Breivik and the Death Penalty

[Hotman]

It's a slippery slope if justice/punishment is based on cost

Not at all. Once the appropriate punishment has been decided (i.e. he's not seeing light of day again), it is then appropriate to consider cost of that punishment.

Same way as if say 50 hours community service is decided as a punishment, once that's been established it should be performed in the most cost effective manner.

 

[DTS]

Wow. What if the court DID get it wrong?

So in the case of Andreas Brejvik (Excuse spelling) do you think there is an element of doubt? Ian Brady? Robert Black? Ian Huntley? Harrold Shipman? .................

 

[MK Shrimper]

So in the case of Andreas Brejvik (Excuse spelling) do you think there is an element of doubt? Ian Brady? Robert Black? Ian Huntley? Harrold Shipman? .................

And in the case of Stefan Kiszko who under duress admitted murdering Lesley Molseed, who later was freed and no doubt countless other miscarriages of justice. The death penalty is too final.

 

[DTS]

And in the case of Stefan Kiszko who under duress admitted murdering Lesley Molseed, who later was freed and no doubt countless other miscarriages of justice. The death penalty is too final.

I havent mentioned Stefan? I am talking about for example Andreas. Could it be any more clear he did it. He is caught bang to rights, there is no "it wasnt me" there can be no lefty "police fit up" - he is guilty of mass murder - he is never getting out. Why keep him alive at the tax payers expense?

 

[MK Shrimper]

I havent mentioned Stefan? I am talking about for example Andreas. Could it be any more clear he did it. He is caught bang to rights, there is no "it wasnt me" there can be no lefty "police fit up" - he is guilty of mass murder - he is never getting out. Why keep him alive at the tax payers expense?

Then you're cheapening one life. When do you start implementing the death penalty? 5 murders? 10?

Yes Brievek is human scum and the world would be a better place without him in it, but unfortunately it opens the door to the death penalty, which as I've said before, it too final when human beings are open to mistakes and corruption (and there's nothing "lefty" about it, it's just plain wrong).

 

[steveo]

Then you're cheapening one life. When do you start implementing the death penalty? 5 murders? 10?

Yes Brievek is human scum and the world would be a better place without him in it, but unfortunately it opens the door to the death penalty, which as I've said before, it too final when human beings are open to mistakes and corruption (and there's nothing "lefty" about it, it's just plain wrong).

The point is MK that his bloke definitley committed these murders, there is no doubt, he admits it. Surely in this instance the death penalty is acceptable.

 

[Gremlin]

Surely in this instance the death penalty is acceptable.

You're beginning to sound a little bit desperate to kill someone.

 

[OldBlueLady]

The point is MK that his bloke definitley committed these murders, there is no doubt, he admits it. Surely in this instance the death penalty is acceptable.

I do see his point a bit though, Kiszko also admitted it. However, he wasn't found walking around the island in Norway with guns and stuff that didn't really need any ballistics experts to tie up with the murders; nor was he found with trophies, including a heartbreaking tape recording of a small child's heart breaking last moments or evidence of having murdered two innocent school girls and disposing of their bodies.

 

[londonblue]

He is clearly never to get out again. On the basis of costs I would end him. Would save the Norwegin tax payer millions.

Blimey, we've done this one to death ('scuse the pun). The cost per inmate is about £150,000 per year. That might sound like a lot of money, but when the GDP runs into the trillions you realise it is actually peanuts. £150,000 per year per taxpayer (of which in this country there are about 30,000,000) amounts to 50p. Can we now put this cost business to bed? It's a simplistic argument that holds no water.

For me it would be a blanket death penalty. Why scum like for example Ian Brady, Ian Huntley etc are still alive is beyond me. There is no doubt there people are guilty and for my mind they should be ended the same day they are found guilty. They loose the right to life once they do things like that. The money factor is just a sideline issue.

I think actually Ian Brady disproves your belief that the death penalty is a worse punishment. He has been trying to kill himself for years. He would rather be dead than in prison, and keeping him alive is killing him. (Another pun, quite a good one might I add!)

 

[OldBlueLady]

Blimey, we've done this one to death ('scuse the pun). The cost per inmate is about £150,000 per year. That might sound like a lot of money, but when the GDP runs into the trillions you realise it is actually peanuts. £150,000 per year per taxpayer (of which in this country there are about 30,000,000) amounts to 50p. Can we now put this cost business to bed? It's a simplistic argument that holds no water.

