Jawohl
a real life sentence possibly would but we haven't got that, so I'll settle for the death penalty for cases where the judiciary ( not Bon ) feel it to be fittingThe death Penalty.
- Thread starter Bon
- Start date
a real life sentence possibly would but we haven't got that, so I'll settle for the death penalty for cases where the judiciary ( not Bon ) feel it to be fitting
Yeah, Pete does that to me as well sometimes...Pete can put together what im thinking in a post much more coherantly than I can
On a side note, while browsing through wikipedia links (ive spent 4 hours just going form one page to another what the hell!) I came across this.
Anthony Anderson, a convicted murderer was sentenced to 15 years in jail before chance of Parole had his sentenced increased to 20 years.
He apealed this and won on the grounds it was against HIS human rights?
Does this not seem outrageous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Anderson_(murderer)
As for the rest of the post, criminals do have human rights.
I haven't read the article yet (I promise I will), but what was the reason for the increase in sentence? If it was increases in an appeal then yeah, I agree it's crazy.
However, if somebody decided to increase the sentence because they didn't like his face, then that's severe bending of the law and should be fought hand tooth and nail. Even by people on the outside, because you could be next.
Back to reality for a second though, do you think that a country that won't even do real life sentences will consider doing the death penalty? Doubt it...Jawohl
Unless it's death by old age.
Maybe I'm not getting your point here , if we accept the fact that it isn't a deterrant ,what value does the death penalty hold, and where does your argument stand ?
Pete can put together what im thinking in a post much more coherantly than I can
On a side note, while browsing through wikipedia links (ive spent 4 hours just going form one page to another what the hell!) I came across this.
Anthony Anderson, a convicted murderer was sentenced to 15 years in jail before chance of Parole had his sentenced increased to 20 years.
He apealed this and won on the grounds it was against HIS human rights?
Does this not seem outrageous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Anderson_(murderer)
Haven't read up on the exact grounds he appealed. But it could be that the Human Right in breach was his right to fair trial.
I believe (as I am looking into more depth because it looks like this power has been removed form the HS) that the trial judge makes the reccommendation for a life imprisonment sentence, and from there it gets passed onto the Home Secutary, who confirms, declines, extends the sentence.
But I believe this power has now been overturned.
unfortunately no, i dont think we will bring back the death penalty but I still think we shouldBack to reality for a second though, do you think that a country that won't even do real life sentences will consider doing the death penalty? Doubt it...
Unless it's death by old age.
If you spend enough time looking on the internet, you're going to find something to back up any argument eventually....Pete can put together what im thinking in a post much more coherantly than I can
On a side note, while browsing through wikipedia links (ive spent 4 hours just going form one page to another what the hell!) I came across this.
Anthony Anderson, a convicted murderer was sentenced to 15 years in jail before chance of Parole had his sentenced increased to 20 years.
He apealed this and won on the grounds it was against HIS human rights?
Does this not seem outrageous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Anderson_(murderer)
Please try to read things entirely, that was a side note on how criminals who have murdered can protest about their human rights, after violating another persons right to life.
Bet he wasn't thinking of that when he killed his victims.
Hmmm, here we go, and I am gonna be answering cross posts here; first off, criminals do have human rights, I agree but....some criminals give up the right to be treated humanely if their crime was inhuman ... I hope you understand where I am coming from here.
I readily acknowledge the consequential problem of who gets to draw the line and where but that is a problem that falls fairly and squarely into the lap of the lesser of evils as far as I am concerned.
I'll now come to the notion of there being no active deterrent to the cases I am referring to, the child killers.
The type of animal who systematically tortures and eventually murder children such as in the recent case of Baby P will not be deterred by a death sentence, leastwise I don't think their pathology allows them to be deterred anyway.
The problem with evaluating deterrence values is, you are trying to prove a negative and as you know Jay, it is allegedly impossible.
With that in mind, I find it difficult to lend any weight to any argument that categorically states the death penalty doesn't deter.
When analyzing this problem, it's a skewed demographic here because you presumably end up interviewing murderers, who self-evidently weren't deterred but how many deterred potential killers are out there?
It's not as if they would be queuing up to register the fact they were deterred from killing a kid with the local authorities.
At this point, it is quite natural of me to refer back to the post I made before this in the thread where I detailed the scenario whereby we have the death penalty and ponder the two options of whether it works or not.
The important aspect of that is, the only way you can undermine it is by assigning more rights to the murderer.
I wasn't gonna respond to Dskize because I thought his answer was too glib and he hadn't thought it through enough, especially when considering the veracity of the statement, 'the death penalty doesn't deter'.
Am I missing something here Jay coz for me, it's a no-brainer, I have tried to approach this problem as a logician would and maybe that's where I am going wrong?
I readily acknowledge the consequential problem of who gets to draw the line and where but that is a problem that falls fairly and squarely into the lap of the lesser of evils as far as I am concerned.
I'll now come to the notion of there being no active deterrent to the cases I am referring to, the child killers.
The type of animal who systematically tortures and eventually murder children such as in the recent case of Baby P will not be deterred by a death sentence, leastwise I don't think their pathology allows them to be deterred anyway.
The problem with evaluating deterrence values is, you are trying to prove a negative and as you know Jay, it is allegedly impossible.
With that in mind, I find it difficult to lend any weight to any argument that categorically states the death penalty doesn't deter.
When analyzing this problem, it's a skewed demographic here because you presumably end up interviewing murderers, who self-evidently weren't deterred but how many deterred potential killers are out there?
It's not as if they would be queuing up to register the fact they were deterred from killing a kid with the local authorities.
At this point, it is quite natural of me to refer back to the post I made before this in the thread where I detailed the scenario whereby we have the death penalty and ponder the two options of whether it works or not.
The important aspect of that is, the only way you can undermine it is by assigning more rights to the murderer.
I wasn't gonna respond to Dskize because I thought his answer was too glib and he hadn't thought it through enough, especially when considering the veracity of the statement, 'the death penalty doesn't deter'.
Am I missing something here Jay coz for me, it's a no-brainer, I have tried to approach this problem as a logician would and maybe that's where I am going wrong?