[Archived] Hang Em High

[thenodrog]

Syrupy, limp wristed? Does that mean that opposing the death penalty shows some kind of shortcoming?

I find that response odd, even from you Gord. Did my post hit a nerve then?

Stop pontificating and you just concentrate on stopping the causes of Capital punishment Den and I guarantee that you'll get your wish and it'll stop.

[Flopsy]

you're homophobia shines through yet again Theno. As does your good hearted Christian charity. You must be so proud of yourself.

Left Footer

1) Liberals are ducks?

2) Oh dear - this group of people who would vote for the death penalty, are the same morons who deifyed Diana and made Jade Goody a Millionaire, and think she was a talented star.

3) You've obviously never been to a prison, if you think luxury means sleeping in a cell, where the toilet facilities consists of a bucket with a lid, and a cell mate with the squits and you're stuck in there for 12 - 23 hours a day then you really have had a hard life and have my sympathies.

[den]

Stop pontificating and you just concentrate on stopping the causes of Capital punishment Den and I guarantee that you'll get your wish and it'll stop.

Pathetic Gord.

[gillibrand]

Makes one proud to be British when I view this site?

[Flopsy]

before or after you come out from under your bridge?

Capital Punishment was used for a great deal of crimes during the 18 hundreds, it didnt work as a detterrent then, it wont now. Its just an excuse to salve your blood lust

[gillibrand]

Don't talk like a factory lass, it is one stabbing or a shooting every week, week in week out, if capital punishment was re introduced this sort of thing would be reduced dramatically also corporal punishment would be a great deterrent it is not safe to go out in some areas of the UK on your own . Wake up before it is out of control.

[Billy Castell]

You're right Gillibrand. There were no murders, or only one or two a year at the most until the death penalty was repealed, and it has been like Mad Max ever since. People like Ed Gein, Jack the Ripper, Dr. Cripps, Josef Stalin are all fictional characters. There have been no massacres, genocides, petty arguments that ended in violence, or murders in the name of ambition until the 1970's.

I am against the death penalty for one reason-what if the wrong person is convicted? It is a bit late to say sorry and release them when they're dead. The Birmingham 6 may have all been hung for something they didn't do.

[gillibrand]

You have mentioned four that happens every week now, it used to be very unusual to hear about a murder it made headlines now it is just a everyday occurrence. What would you suggest to stop all this violence it is easy to say it is not correct in this day and age to have capital punishment.

[Billy Castell]

That is very difficult Gllibrand. Violence is happening, and seems to be increasing and a whole range of changes in legislation, the media, society and so on can play a part in making people not go for the most violent option. Perhaps, young kids should be encouraged to share more, people should try and make more of an effort to know the people around them, TV shows like Eastenders should have fewer 1 dimensional thugs acting hard. It is hard to put these things into neat simple steps, but there should be an effort to make violent, selfish behaviour appear as it really is-stupid, arrogant, unecessary and disgusting. And not somehow acceptable. Trust me, I know how horrible people can be to strangers, I used to live in Bridlington. I wish I could put into words what I'd like to see happen, and one day I may get lucky and find them, but chopping people's heads off in itself will not solve much other than a nation's desire for revenge.

However, the past is never as great as people make it out. We had more football hooligans, bent (as in corrupt) policemen, more discrimination towards gays, crapper cars and so on. Crime is also more reported with all the news formats, and the rise of the crime fiction novel clearly shows people like reading about these dangerous and horrible acts.

[Rovermatt]

Do you know what pisses me off about people with your syrupy, limp wristed views Den? The fact that you seem to think that capital punishment is a bigger crime than pre-meditated murder. I find it really odd that so many people of your beliefs spend more time condemning capital punishment than murder! Misguided emotions and sensibilities imo and you really need to take that on board Den. Tell you what, you find a way of condemning murder to the dark ages and I'll fully support your views on capital punishment.

Holding the view that capital punishment is a relic of the middle ages does not make one 'syrupy and limp-wristed'. You really need to get over whatever neurosis drives you on a daily basis.

Makes one proud to be British when I view this site?

Obviously written with a large helping of sarcasm. I'm interested to know what you consider to be truly British then?

[thenodrog]

Pathetic Gord.

Au contraire Den. That is the entire issue. I've never heard you, Matt and the other imbecile saying 'ah but what if the wrong one gets murdered?'

[leftfooter]

Can you provide any evidence to support this statement?

