[Archived] Hang Em High

[thenodrog]

I can't even comprehend thinking like this. Can I ask how you would feel if you shot a person dead? I still recall today how I felt as a child the one and only time I killed a living creature - shot a robin with my air rifle - it wasn't good.

HOW IF IT HAD NOT BEEN A ROBIN BUT A RABID DOG THAT HAD KILLED YOUR CHILDREN IN HORRIFIC DEPRAVED FASHION PAUL?

Do you mean torture him to establish the location of Keith Bennett's body? I can't help but feel advocates of this approach place themselves in a very dangerous position.

BY NOT DOING CONDEMNED KEITH BENNETS MOTHER TO DAILY MENTAL TORTURE FOR ALMOST 50 YEARS. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR WIFE TO GO THROUGH THAT FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE JUST COS SOME DERANGED SICKO IS GETTING OFF ON MENTALLY TORTURING HER?

By placing the guilty perpetrators before the innocent victims you are showing that your values are skewed and your sympathies misplaced Paul.

I wish all those who want state execution would go and live in the US - and leave us alone to enjoy this civilised country.

Care to explain how a civilsied society produces the likes of Brady, Hindley, West and Huntley Jim?

[Paul]

By placing the guilty perpetrators before the innocent victims you are showing that your values are skewed and your sympathies misplaced Paul.

I did not place the guilty before the victim, I said the problem with state execution is mistakes have been and will continue to be made. In order to protect those who are innocent but wrongly convicted from death the price our society has to pay is keeping Brady and his like locked away for life. A wrongly convicted person is as much a victim as the KB's mother.

To be clear I am saying we should not have capital punishment because the justice system is not perfect. People are wrongly convicted on occasion and my comments are aimed at protecting those innocent people and not the guilty.

If you can live with executing innocent people in order to allow the truly guilty to be executed as well that's your affair. The ultimate difficulty for all who believe in capital punishment is there are many examples of the innocent being wrongly convicted, you can never get away from this aspect of the debate.

I also said I felt life imprisonment without hope a greater punishment than death. Hardly sympathetic in my view. Execution gets a murderer off lightly, years of reflection is another matter. Granted I doubt Brady reflects much.

[Paul]

I think this case involving child sex abuse, murder, wrongful conviction and a mother who died close to a significant event in the case is worthwhile comparison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7052109.stm

Under your regime the man could never have been released. How would his mother have felt when his innocence was established?

You can't have it both ways. Either Bennet's mother suffers all her life or Kiszko's does. How do we chose which mother should suffer?

[thenodrog]

Bleeding heart Paul?

How about 77 mothers v 1?

http://www.huffingto...nk3&pLid=123896

Kizko's was a dreadful mistake which I seriously doubt would happen today with modern forensic techniques. However concerning the people I am referring to there is no room for any doubt that they are guilty.

[Paul]

Bleeding heart Paul?

How about 77 mothers v 1?

http://www.huffingto...nk3&pLid=123896

Kizko's was a dreadful mistake which I seriously doubt would happen today with modern forensic techniques. However concerning the people I am referring to there is no room for any doubt that they are guilty.

Clearly Breivik is guilty and has been judged so but as you point out Kizko was a dreadful mistake. So how many innocent people should be executed to justify the execution of the guilty? How long do we wait before deciding without doubt an individual is guilty and therefore can safely be executed without fear of later evidence from newer techniques proving their innocence?

It's not a case of bleeding hearts but two simple questions.

How many innocent people do we execute to justify killing the guilty?

How long do we wait?

If you believe both can be justified it should not be difficult to answer. Just two numbers are required from you.

[jim mk2]

Care to explain how a civilsied society produces the likes of Brady, Hindley, West and Huntley Jim?

All societies produce deranged individuals - civilised 21st century societies don't execute them.

[thenodrog]

Clearly Breivik is guilty and has been judged..........

It's not a case of bleeding hearts but two simple questions.

How many innocent people do we execute to justify killing the guilty?

How long do we wait?

If you believe both can be justified it should not be difficult to answer. Just two numbers are required from you.

1. None. As you yourself point out there is no doubt with Breivik.

2. Not long.

Dunno how things stack up with Norwegian law but as it stands Breivik has been sentended to 21 years. Apparently there is a mechanism for keeping him locked up after that though. But what is the point with someone like him who has just publically apologised for not killing more?

