Capital Punishment - Think again.......

[Rusty Shackleford]

No one is advocating reciprocation in kind. We are talking about capital punishment, not months of slow torture the likes of which this poor child had to endure. The two are totally different.

I remember being converted to the anti-death penalty lobby by the superb '14 Days in May' documentary in the late 80s, which showed Edward Earl Johnson's last two weeks on death row in Mississippi, culminating in his execution. It was not so much the later revelations that Johnson may well have been innocent that moved me, it was the fact that he came across as a normal, decent human being, from a normal, decent family. The viewers of the documentary got to see that it's not always cold, cruel psychopathic monsters who find themselves as 'dead men walking'.

Twenty years on, I know that my reaction to the documentary was driven by emotion and not reason. However, my reaction to this case and its bestial barbarism is also an emotional response. I am enraged at this animal's brutality towards an innocent defenceless child, and I want to see him dead.

Whatever our conclusion, it must be driven by reason. What is fair? What will make us safer? What will act as a better deterrent? Whether you think of them as psychotic or just plain evil, the truly monstrous amongst us will perform their dreadful deeds regardless of the punishment, so I don't think the death penalty would prevent cases such as this. However, I do believe it is fair for someone who has committed such an awful crime to face the ultimate punishment.

 

[Napster]

I remember being converted to the anti-death penalty lobby by the superb '14 Days in May' documentary in the late 80s, which showed Edward Earl Johnson's last two weeks on death row in Mississippi, culminating in his execution. It was not so much the later revelations that Johnson may well have been innocent that moved me, it was the fact that he came across as a normal, decent human being, from a normal, decent family. The viewers of the documentary got to see that it's not always cold, cruel psychopathic monsters who find themselves as 'dead men walking'.

Twenty years on, I know that my reaction to the documentary was driven by emotion and not reason. However, my reaction to this case and its bestial barbarism is also an emotional response. I am enraged at this animal's brutality towards an innocent defenceless child, and I want to see him dead.

Whatever our conclusion, it must be driven by reason. What is fair? What will make us safer? What will act as a better deterrent? Whether you think of them as psychotic or just plain evil, the truly monstrous amongst us will perform their dreadful deeds regardless of the punishment, so I don't think the death penalty would prevent cases such as this. However, I do believe it is fair for someone who has committed such an awful crime to face the ultimate punishment.

I thought the ultimate punishment was to watch Col U play. Whilst being pleasured orally by Vanessa Feltz.

 

[Jonny_Stokes]

And there in lies the crux of the problem. You and I both know that will never happen thanks to the bleeding heart liberals and human rights advocates who protect those that have given up theirs due to their actions.

Sadly true.

Given that even a sentence of 50+ years without the possibility of parole is likely to be spent with the comforts of a life that the poor child will never have are you still in favour of locking this scumbag up?

Yep. Sorry. As explained previously, I believe lawful execution to be state-sponsored murder. I very much doubt that the vast majority of depraved individuals can ever be rehabilitated. For some, prison will be a cakewalk, for others mental torture that will see them trying to top themselves. I'd hope for the latter, naturally, but I can't resolve my conscience witht he idea that it's ok to murder a murderer.

 

[Jonny_Stokes]

I thought the ultimate punishment was to watch Col U play. Whilst being pleasured orally by Vanessa Feltz.

To be fair, that's preferable to watching Col U play whilst orally pleasuring Vanessa Feltz.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

To be fair, that's preferable to watching Col U play whilst orally pleasuring Vanessa Feltz.

True, the first experience could be alright if you shut your eyes. It's not like you would hear anything if you were watching Col Ewe.

 

[Napster]

True, the first experience could be alright if you shut your eyes. It's not like you would hear anything if you were watching Col Ewe.

Only the sounds of despair and ennui.

 

[Einstein]

That for me is the issue. There's simply no way you can ever be 100% sure. Even when you think you are.

Let's take Dunblane for example. (Not my best example as the murderer killed himself, however I'm busy and it's the first example that came into my head).

He kills sixteen children and a teacher, with countless others injured.