One can only hope you are never elected into a position where you might influence these matters. You state it is morally right to execute wrongdoers. Exactly where does this stop? If you steal my car does that give me the moral right to break into your house and steal goods to the value? If you want to put forward any arguement that execution would be a greater deterent I can respect your view but please don't tell me it's morally right. Next you'll be telling us that cutting off a thief's hand is OK and stoning adulterous women would be a good replacement for 3.00pm kick offs.

In your "homely" example - lovely word to use in a discussion about executing innocent people, very comfortable - I presume you could be referring to the Guildford four and the Birmingham six? I realise you may also be talking about internment. If so those two cases alone represent nearly half the total you quote from the US in the last 30 years. There have been plenty of examples of wrongful conviction in this country in the same period which have been widely publicised. I'd suggest if you lived in the USA you would find as many, if not more. A couple of others for you:

Tim Evans executed for the murder of his daughter. Ever heard of John Christie, 10 Rillngton Place?

Derek Bentley pardoned 45 years after his hanging

Well this does presume people are still alive to benefit from being found innocent. Bit of a bummer if the only "benefit" is to become a statistic of those who have been wrongly executed.

I think it's accepted Jesse Tafero was wrongly executed - BTW it took 14 minutes to electrocute him to death.

"...Can you provide any evidence to support this statement?..."

There you go Paul – one small paradigmatic example:

"…Oh dear - this group of people who would vote for the death penalty, are the same morons who deified (sic) Diana and made Jade Goody a Millionaire, and think she was a talented star…"

I would like to thank Floppy for illustrating so clearly why the so called liberal/left has reached such a historical nadir. When not traducing anyone with whom it disagrees as either 'racist/'homophobic/reactionary' or better still, all three in one stroke, we see the bankrupt mantra of the lefts inability to ascribe to fellow citizens any independence of thought and the pre-determination of political engagement (wrapped up of course with the popular culture that it professes to disdain). Such desultory leftist discourse dictates that if your argument has been overwhelmingly rejected, attack the individual personally or simply close the debate down.

"...One can only hope you are never elected into a position where you might influence these matters. You state it is morally right to execute wrongdoers. Exactly where does this stop?..."

Paul, your abject reaction makes me wonder if you truly understand the meaning of morality. If you had any morals or guts you wouldn't be shirking your civic responsibility in such a craven charade of public hand wringing and pseudo-morality. We are talking about something quite simple; sending a murderer to meet his maker.

You're also conveniently forgetting the art of syllogistic reasoning. One should examine not only the moral implications of a policy but also its practical effect. Some policies defy logic as they are so stupid in their execution – sorry couldn't resist that one.

Our currrent legal approach means that we are already reaping harsh repurcussions. That you cannot see a correlation between its cause and effect is truly astonishing.

"...If you steal my car does that give me the moral right to break into your house and steal goods to the value? If you want to put forward any arguement that execution would be a greater deterent I can respect your view but please don't tell me it's morally right. Next you'll be telling us that cutting off a thief's hand is OK and stoning adulterous women would be a good replacement for 3.00pm kick offs..."

Your rhetoric is bordering on the hysterical Paul. I advocate the re-establishment of capital punishment, with attendant constitutional checks and balances, due process and the right of appeal. No wonder respect for the criminal justice system continues to dwindle - especially among the voiceless and abandoned poorer classes - when challenging the status quo draws this type of reaction.

I advocate capital punishment principally for 2 crimes: Murder & High Treason. By high treason I don't refer to dissenters or protesters of course. I mean those Britons who actively assist the other side in the wars that Britain fights under the Royal Prerogative. Simple.

"...In your "homely" example - lovely word to use in a discussion about executing innocent people, very comfortable - I presume you could be referring to the Guildford four and the Birmingham six? I realise you may also be talking about internment. If so those two cases alone represent nearly half the total you quote from the US in the last 30 years. There have been plenty of examples of wrongful conviction in this country in the same period which have been widely publicised. I'd suggest if you lived in the USA you would find as many, if not more. A couple of others for you:

Tim Evans executed for the murder of his daughter. Ever heard of John Christie, 10 Rillngton Place?..."

The fact is that your fear of killing innocents is not a reason to ban capital punishment. It's an excuse for self-congratulating liberals to avoid taking any responsibiliy. Let me ask you a question: were would YOU draw the line; abolish abortion? Force people to cross the road wearing safety helmets? or ensure that someone walks in front of every car waving a red flag and blowing a whistle lest some innocent bystander might get hurt?

The penal system has two prongs 1 .punish the criminal and 2. protect the public. Some way behind these two (and I'm not going to even number it is 'rehabilitation'). Whilst the former are non-negotiable the latter is open to wide interpretation. Unfortunately our political class do not see it like that.