I think actually Ian Brady disproves your belief that the death penalty is a worse punishment. He has been trying to kill himself for years. He would rather be dead than in prison, and keeping him alive is killing him. (Another pun, quite a good one might I add!)

I'm not going to dispute those figures, however, that cost would be the basic one, for keeping them "holed up". The minute they need to step outside the prison for medical or legal reasons, the cost goes up. Brady, in particular, has a huge number of guards, so if he's in hospital, then the cost of providing routine bed watches adds to the cost. While we're on Brady, the man loves being in the limelight and the centre of attention. Like Breivik, in his twisted mind I think he sees himself as some kind of martyr now, and he knows that if and when he dies, his "celebrity" will be front page news and will inflict further pain on the victim's families.

As shown in the recent programme on him, Brady has brought many cases to court, all of which have been at the tax payer's expense, so it's really NOT as basic an argument of costs as you make out.

Brady, Sutcliffe et al should all have been put to death in my book, waste of space, waste of resources, waste of money.

 

[Pubey]

Blimey, we've done this one to death ('scuse the pun). The cost per inmate is about £150,000 per year. That might sound like a lot of money, but when the GDP runs into the trillions you realise it is actually peanuts. £150,000 per year per taxpayer (of which in this country there are about 30,000,000) amounts to 50p. Can we now put this cost business to bed? It's a simplistic argument that holds no water.



I think actually Ian Brady disproves your belief that the death penalty is a worse punishment. He has been trying to kill himself for years. He would rather be dead than in prison, and keeping him alive is killing him. (Another pun, quite a good one might I add!)

Plus Ian Brady isn't in prison, he's in a high-security psychiatric hospital. Are we into killing mentally ill people now? Is it 1938 again?

 

[Jam_Man]

The point is MK that his bloke definitley committed these murders, there is no doubt, he admits it. Surely in this instance the death penalty is acceptable.

Surely when anyone is convicted of a murder he definitely did it, or they wouldnt be convicted.

Obviously there are stonewall cases when its clear, but anyone convicted of murder has to be beyond reasonable doubt. So how do you say, well Joe Bloggs has been convicted of murder, but we cant execute as we arent completely sure he did it.

If its a case of being able to do so when they give a guilty plea only Id imagine some would choose not guilty :smile:

Personally I see the death penalty as an easy way out, Id rather they rot inside for decades.

 

[pickledseal]

How about the family of the kid Brady killed and hasn't revealed the whereabouts yet? Can see them wanting Brady kept alive.

Regardless of the atrocious act, Breivik may well see the error of his ways and show some remorse.

As for cost, there must be some figures for the cost of executions in the US and they ain't cheap...

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

What about terrorists - would having a death penalty put off suicide bombers?

 

[londonblue]

I'm not going to dispute those figures, however, that cost would be the basic one, for keeping them "holed up". The minute they need to step outside the prison for medical or legal reasons, the cost goes up. Brady, in particular, has a huge number of guards, so if he's in hospital, then the cost of providing routine bed watches adds to the cost. While we're on Brady, the man loves being in the limelight and the centre of attention. Like Breivik, in his twisted mind I think he sees himself as some kind of martyr now, and he knows that if and when he dies, his "celebrity" will be front page news and will inflict further pain on the victim's families.

As shown in the recent programme on him, Brady has brought many cases to court, all of which have been at the tax payer's expense, so it's really NOT as basic an argument of costs as you make out.

Brady, Sutcliffe et al should all have been put to death in my book, waste of space, waste of resources, waste of money.

It's a fully absorbed cost. And even if it isn't, let's double it. It's still only a quid.

 

[Napster]

I'm complete;y ambivalent about the whole thing. I'm only commenting because I want to get my post count up.

 

[londonblue]

Plus Ian Brady isn't in prison, he's in a high-security psychiatric hospital. Are we into killing mentally ill people now? Is it 1938 again?

:off topic: According to Morrisey it is. I wonder how he feels with all the jingoism for disabled people given that the Nazis executed them too.

 

[Grayson]

It's a fully absorbed cost. And even if it isn't, let's double it. It's still only a quid.

The original 50p estimate was huge anyway. £150,000 between 30 million people is more like half a pence per person, isn't it?

 

[londonblue]

I'm complete;y ambivalent about the whole thing. I'm only commenting because I want to get my post count up.

It's a jungle out there, and all you've got is your post count...+1 for me too!

 

[londonblue]

The original 50p estimate was huge anyway. £150,000 between 30 million people is more like half a pence per person, isn't it?

You are indeed correct. It is 0.5p, not £0.5. Which I think says we can put this cost business to bed once and for all.