Ignoring the fact there's probably another 100 (no idea how big the Dunblane school was at the time?) people who could identify the killer.

There are also the 'lucky ones' who were injured, but still alive, and that are able to identify the killer.

I know it's back in 1996, but quite possibly CCTV around the area as well? Certainly would be around schools today, but think it was actually that tragic event which increased CCTV around schools.

I think that's pretty indisputable.

Had he not killed himself, do you believe that "life" in prison is justice?

I agree with you that there are some cases, where the evidence is very disputable, hence our court systems being overloaded! However sometimes there is 100% evidence to convict someone. If there is CCTV in the high street of a person kicking someone in the head 20 times then that is again indisputable evidence.

 

[Southend_Lady]

Let's take Dunblane for example. (Not my best example as the murderer killed himself, however I'm busy and it's the first example that came into my head).

He kills sixteen children and a teacher, with countless others injured.

Ignoring the fact there's probably another 100 (no idea how big the Dunblane school was at the time?) people who could identify the killer.

There are also the 'lucky ones' who were injured, but still alive, and that are able to identify the killer.

I know it's back in 1996, but quite possibly CCTV around the area as well? Certainly would be around schools today, but think it was actually that tragic event which increased CCTV around schools.

I think that's pretty indisputable.

Had he not killed himself, do you believe that "life" in prison is justice?

I agree with you that there are some cases, where the evidence is very disputable, hence our court systems being overloaded! However sometimes there is 100% evidence to convict someone. If there is CCTV in the high street of a person kicking someone in the head 20 times then that is again indisputable evidence.

Completely agree 100%. If there is undisputable evidence then this should be the drill. Would certaonly free up prisons. Why do we need to give cold blooded murderers a second chance or oppurtunity to change? Afterall, the victim didn't get such a thing?

 

[OldBlueLady]

And that's exactly what I've advocated whenever this question has come up - as long as there's 100% irrefutable evidence that the person concerned is the guilty party, then I'm all in favour.

 

[Jonny_Stokes]

And that's exactly what I've advocated whenever this question has come up - as long as there's 100% irrefutable evidence that the person concerned is the guilty party, then I'm all in favour.

You should finish your last sentence with: "of killing him for killing somone (but it's ok for us to do it)."

 

[OldBlueLady]

You should finish your last sentence with: "of killing him for killing somone (but it's ok for us to do it)."

No, I don't need to, because as I said earlier, I would see it as a sentence being carried out lawfully according to the laws of the land and handed out by a judge after conviction by jury. Extermination/execution, call it what you will - it ain't murder.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I wonder what they're discussing on the Borient board? First thread is 'I actually like Spurs'. Second thread is 'I actually like Arsenal'. Third thread is about pikeys aimed at a player who hasn't played for us in nearly two years. No wonder you're over here Stokes.

 

[londonblue]

I thought the ultimate punishment was to watch Col U play. Whilst being pleasured orally by Vanessa Feltz.

Ahh, but having her talk to you is hardly a pleasure, and would lead to murder!

 

[Jonny_Stokes]

No, I don't need to, because as I said earlier, I would see it as a sentence being carried out lawfully according to the laws of the land and handed out by a judge after conviction by jury. Extermination/execution, call it what you will - it ain't murder.

I didn't call it murder. I called it 'killing'. There is nothing inaccurate about the extension I added to your sentence.

I wonder what they're discussing on the Borient board? First thread is 'I actually like Spurs'. Second thread is 'I actually like Arsenal'. Third thread is about pikeys aimed at a player who hasn't played for us in nearly two years. No wonder you're over here Stokes.

Close. It's actually:

#1 - Flying to Bradford
#2 - Discussion involving Haringey council employees about Baby P
#3 - Discussion about whether or not the media defines society, or is just a reflection of it.

 

[Napster]

#3 - Discussion about whether or not the media defines society, or is just a reflection of it.

rather deep for an Os fan.

ps defines, for sure.

 

[londonblue]

rather deep for an Os fan.

ps defines, for sure.

You should have told them earlier. It could have saved them a whole thread!

 

[Jonny_Stokes]

rather deep for an Os fan.

Never misunderestimate you enemy.