[Paul]

1. None. As you yourself point out there is no doubt with Breivik.

You have posted you would execute someone found guilty of child abuse and murder. In particular Brady. I'm not arguing with the opinion. Stefan Kiszko was found guilty of sexually abusing and murdering an 11 year old girl - pretty much the same as Brady, who repeat offended. Under your view Kiszko would have been executed, if not I hope you will explain why not, which would make him an innocent but executed man.

If Kiszko had been executed your answer of "none " proves why we cannot have capital punishment.

2. Not long.

in Kiszko's case 16 years would have to be "not long." so how do you square that one?

Dunno how things stack up with Norwegian law but as it stands Breivik has been sentended to 21 years. Apparently there is a mechanism for keeping him locked up after that though. But what is the point with someone like him who has just publically apologised for not killing more?

The BBC report the majority of Norwegians are satisfied with the outcome suggesting their lawmakers and judiciary are in tune with the public view - which would seem a part of your view on execution. If the Norwegian public are satisfied it would seem the judiciary reached the right decision.

[thenodrog]

Then maybe it would be more relevent if they restricted their obviously skewed surveys to the relatives if the victims.

However I can't be arsed defending sicko's. So you just have it your way. You can prevaricate and sympathise all you want with the likes of Brady, Sutcliffe, West, Breivik et al cos I'm just happy in the certain belief that morally I'm in the right and your bleeding heart mantra in support of the perpetrator of crime over than the victim is completely wrong.

[jim mk2]

Then maybe it would be more relevent if they restricted their obviously skewed surveys to the relatives if the victims.

However I can't be arsed defending sicko's. So you just have it your way. You can prevaricate and sympathise all you want with the likes of Brady, Sutcliffe, West, Breivik et al cos I'm just happy in the certain belief that morally I'm in the right and your bleeding heart mantra in support of the perpetrator of crime over than the victim is completely wrong.

Argument lost and over.

[Paul]

Then maybe it would be more relevent if they restricted their obviously skewed surveys to the relatives if the victims.

However I can't be arsed defending sicko's. So you just have it your way. You can prevaricate and sympathise all you want with the likes of Brady, Sutcliffe, West, Breivik et al cos I'm just happy in the certain belief that morally I'm in the right and your bleeding heart mantra in support of the perpetrator of crime over than the victim is completely wrong.

Love it. The BBC report the findings of surveys conducted by Norwegians and you accuse the BBC of skewing the results!

The people in this article are Norwegian, I gues they understand the parents, victims and their country better than you and I:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19369548

You really don't understand do you. I have no sympathy for those you name. Personally I think a lifetime of incarceration a greater punishment than death.

However when asked how many wrongly convicted people should we execute to allow the guilty to be executed you replied "none."

In a single word you defeated your own argument. It would do you credit to withdraw gracefully instead if once again underlining the poverty of your arguement and view.

[broadsword]

I think justice was cheated when Fred West hung himself.

[thenodrog]

You really don't understand do you. I have no sympathy for those you name. Personally I think a lifetime of incarceration a greater punishment than death.

Really? Huntleys brother Wayne disagrees strongly with you.

http://www.telegraph...am-murders.html

[Mike E]

Really? Huntleys brother Wayne disagrees strongly with you.

http://www.telegraph...am-murders.html

And Huntley himself?

I have to say that I agree with capital punishment for crimes like murder, paedophilia and rape due to the fact it'd mean the relatives of the victims (and victims themselves) can live safe in the knowledge that they won't see the perpetrator allowed out halfway through a sentence for 'good behaviour'. Or even not convicted at all in the case of the Judge who blamed 'society' for a 14year-old boy choosing to sexually assault the 4year-old he was babysitting.

Oh, and it'd aid employment. One or 2 extra jobs with every police force (the hangmen).

[colin]

Really? Huntleys brother Wayne disagrees strongly with you.

http://www.telegraph...am-murders.html

You can take that article for all it's worth. To me, it's just a load of gibbering idiocy. I'll be OK with you if you give it any credence. I'm completely unsure why Wayne Huntley is at all qualified to comment on the British legal system, nor why Ian Huntley's wearing of a Manchester United shirt has anything at all to do with anything at all. Why on earth does his shirt have anything to do with his crime?

[thenodrog]

However when asked how many wrongly convicted people should we execute to allow the guilty to be executed you replied "none."

In a single word you defeated your own argument. It would do you credit to withdraw gracefully instead if once again underlining the poverty of your arguement and view.

