Ashamed to be British?

Severity of punishment is apparently not a big deterrent to some, severity of punishment AND likelihood of being caught is.

Put simply, people believe they will get away with it, and the truth is, they are often correct !

Hence I refer back to my point, which is NOT about punishment or deterrent, it’s much simpler, I’m focused on prevention.

If someone has demonstrated a pathological inability to function within the fundamental rules required to allow society to function, society should be protected from them by their removal from it.
 
EstuaryBoy said:
Apologies, I have no wish to appear contrary but how can we believe a statement like that? Were they all asked? Seems a VERY broad sweeping assumption... but willing to shown otherwise..
Click to expand...
Even in the olden days! people asked questions,it is not a modern phenomenon,
Social reformers wrote books to try and help the world become a better place.
 
MAK said:
Even in the olden days! people asked questions,it is not a modern phenomenon,
Social reformers wrote books to try and help the world become a better place.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt the premise per se, only the figures. They asked EVERYONE who committed murder between 1837 and 1901?? That assumes they actually knew who committed every murder in those 64 years.. No 'unsolved' then?? Or did those who got away with it fill in the form under an alias? Sorry, those figures need quantifying.......
 
ntst8 said:
It can have a significant effect on the reoffending rate...
Click to expand...

For some yes. For petty criminals where there is a low impact on society and a high probability of your point being correct (they are deterred from re offending) then I would agree it’s fair to release them.

But for those who have demonstrated a pathological inability to reform, and have a high risk of re-offending, and their offences are likely to be terrible (murder, rape, etc) then why should society be put at risk?

It should not.
 
It would seem to me that if you take a life , your own should be potentially forfeit. Nor should 'society' be unduly restrictive and alongwith the usual suspects ,I would include those who cause death by dangerouse driving , those guilty of corporate manslaughter and those who fail to control dangerouse dogs especially when children are the victims .
In the event of a court passing a death penalty , then the recalcitrants body should become forfeit and used for medical research.
 
EstuaryBoy said:
I don't doubt the premise per se, only the figures. They asked EVERYONE who committed murder between 1837 and 1901?? That assumes they actually knew who committed every murder in those 64 years.. No 'unsolved' then?? Or did those who got away with it fill in the form under an alias? Sorry, those figures need quantifying.......
Click to expand...
The murderers that were caught and convicted were asked..
The unsolved murders would have been more difficult as they were unsolved!!!
 
oldmikew said:
It would seem to me that if you take a life , your own should be potentially forfeit. Nor should 'society' be unduly restrictive and alongwith the usual suspects ,I would include those who cause death by dangerouse driving , those guilty of corporate manslaughter and those who fail to control dangerouse dogs especially when children are the victims .
In the event of a court passing a death penalty , then the recalcitrants body should become forfeit and used for medical research.
Click to expand...
Personally, I wouldn’t vote for that. Causing death by making a mistake, being negligent, etc is bad, and should be punished by law of course.

But it’s not the same as the un-reformable / pathological types who will commit serious harm if freed. It’s those I want removed from society.
 
MAK said:
The murderers that were caught and convicted were asked..
The unsolved murders would have been more difficult as they were unsolved!!!
Click to expand...

Unless you know what % of none murderers in the same timescale witnessed a execution the 90% is meaningless, they were very well attended events. It not even stated if the murder took place before or after the execution being witnessed, and anyone with a murder conviction awaiting execution would be in ear shot of the hangman's noose anyway.
 
Nigel , but that is surely a reverse Eugenics? And is not to address what Hanna Arendt called the banality of evil There would I suspect be precious few left after the removal of pathological types . Just think to the category of road accidents known as the Sorry I didnt see you.. How many of these are in any sense of the word accidents but rather a consequence of selfish thoughtless behavior ? Why is it that these same motorists nearly always manage to see police motor cyclists ?
 
Last edited:
kommando said:
Unless you know what % of none murderers in the same timescale witnessed a execution the 90% is meaningless, they were very well attended events. It not even stated if the murder took place before or after the execution being witnessed, and anyone with a murder conviction awaiting execution would be in ear shot of the hangman's noose anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes they were very well attended ... Even in the 1950s they were well attended , crowds hung about outside prison walls . I actually winessed this from a bus on a school outing to London..
 
EstuaryBoy said:
Sorry, glib statements like that do not make for a convincing argument...
Click to expand...
If you perceive that to be glib it wasn’t meant to be...
90 percent of people that went on to commit a murder AT SOME TIME in their lives had witnessed a public execution .
The conclusion being that it did not seem to put them off.
 
If we are to use those statistics (which I do question) then the only percentage we need to know are how many who DID witness public executions went on to NOT commit murder.. That would give a truer picture of it as a deterrent. Although of course public awareness amongst those who couldn't make it on the day might be enough to stop them thinking about topping their neighbour too.... Any numbers for that?.
 
oldmikew said:
Yes they were very well attended ... Even in the 1950s they were well attended , crowds hung about outside prison walls . I actually winessed this from a bus on a school outing to London..
Click to expand...

Eek, that was some school outing, did the naughty children have to go & see an Andrew Lloyd-Webber show? I just like to tell people that I went to a good school, 'cos it was Approved. (ba boom, here 'til Thursday ;) ).

My issues with Capital punishment are simple & as follows:

1) Historical evidence clearly shows that it is not a deterrent (however much one might feel it ought to be so).

2) The law is not infallible, you can't resurrect an innocent person who's been executed (& this has happened more than once!)

Here's Priti Patel & Ian Hislop on (UK) Question Time, topic - 'Does Capital Punishment belong in a civilised society?':

 
I wonder what the dead (victims) would say?... but sadly their voice won't ever be heard.. Nobody appears to be worried about failing them?
Accidents aren't a deterrent for people who drive (or race, for that matter) and the blanket: 'It doesn't deter' is a fallible assumption which we're never likely to put to the test. Without a 'control' situation we'll always default to the status quo..
 
Last edited:
oldmikew said:
Nigel , but that is surely a reverse Eugenics? And is not to address what Hanna Arendt called the banality of evil There would I suspect be precious few left after the removal of pathological types . Just think to the category of road accidents known as the Sorry I didnt see you.. How many of these are in any sense of the word accidents but rather a consequence of selfish thoughtless behavior ? Why is it that these same motorists nearly always manage to see police motor cyclists ?
Click to expand...

Well I guess, as ever, that once one starts looking into the idea it does get more and more difficult.

Bit to my simple mind at least, there is a clear difference between those who commit rape, torture, murder deliberately and for their own pleasure, and those that cause road traffic accidents...
 
I suggest what you become depends on your world-view. I've known several criminals, but I have never met one who was well-educated. In Australia, our government is trying to encourage more people to study STEM subjects instead of Arts-Law (humanities). People are claiming that degrees in humanities are useless. But perhaps people with those degrees have better prospects of getting jobs in intelligence agencies and police forces ? If you read-up on some of the scams which criminals get into, it takes a weird mindset to unravel them. In Australia, politics and crime often merge. Personally, I always take a risk perspective and accept no so-called fact, at face value. - There is always a probability involved in every fact.
 
If we had the death penalty for child abduction, that might seal the fate of many kids. A criminal's first priority is to avoid being caught - 'dead men tell no tales' ?
 
Back
Top