|
|
|
|
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/8/2009 3:19:03 AM | The legal system in this country needs to be scrapped and remade.
I'm also in favour of large super prisons in remote areas. North York moors etc. Have a two mile monitored exclusion to prevent anyone approaching the walls. Guards to live in them on a rotation. Prison is too easy. Let’s make it actually feared again. Fear after all is the best deterrent. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/9/2009 9:58:54 AM |
So the armed robber who shoots dead an unarmed policewoman whilst trying to evade capture is just ill, not a carrer criminal prepared to stop at nothing to escape with his ill gotten gains? HERE WE GO !
1. Why Policewoman??? Is the seriousness of a specific crime now gender related?
2. If this criminal is someone that is trying to escape capture immediately after perfoming a 'bank job' and panics, pulls a gun and shoots the officer (I really have a problem with whether the end result of that is death, I know thats how the law stands, but surely if that officer survives, the action itself remains the same?) in a moment of panic, then that person should be jailed, should serve punishment for the crime, because thats not an illness, that is a series of criminal acts.
However, If this person calmly walks out of the bank with the 'loot' and aims and shoots a police officer that they know is unarmed, then they could have an illness, although that would be a difficult one to prove, which would probaly mean they would end up being tried as a criminal.
BUT; If the career this criminal has made is one of being a serial cop killer, or one of being a serial misogynistic murderer (kills women for being women) or, as you suggest, is both, then they are very likely to have an illness.
Which brings me back to the very point, rather than the elongated expensive trial, followed by the hugely expensive use of a non-effective prison system, this person could be deemed as 'untreatable' and given a lethal injection.
Our feelings of death are usually based around fear, yet we often want blood-lust, which IMO makes us just as bad,what IS ofetn required is the removal of the ongoing threat.
There have been a number of serial killers that have begged for death, but this has not been allowed, I say we should allow them that choice, if it means removing them from damaging others even more uopn there inevitable release. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/9/2009 10:31:00 AM | 1. Why Policewoman??? Is the seriousness of a specific crime now gender related?
Of course not, I used that as an example, as it was a policewoman who was shot and killed in Bradford in 2005, and her female colleague seriously injured, but I'll pander to your pedantism and for the benefit of the tape will change that to police officer.
However, If this person calmly walks out of the bank with the 'loot' and aims and shoots a police officer that they know is unarmed, then they could have an illness, although that would be a difficult one to prove, which would probaly mean they would end up being tried as a criminal.
Would that an illness exclusive to gun-toting bank robbers, that just happens to manifest itself when faced with law enforcement OFFICERS in the pursuit of their duty? | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/9/2009 10:53:38 AM |
Of course not, I used that as an example, as it was a policewoman who was shot and killed in Bradford in 2005, and her female colleague seriously injured, but I'll pander to your pedantism and for the benefit of the tape will change that to police officer.
My apologies, didn't know you were referring to that case.
Would that an ilness exclusive to gun-toting bank robbers, that just happens to manifest itself when faced with law enforcement OFFICERS in the pursuit of their duty?
No, but this is a scary scenario, someone that can perform a crime and calmly walk away from it and murder someone in cold blood on the way without a passing thought is not normal.
I say they should be exterminated, but humanely, as 'we' would be removing the danger this person poses on society, not merely having a bout of revenge.
As Big Hairy Rob says above,
The legal system in this country needs to be scrapped and remade
But to do that our way of thinking also needs a little refurbishment. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/9/2009 1:18:03 PM | Yes life should mean life.
If you murder someone then you should go to prison until the day you die. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/9/2009 2:16:56 PM | Any link to the new survey? Interesting that the average time served has gone down in the past 3 years. Could be due to crowding, can't see it being due to anything else such as rehabilitation programmes.
I caught something on some news programme on telly the other day about people being up in arms about murderers with life sentences being let out after 8 or 9 years. It was pointed out that those statistics included mandatory, discretionary and automatic life sentences, which are not all handed out for murder.
I agree that life should mean life, but it doesn't according to the laws of this land and that's what we have to live by. If we don't like it we can campaign for reform and it doesn't bother me that much that I want to start a campaign at this moment in time.
A life sentence doesn't end with release, it is there for the rest of one's life as life licensing and if you put a foot wrong you can be recalled to serve the remainder of your time and more. Lifers who are released are often followed closely by police, monitored by other services, hauled in for questioning every time there is a violent crime near by, find it hard to settle into relationships, families, jobs and often live very sad, solitary, pointless existances.