Once a society sees that the law is toothless, the road to blood feuds and personal vengeance is opened. Once respect for the law is negated an increase of vigilante private 'justice' is destined to follow - like some northern European version of Albania. Once it is understood that our rulers are incapable of upholding the law and harshly dealing with wrongdoers, the social contract is broken.

"...Derek Bentley pardoned 45 years after his hanging..."

First of all he was never pardoned. Second the argument is moot - even you must appreciate that after 45 years his 'pardon' wouldn't have helped him much either dead or alive

His conviction was set aside as a political sop and pushed through by the Nu Labour establishment whose agenda needed a death penalty martyr... and in the end had to make do with a nasty and stupid cop killing burglar like Deadly Derek.

I say stupid. Prior to the abolition of the death penalty it was well understood by the criminal fraternity that before embarking on any felonous caper you should search each other for weapons - just in case one of them pulled a gun and used it, lest they all would swing, which was then the customary norm.

Bentley was reckless, incredibly stupid and at the end of the day guilty. There is no rule that says that you can't be all three. He claimed that he didn't know his younger accomplice didn't have a gun on him? Believe what you like. He was given a fair trial in front of an independent jury. They had the advantage of judging his demeanor and the credibility of all the evidence at first hand. On the basis of the available evidence at the time, they chose to convict him, which they were fully entitled to do. They believed the evidence that he was a party to the cold blooded murder of an unarmed police officer. Unless I'm mistaken, joint enterprise is still applicable criminal law. If arrested today under similar circumstances Bentley would be facing exactly the same indictment as he did then.

"...Well this does presume people are still alive to benefit from being found innocent. Bit of a bummer if the only "benefit" is to become a statistic of those who have been wrongly executed...."

No. It is a perfectly good argument for taking a huge amount of trouble to ensure that innocents are not executed. I emphasised this point in the previous post did I not?

"...I think it's accepted Jesse Tafero was wrongly executed - BTW it took 14 minutes to electrocute him to death...."

It's accepted? By whom? Was he pardoned or not? Now you're really scraping the barrel. BTW Jesse Tafero was a convicted rapist, drug dealer and murderer and deserves no sympathy. You've been watching too many Hollywood tearjerkers Paul.

[colin]

Theno,

You asked on another thread to give an example of when you have ever insulted anyone.

Do you know what pisses me off about people with your syrupy, limp wristed views Den?

I've never heard you, Matt and the other imbecile saying 'ah but what if the wrong one gets murdered?

Any good?

[Rovermatt]

Au contraire Den. That is the entire issue. I've never heard you, Matt and the other imbecile saying 'ah but what if the wrong one gets murdered?'

Anyone who gets murdered is most likely the 'wrong one'. You seem to think that anyone not in favour of capital punishment somehow doesn't give a stuff about murder or its victims. When has this ever been inferred or even stated?

[leftfooter]

You're right Gillibrand. There were no murders, or only one or two a year at the most until the death penalty was repealed, and it has been like Mad Max ever since. People like Ed Gein, Jack the Ripper, Dr. Cripps, Josef Stalin are all fictional characters. There have been no massacres, genocides, petty arguments that ended in violence, or murders in the name of ambition until the 1970's.

Explain the following please:

In 1956, prior to the abolition of the death penalty there were 94 convictions for homicide in England and Wales. By 2004 there were 648 homicide convictions.

[Rovermatt]

edit

[leftfooter]

It also means the executioners are guilty of murder themselves. So do we then exterminate the exterminators?

Uh...no.

[Rovermatt]

Explain the following please:

In 1956, prior to the abolition of the death penalty there were 94 convictions for homicide in England and Wales. By 2004 there were 648 homicide convictions.

Less people in the country, less violence in society, fewer advances in scientific expertise. Still 94 innocent victims though.

[thenodrog]

Less people in the country, less violence in society, fewer advances in scientific expertise. Still 94 innocent victims though.

Thats you stymied.

Theno,

You asked on another thread to give an example of when you have ever insulted anyone.

Any good?

Hardly Colon....... not one of those has found reason to complain. Just you. Which puts you down imo as a grade 1 sh1t stirrer. Goodnight.

