The EU and the death penalty

[astrologica]

Reading this morning about the last hours of poor Millie Dowler, I have to confess to shedding a tear or two over the suffering that poor Millie endured at the hands of the evil beast Levi Bellfield. I strongly believe that we should have the death penalty restored in this country, so that people like him could be snuffed out permanently. As the death penalty is banned in all EU countries, maybe we could have a chance to get it restored if we left the EU...what do you folks think?

[5129frederick]

Touche!  With a sharp eye for detail, you could join her - run rings round me.    I'll have to sit on the side.

[merehazle]

---

@5129frederick wrote:

Touche!  With a sharp eye for detail, you could join her - run rings round me.    I'll have to sit on the side.

---

Thank you. I was thinking that there's none so blind as those that will NOT see.

Your'e eye for detail, might have been lacking .   

 '    and  '  Thank you, you have made your point again.

They say a picture paints a thousand words.  Aren't they right? 

See you. Perhaps tonight.  Bye.    

[astrologica]

Yes....my original post was regarding the death penalty with regards to the EU, and the possibility of it being brought back if ever we left that ignoble institution. It seems there is broad agreement that that is very unlikely to happen. But yes.....it's ok to discuss the death penalty as such! There will always be cases where there is reasonable doubt, but there are also cases where there is incontrovertible proof of guilt. As I said in my OP, I would very quite happy to see Bellfield hang, but I can see the point of the poster who mentioned that he has other secrets. I was unaware until reading this thread, that he has been spoken of in connection with the Russel murders. Now that does put a different light on things, and gives food for thought. I will always be for the restoration of the death penalty, but only for cases where there is no doubt. It is though, a very difficult subject.

[merehazle]

Yes. Astro. If there is ''incontrovertible'' proof.  With CCTV just about everywhere it so often is.

The death penalty does give closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some will never recover. One of the things that helps to hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victims. A death sentence brings finality in some of these peoples lives.

The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death? We have an increase in acid attacks, and quite frankly I would accept an ''eye for an eye'' on that one. Those attackers have a ''choice'' their victims don't.  

 DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. And add to that if they are caught on CCTV too. That would be enough I think.

I have left your tea on the side Thank you.

[upthecreekyetagain]

If someone takes the life of another then on the basis of what twisted logic does it make sense that the punishment should be that the state takes their's?

Would we say it makes sense that someone found guilty of robbery would not be sentenced to imprisonment but arrangements would be made to rob them at a later date - likewise with **bleep** or any other serious crimes.

As an atheist I believe that when we die that is it - by executing someone found guilty of the most heinous of crimes the culprit's 'punishment' is cut short.  In the days when the judicial system was more closely akin to religious beliefs then the death penalty made sense as those executed, rightly or wrongly, would face the ultimate judge and punishment for their crime, if any.

Have any murderers that fit CeeDee's definition of 'beyond doubt' and other's definitions of the 'most brutal' ever been released from prison?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[astrologica]

Creeky...if someone breaks into your house and steals your TV , you can always get another TV. If someone murders you, then that's your life ended...finito. You can never get another life. Murder is the ultimate crime. So the idea that a murderer should forfeit their own life is not down to any twisted logic, it's simple justice

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@astrologica wrote:

Creeky...if someone breaks into your house and steals your TV , you can always get another TV. If someone murders you, then that's your life ended...finito. You can never get another life. Murder is the ultimate crime. So the idea that a murderer should forfeit their own life is not down to any twisted logic, it's simple justice

---

But if a thug cripples someone or blinds someone during an assault are you really suggesting that the state should blind or cripple the perpetrator.

There are numerous instances of someone burgling a house and taking irreplaceable items as well as TVs and the like.

What of the mental trauma caused by paedophiles or ra pists?  The type of punishment for these crimes doesn't, and shouldn't in my opinion, change, (and in any case how could an 'eye for an eye' punishment be applied?) - the more severe the crime then the longer the punishment - the death penalty negates this and actually shortens the length of punishment.  This is why those accused of the most serious of crimes are often put on 'suicide watch' to prevent them from escaping 'justice'.

[evoman3957]

Ultimately, death only has an effect if people are scared of it. This manifests itself, in spades, in the case of ISIS; who actually embrace it as their beginning.  It has been suggested also that psychopaths have little or no fear of death, including their own.  In these cases, their death is only desirable to ensure the life of others. One could argue that incarceration would ensure the same thing, but at vast expense to the rest of society and in the case of the numbers reaching " Army " proportions; that expense becomes prohibitive and unsustainable. Ironic that a completely different mindset is evident in the case of " War ", where one kills as many of the enemy as possible and incarcerates the rest...........only to release them, sooner rather than later, because they were only obeying orders..........somebody said " kill ".......so they did.  In the case of psychopaths, the voices are in their heads; in the case of soldiers, the voices wear suits and ties and reside in Westminster. You've got to admire Human Beings, they really have a way of making life SO complicated; that they themselves don't even know up from down any more........let alone sort it out.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The financial argument in favour of the death penalty is a valid one and opens up the justification for using the death penalty for crimes other than murder and is difficult to argue with other than on moral grounds.

However as soon as you introduce 'morality' into the subject then paradoxically this eliminates the financial issue because how can you judge a situation on moral grounds and at the same time permit money to overide these - to do so would be immoral!

[evoman3957]

That's why, when we go to War, money is no object......it would seem.  It just appears to be an object in running the peaceful, free society..........properly........that we went to War to achieve.