I'm not advocating the death penalty for all murderers. Just the ones where there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever and where the murder was particularly horrific or conducted to satiate depravity.

Is there any doubt about Breivik? How about Brady and Sutcliffe? What if Hamilton had not killed himself?

Hypothetical question but suppose you stumbled across Huntley as he strangled those girls. You are in no immediate danger but the only way you could intervene in the situation and stop him was to shoot him in the back of the head. What would you do Paul?

[broadsword]

I'm not advocating the death penalty for all murderers. Just the ones where there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever and where the murder was particularly horrific or conducted to satiate depravity.

Is there any doubt about Breivik? How about Brady and Sutcliffe? What if Hamilton had not killed himself?

So criminal A could commit bloody murder and can be convicted with no doubts, criminal B commits the same crime in broadly similar circumstances, but there are doubts over the evidence presented. But he is still convicted.

We kill A but not B? Doesn't sound right to me.

False convictions are only one argument against the death penalty. There are quite a few others. None of the arguments in favour seem remotely convincing to me.

[Paul]

I'm not advocating the death penalty for all murderers. Just the ones where there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever and where the murder was particularly horrific or conducted to satiate depravity.

Is there any doubt about Breivik? How about Brady and Sutcliffe? What if Hamilton had not killed himself?

No there isn't any doubt about those individuals. For 16 years there was no doubt about Kiszko. That's the problem. When do we decide there is no doubt? People are found guilty on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt but mistakes are still made.

Following your arguement Kiszko, found guilty of sexually abusing and murdering an 11 year old girl, would surely qualify for execution? You direct your arguement at the wrong examples. Kiszko was innocent but under your law would have been executed. The reasoning is flawed.

Hypothetical question but suppose you stumbled across Huntley as he strangled those girls. You are in no immediate danger but the only way you could intervene in the situation and stop him was to shoot him in the back of the head. What would you do Paul?

Good question. I'd shoot but I'd suggest shooting him in a number of places would stop him. Surely it wouldn't have to be tha back of the head?

[Steve Moss]

Good question. I'd shoot but I'd suggest shooting him in a number of places would stop him. Surely it wouldn't have to be tha back of the head?

The back would be good. Or the chest if he's the other way around. Select the largest mass as your target to improve the chances of a successful hit.

Shooting for arms, legs and other supposedly morally superior trick shots only increase the likelihood that you miss. Worse that you hit the victim or an innocent bystander.

And shoot him multiple times. Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting again.

[Paul]

And shoot him multiple times. Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting again.

Oh right, I'll keep that in mind...........I'm we have a law that mutters some nonsense about reasonable force. Never mind.

[jim mk2]

And shoot him multiple times. Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting again.

The good ol' Wild West mentality is alive and kickin'.

[thenodrog]

Oh right, I'll keep that in mind...........I'm we have a law that mutters some nonsense about reasonable force. Never mind.

I think maybe Steve is getting carried away but a head shot would be reasonable force in that situation. You dare not miss or do half a job when you are one on one. Depending on ones personality, and I might be wrong, but I think fear would either make you freeze completely or empty the gun into his brain. Either way rational thought would not be a part of your decision. Far different consequences if you screwed up though.

What I do struggle with is the number of deaths attributed to Police marksmen acting as Judge and Jury. Some drunken / drugged up idiot after a row with his Mrs swinging a samurai sword around his head in the middle of the road in a police stand off surely only warrants disabling with a few lead pellets in his legs to bring him back to his senses? I rem one such numpty was shot and killed a few years ago. Same with a lot of these sieges. Some bloke barricading himself in his house with a shotgun full of No 9 birdshot after an emotional breakdown and with no hostages and a shotgun surely doesn not need to be riddled with semi automatic rifle fire from a Heckler and Koch. Frequently happens though. I can only assume that it must cut down on paperwork.

[thenodrog]

The good ol' Wild West mentality is alive and kickin'.

Do you not yet understand wind ups? You should cos after Braddup you are the biggest wum on here.

Would you care to put forward your answer to the question re: the same hypothetical situation which I put to paul Jim?

[jim mk2]

You think Steve Moss is joking ? You clearly do not understand the mentality of the US right wing and the NRA in particular with regard to the use of guns.

[thenodrog]

You think Steve Moss is joking ? You clearly do not understand the mentality of the US right wing and the NRA in particular with regard to the use of guns.

Maybe not.

However I repeat.... 'Would you care to put forward your answer to the question re: the same hypothetical situation which I put to paul Jim?'