[Paul]

leftfooter I have read, and re-read several times, your response. I'd like you to look back at my response to your earlier post, in this I raised a number of challenges to the points you made and also asked you to provide some supporting evidence. Your response to this to ascribe to me the following characteristics:

abject, failing to understand morality, lacking any morals or guts, shirking my civic responsibility, wringing my hands in pseuod-morality, hysterical rhetoric, being a self-congratulating liberal incapable of taking responsibility

Now if you wish to take the moral high ground in arguement please do, however to do so you really need to learn respect for others and their views. I disagree with your view but don't find it necessary to rudely characterise you as any particular type because you hold a different view. I am far from the things you suggest and would fully agree society is too lenient in its attitudes to criminals. I would happily lock many up for life, meaning life. Where we disagree is on the death penalty, I think it wrong and ultimately dangerous. You on the other hand are prepared to accept the risk of executing innocents, I am not. The language and characteristics you chose to use distract from your arguement, as is so often the case with people who hold similar views. If you cannot discuss without resorting to insult don't be surprised if your views are not heard or given much credence.

Now to answer to specific points you raised, some of which are factually incorrect. Michael Howard, a Conservative Home Secretary, granted Bentley a partial pardon saying "he should not have hanged but was guilty of taking part in the murder." Later, by when the Labour party was in power, the Law Lords found the conviction unsafe. This is hardly a political sop and if it is has come down on both sides of the political fence.

You asked about abortion, the other points were clearly just exageration. I'm not anti-abortion, not a campaigner, but I think it is the wrong course of action unless the mother's life is at threat and /or the unborn is known to be very severly damaged. So I don't agree with abortion but I'm not going to lecture anyone on the morality or otherwise of having one.

As for Tafero I did not state he was pardoned but that it seems to be accepted he was wrongly executed. He and his partner, Jacobs, were convicted on the testimony of Rhodes who later recanted, accepting responsibility for the murder. Tafero was subsequently executed after the Rhodes admission. Tafero's guilt or innocence was never retested he was simply executed despite the main witness against him admitting perjury. As you say Tafero was a rapist and drug dealer but that does not mean society had the right to execute him for a crime he may not have committed. The logic applied by you here would ultimately lead to a corrupt system which would work on the basis "we know he/she committed the crime, now lets make the evidence fit". You can't punish criminals for crimes they may may not have committed regardless of the lowlife they may be.

[thenodrog]

Where we disagree is on the death penalty, I think it wrong and ultimately dangerous.

Get away.......

Tafero's guilt or innocence was never retested he was simply executed despite the main witness against him admitting perjury. As you say Tafero was a rapist and drug dealer but that does not mean society had the right to execute him for a crime he may not have committed.

I bet the earth didn't wobble on it's axis when he exhaled his last breath Paul. If you keep buying a ticket one day you'll win the lottery, as they say.

[leftfooter]

leftfooter I have read, and re-read several times, your response. I'd like you to look back at my response to your earlier post, in this I raised a number of challenges to the points you made and also asked you to provide some supporting evidence. Your response to this to ascribe to me the following characteristics:

abject, failing to understand morality, lacking any morals or guts, shirking my civic responsibility, wringing my hands in pseuod-morality, hysterical rhetoric, being a self-congratulating liberal incapable of taking responsibility

Now if you wish to take the moral high ground in arguement please do, however to do so you really need to learn respect for others and their views. I disagree with your view but don't find it necessary to rudely characterise you as any particular type because you hold a different view. I am far from the things you suggest and would fully agree society is too lenient in its attitudes to criminals. I would happily lock many up for life, meaning life. Where we disagree is on the death penalty, I think it wrong and ultimately dangerous. You on the other hand are prepared to accept the risk of executing innocents, I am not. The language and characteristics you chose to use distract from your arguement, as is so often the case with people who hold similar views. If you cannot discuss without resorting to insult don't be surprised if your views are not heard or given much credence.

Now to answer to specific points you raised, some of which are factually incorrect. Michael Howard, a Conservative Home Secretary, granted Bentley a partial pardon saying "he should not have hanged but was guilty of taking part in the murder." Later, by when the Labour party was in power, the Law Lords found the conviction unsafe. This is hardly a political sop and if it is has come down on both sides of the political fence.

You asked about abortion, the other points were clearly just exageration. I'm not anti-abortion, not a campaigner, but I think it is the wrong course of action unless the mother's life is at threat and /or the unborn is known to be very severly damaged. So I don't agree with abortion but I'm not going to lecture anyone on the morality or otherwise of having one.

As for Tafero I did not state he was pardoned but that it seems to be accepted he was wrongly executed. He and his partner, Jacobs, were convicted on the testimony of Rhodes who later recanted, accepting responsibility for the murder. Tafero was subsequently executed after the Rhodes admission. Tafero's guilt or innocence was never retested he was simply executed despite the main witness against him admitting perjury. As you say Tafero was a rapist and drug dealer but that does not mean society had the right to execute him for a crime he may not have committed. The logic applied by you here would ultimately lead to a corrupt system which would work on the basis "we know he/she committed the crime, now lets make the evidence fit". You can't punish criminals for crimes they may may not have committed regardless of the lowlife they may be.