The life sentence extends beyond prison, prison punishes for part of the sentence with a protracted period of loss of liberty, the life sentence sees to it that they do not lead a normal, care free life for as long as they live. Some comfort there for loved ones of victims then, that at least upon release they are not living it up and are still in the hell they made for themselves - albeit of course that they are still living which is more than can be said for their victims...
Of course it could also be argued that anyone who kills is mentally ill - either at the moment they kill or has been suffering from mental illness for sometime. Is it right to lock up people in prisons who are ill and mismanaged in the community or let down by services which allow them to commit crimes when they are in an unstable state? Why don't we see them as victims of inadequate social and health care services?
| |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/25/2009 3:54:25 PM | | life does mean life in that you are only allowed out after parole and if dangerous and never allowed out and the above poster is correct, you are still being prusued all your life and checked by the police carefully "on licence" you are not ever "let off" at eh end but are given "another chance"......The situation in realtion to murder is something i understand but again there is a problem. The basic argument is that if you take a life you should pay for it and NEVEr have another chance since you took away someone else's! For a strat you might not have been in "right mind" at the time? Should you pay all your life for that? and second how do you know they dont get another life as reincarnation? Should someone pay ALL THIER LIFE if the eprson they killed reincarnates as another and so gets a "second chance" after all? Obviously we dont know if life exists after death or not but equally we dont know for sure it doesnt! Should we condemn a person for theri WOHLE life when there is a possiblity that the eprson they killed is now enjoying an ew life as someone else and may have even a better life then they had before? Things we should think about! | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 2:58:45 AM |
Yes people are no longer afraid of killing as theyknow they'll either never go to prison or will go for a far shorter term than they deserve.
If you kill another person, either purposely or by selfish acts such as getting drunk then running them over, then you should be killed.
You see this is why I sometimes wonder if we need a "licence to vote" in this country...
Miscarriages of justice.
Self defence / defence of others.
Armed police officers.
That would scare people and make them think far more than a couple of months being put away
Quite frankly, you scare me more than they do...
Martin | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:13:05 AM | Life should be life but every case should be dealt with on it's own circumstances. Judges should be free to set setences at whatever they think suits the case and the sentence should be carried out in full.
Prison sentence length today appears to be directly determined by prison capacity, (although no one in power will ever admit this). The prisons get full so we let some out early to make room for new inmates and the courts set lower sentences or non custodial sentences to relieve the problem.
Hence the system doesn't work anywhere near as well as it should or could if judges were given a free hand and people had to serve what they got sentenced too.
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/ | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:13:23 AM |
Yes people are no longer afraid of killing as theyknow they'll either never go to prison or will go for a far shorter term than they deserve.
Really?
Works well in the States, doesn't it?
We have a much, much lower rate of homicide here than the US (I use them purely as an example, since they have some states that practice execution and some that don't), our rates are still in the hundreds per year rather than the thousands (going by per thousand population, the homicide rate in the UK is less than half that of the US).
I wouldn't want to see a one-size-fits-all approach to any sentencing, there should be (and there is) scope for judges to make decisions to fit the particular circumstances.
Some of our more notorious killers will never see the light of day again, quite right. There are others however, who made a mistake, who will never kill again and who should afforded the opportunity to rejoin society.
As for the death sentence, I don't believe any civilised society has a place for it. Like I keep saying, choosing not to kill is about our humanity, not theirs | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:28:04 AM |
We have a much, much lower rate of homicide here than the US (I use them purely as an example, since they have some states that practice execution and some that don't), our rates are still in the hundreds per year rather than the thousands (going by per thousand population, the homicide rate in the UK is less than half that of the US).
Given the liberal gun laws in the USA and that in some states, eg Texas, companies actually offer rewards to people who shoot burglars, (Yes, incredible but true!), comparing the UK and USA probably isn't as meaningful as maybe comparing us to some other countries nearer to home in Europe. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 8:33:48 AM | Personally, if someone deserves the sentence of life, then I think it should be changed to having the sentence meaning the end of your life; the death penalty. It should be kept for severe criminals, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc, and only when there is no doubt in anyones mind, that the accused is innocent.
As it has been said, half the people who serve these life sentences get out in 5 - 10 years for (good behavior), then, the next day, they go and re-commit the crime, or commit another one.
A murderer for example. Kills someone, subjects family has a great loss, people are angry. Murderer, gets locked away, and us (with our taxes) pay for his meals, clothing and television. Murderer behaves himself in jail, gets released after five years, then goes and kills again, which results in another subjects family and friends going through the same as the first case.
