that again does not prove that somebody who uses their car as a weapon is not driving dangerously.
I suggest you look at the description of dangerous driving it says nothing of using a motor vehicle as a weapon.
I can think of several crimes worse than murder, I also can think of several situations where murder is morally understandable if not acceptable.
No it's all accounted for, people who have a death sentence need to be given more appeals, they also have more grounds to appeal on (cruelty of execution method etc.) anyway it's all included in the calculation it's much more expensive to execute.
The protection of society is firmly a cost issue, if it wasn't we would have police every three meters and nothing bad would ever happen without a policeman present. Having someone locked keeps society just as safe as killing them without the risk of killing an innocent man and a t a chepercost thus it is mathematically superior.
surely the risk of killing an innocent man has diminished quite a lot in the 21st century with all the evidence from DNA and CCTV amongst other things or is it still down to how good the lawyers are?
But diminished quite a lot is still not good enough if you are one of the not quite a lot and you end up dead for a crime that you did not commit.
Largely it is down to how good your lawyers are, in the US race also has a strong and problematic component, the discrepancy in how many black people get the death penalty and the disparity between punishments is stark.
As I said since 76 more than 10% of death penalty convictions were overturned or diminished based on new evidence. Our system is just not accurate enough, simple as that, neither is yours.
The truth is murdering one innocent man is too much.
Then its the system at fault not the penalty then?
They are one and the same, the death penalty is part of the judicial process, the problem is it cuts off all opportunity to correct our mistake and mistakes are inevitable.
With modern technology the death penalty is simply not workable.
There will inevitably always be mistakes, the thing is we should seek to reduce the risk of mistakes by using and improving technology.
DNA evidence is taken as read in some fields of science but falls down miserably in a court of law.
There was a recent case in the UK were a man was convicted on DNA evidence despite strong evidence that he could have been nowhere near the scene of the crime.
He was eventually acquitted when the DNA sample was shown to be contaminated.
Lucky for him that he wasn't charged with murder and that we don't have the death penalty.
If you can show a comparison between the number of people who are released early from prison who don't re-offend compared to those that do, broken down by type of crime they were convicted for, then you may have a case. Otherwise this is just a red herring.
This man has taken 3 lives already so how many more would he have to take before your point was invalid? Or do we just keep telling the victims families that their loved one doesn't count, only the killer counts because he is still alive.
To many do gooders worrying about the rights of the criminal.
Have you ever realised how the liberal prison reformers never talk about the victims and always refer to the criminals as victims.
Criminals love a liberal society.
Of course our judicial system is full of liberals!
Still don't know the difference between liberal and a liberal then John?
Well, actually I do, it's you who seems somewhat confused.
Liberal, as used in the UK, refers to right wingers. A liberal is generally one with liberal views.
Really I suppose I should be happy that you do in fact realise that right wingers are cocking it up (again)
Cocking what up John? How could they cock up a system that is already cocked up by the left leaning liberals?
Liberals are right wing, sure right John. that like saying the socialist workers party are leftist terrorists then.
You disagree that liberals are right wing despite them sitting comfortably with the conservatives in government!
You obviously haven't read their policy document John. Again its a matter of opinion isn't it.
So if the liberals had done a deal with Brown and sat with the Labour party they would have been considered lefties then John?
That must be why "liberal" societies have fewer of them. Wait... that doesn't make any sense. Nope just the usual bashing your head against the actual facts with dumb emotional arguments.
The irony here is that the same people who feel this way have led the charge to assume that George Zimmerman is guilty before he ever had his due process in the court system. Now that he has and the ruling is not in their favor, they are still beating the drum for his punishment in the public forum. The liberal mind cooks up a lot of perspectives which when dissected are total hogwash. Sure, let's put George Zimmerman into prison for a crime that we cannot prove and then beat the drum for his rehab back into humanity.
II didn't realise that Zimmerman was a Brit!
What is interesting on this site is all of the "lawyers" who have come up with alternate theories as to what happened in the Zimmerman case after the case was heard and decided. The constant "he aint inncent just cuz he wuz found not guilty".
Yes, he is innocent because he was found not guilty!
You didn't get the verdict you wanted so you will whine and complain until you get your way.
You're not getting your way!
So someone doesn't understand what happened at all. No a jury does not decide is someone is guilty they decide whether enough evidence was provided by the prosecution at trial to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. That is undeniably a different thing.
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Why do conservatives think that virtue and morality should be identified with their political agenda and what view of morality do they profess?The conservative Speaker of the House of Representatives, embracing family values, suggested that the children of welfare mothers be taken away from the...
by Christopher Wanamaker 8 years ago
When it comes to criminals, do you believe in punishment or rehabilitation?
by garrettdixon 8 years ago
Can anyone tell me a reason not to believe in capital punishment?
by danielleantosz 7 years ago
What are your views on the death penalty?While I do believe that some people should be put to death, the risk of sending an innocent person to death is too great. I think either the requirements for the death penalty should be higher or is should be banned. What do you think?
by Scarface1300 8 years ago
Do you think that prison should be used for punishment or reabilitation?
by Julian Magdaleno 6 years ago
Does anyone find it strange how all the liberals support Trayvon/ conservatives for Zimmerman?I see both sides claiming bias in the media on the other side, or some kind of systematic, race based flaw. However, how come we're split along political lines? Doesn't this show that America...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|