Paul, stop being so precious and get over yourself. It was you that chose to associate my views with the actions of Islamist thugs like the Taliban and the Somalian Islamic Courts'. Don't complain subsequently if I describe such an abject response as just that. And yes it was a rather hysterical reaction (and predictably started a mini-bandwagon on which the usual toadies and sheep could leap on). As far as respecting other people's views 'morons' and 'nutter' are just two adjectives ascribed to my simple post and of course the usual smears and personal slurs ensued. The likes of Theno, Blue Phil and myself are disparaged without censure on here just for daring to question the liberal-left orthodoxy.

I stated that since the turn of the 18th century there is no proof that an innocent person has been executed in the U.S. You still have not offered any proof.

Regarding Bentley, you're arguing about a 50 year old case. In respect of advances in forensic science, DNA techniques and electronic surveillance, that could have been 500 years ago. Hard cases make bad law, and just because one mistake just might have been made (you conveniently forget that you are looking at a 1950's issue through the prism of 21st century spectacles) that doesn't mean that the families of victims, the general public and the entire legal system should be held hostage to a discredited minority liberal elite more interested in imposing its views on others than allowing justice to be done AND be seen to have been done by ordinary people.

On that note, you asked in an earlier post if I can provide evidence that the death penalty was imposed on us by the liberal-leftist elite. Here is a fuller response. You can choose to accept it or not.

In the 1950's the Labour Party was hijacked by a bunch of privileged Oxbridge educated intellectuals who, had they not been so ambitious in their quest for office should really have joined the Liberal Party - one of whom eventually did.

The likes of Roy Jenkins and Tony Crosland didn't want any of that working class nonsense associated with punishment and retribution thank you very much. Seizing the levers of power their aims were social, rather than economic.

Some of the earliest reforms that were vertically imposed included liberalising laws in respect of homosexuality, abortion and of course the death penalty. The fact that their reformist views had little support among the British working class didn't particularly concern them. What mattered to them was that they could unilaterally push through their particular elitist social agenda.

Some of the reforms I'll concede had benefits and I would also accept that in the 1960's era of Buttskellism, social consensus and a more homogenised society that abolishing capital punishment might have appeared an attractive option. That is no longer the case. I'd wager last year more people were stabbed to death (even excluding shootings/terrorism etc…) in London alone than were killed throughout the whole of England and Wales in the year prior to the abolition of the death penalty.

The corollary of all this of course in terms of the death penalty is that is that it is the abandoned poor - once Labour's core constituency - whose lives have been the most blighted by violent crime and inner city gangsterism. We also have the true slaughter of the innocents running at an industrial 200,000 a year and bound to rise much further. All thanks to social elitists from Islington and Hampstead (David Milliband is the spawn of such a brood) in the Labour Party who still dominate its social agenda. Hanging isn't a pleasant subject you see in polite dinner company.

The abolition of the death penalty was, is and never has been the result of public opinion - particularly working class opinion. Every opinion poll taken before or since rather, shows a clear majority in favour. If you were truly consistent in your morality you would not be fretting over low life rapists and burglars like Derek Bentley and Jesse Tafero who just might have not been guilty of murder many years ago, (prior to the introduction of stricter checks and balances/due process - which I advocated but choose to ignore) - and concern yourself with those increasing number of victims of violent re-offenders.

[Jimbo]

Explain the following please:

In 1956, prior to the abolition of the death penalty there were 94 convictions for homicide in England and Wales. By 2004 there were 648 homicide convictions.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from - Page 14 of Trends in UK Statistics since 1900 states Since the early 1960s the number of homicides per million population has more than doubled.

Homicides per million population in England and Wales

Year Homicides

1900 9.6

1910 8.1

1920 8.3

1930 7.5

1940 ..

1950 7.9

1955 6.3

1960 6.2

1965 6.8

1970 8.1

1975 10.3

1980 12.5

1985 12.5

1990 13.1

1995 14.5

1997 14.1

I'm not saying this is acceptable, but if your goiing to pull statistics out of the air, make them credible.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for one reason, and one reason only - our police are incompetent in the extreme and unless a conviction is handed them on a plate I have no faith in their ability to get the right person for any crime.

[Rovermatt]

Thats you stymied.

What?

[gillibrand]

Maybe peoples views are influenced by their surroundings and the people they come into contact with, obviously if you have been mugged or assaulted you will have a different opinion to some one who is cosseted in a midsummer village way of life or gone to a better class of school and university, also it is difficult to express ones views in this day and age without being ridiculed by a questionable section of society!