I don't see any logical reason why we should keep people like that locked up, when they can be put to death and nobody would have to worry about them again. In addition to such, the prison situation wouldn't be so bad, as the overcrowding wouldn't be an issue. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 9:28:39 AM |
Personally, if someone deserves the sentence of life, then I think it should be changed to having the sentence meaning the end of your life; the death penalty. It should be kept for severe criminals, rapists, murderers, pedophiles etc, and only when there is no doubt in anyones mind, that the accused is innocent.
Hmm... Well personally, if you really must kill someone, I'd rather you started with the guilty lol...
As it has been said, half the people who serve these life sentences get out in 5 - 10 years for (good behavior), then, the next day, they go and re-commit the crime, or commit another one.
They are released from custody - not from the sentence. They can be recalled at any time...
A murderer for example. Kills someone, subjects family has a great loss, people are angry. Murderer, gets locked away, and us (with our taxes) pay for his meals, clothing and television. Murderer behaves himself in jail, gets released after five years, then goes and kills again, which results in another subjects family and friends going through the same as the first case.
I don't see any logical reason why we should keep people like that locked up, when they can be put to death and nobody would have to worry about them again. In addition to such, the prison situation wouldn't be so bad, as the overcrowding wouldn't be an issue.
Stay away from the polling station pal!
Martin | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 11:48:56 AM | | Yup, life should mean life, if you can't behave in society, then you loose the right to be in it. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 11:54:29 AM | I think our whole prison system and legal system needs a working over. Makes no sense when some woman can be jailed for missing her council tax payments but a drunk driver who kills someone gets community hours.
I believe we should bring in the three strike rule from america, three strikes of any crime i think? and youre imprisoned for the total of the time given for each crime and if its violent based think its life inside... (might be of similar crimes not sure)
certainly sounds better than our outdated system, i think to ease up on the prisons so called "victimless" crimes (bank fraud/tax evasion/customs importing etc) shouldnt have jail time associated but rather seizure of assets again like the States. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 2:19:30 PM | Hmm... Well personally, if you really must kill someone, I'd rather you started with the guilty lol... What I mean is, that if there is even a 0.1% chance that said subject is innocent, they wouldn't be sentenced to death. If there was proof (and I'm talking 110% proof) then I see no reason why we shouldn't subject them to death by lethal injection or whatever...
They are released from custody - not from the sentence. They can be recalled at any time... They're still released to the public, and are more than capable of re-committing said crime. | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 7/26/2009 4:37:08 PM |
What I mean is, that if there is even a 0.1% chance that said subject is innocent, they wouldn't be sentenced to death. If there was proof (and I'm talking 110% proof) then I see no reason why we shouldn't subject them to death by lethal injection or whatever...
A normal conviction of can only be made if the prosecution demonstrates it's case beyond all reasonable doubt. How many times to you think courts convict believing that there is a chance they got it wrong?
Your test would, in theory, meet anyone who has a conviction under the current test.
What about cases where evidence has been found, years later, to have been fabricated by the police?
To take a life is a major decision, and not one we can go back on if at some point in the future we find we got it wrong. In my opinion, it's not a risk we can take.
They're still released to the public, and are more than capable of re-committing said crime.
True, but I think you'll find that most lifers, upon release, have nothing further to do with their former ways. Besides, you are just as capable of commiting such an offence yourself.
Martin | |
|
| Should Life mean life?
Posted: 8/16/2009 1:57:11 AM |
What about cases where evidence has been found, years later, to have been fabricated by the police? This would be the only drawback that I could see a problem with. But, in an ideal world (which this isn't), the police wouldn't fabricate evidence. I know that is somewhat a contradiction, but the Police are there to protect us, and to protect the people. We should be able to trust them. I know we can't, but if the government sorted out the police, the police would sort out the criminals as they're suppose too.
Regardless of which, I am talking about complete proof. If someone shoots another in broad daylight, in front of a great-many people, there are enough witnesses to have that person convicted, and sentenced to death. In addition, if we had the death penalty back, I actually believe that we'd get a lower crime-rate out of it.
In the long run, if someone one day thought about raping someone, they'd know that worse case scenario, they'd get caught, and spend a few years in jail. If we had the death penalty, that person would seriously have to consider what would happen if he got caught (death), thus he'd be less likely to go through with it, in fear of being caught, and sentences to death.
True, but I think you'll find that most lifers, upon release, have nothing further to do with their former ways. Many don't, that is true, but there is always a few individuals that will re-commit that act. On a side note, why should a murderer (for example) be released after said date? Surely they don't deserve to live the free life?
Besides, you are just as capable of commiting such an offence yourself. With respect, I may be more than capable of committing various crimes, but I choose not to. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
