You know what I'm getting at though. A serial killer will always be beyond help and locked up for life anyway, so they might as well be killed and some money saved (assuming the system was setup so that it did save money, not like in the US).
Should inmates on death row be allowed to choose what their last meal is?
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
You know what I'm getting at though. A serial killer will always be beyond help and locked up for life anyway, so they might as well be killed and some money saved (assuming the system was setup so that it did save money, not like in the US).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14971198
He successfully shot a man in the head and attempted to shoot others. He admitted it at the first opportunity and was convicted of murder. The deceased leaves behind a widow, two children, and a distraught family.
Do you think Ryan Donovan be executed?
So what you'd have to implement is system where the truckload of lawyers (etcetera) either work for free or a tiny percentage of their usual fee, because you'd still need the lengthy appeals to make it 'fair'. Lawyers like money.
Yes, he's a nutter and might as well be killed than be a money sponge in our prison system.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 7,059
I honestly dont see the point in the last meal anyway,Hes gonna be killed so whats the point?
I still think the death pen should be stopped though,too many innecent people getting killed and all that.
I still think the death pen should be stopped though,too many innecent people getting killed and all that.
I would be more supportive of a hard labour system, where the inmates are productive financially.
Well as Oscar Wilde once said;
"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell"
As long as it's secure, that isn't a bad idea!
I would say, in that particular case, no. He's not a mass murderer, and I don't believe that he's beyond rehabilitation.
I'm not going to support executing those who can be helped. I'm talking about doing it to those who can't. As to whoever that covers, that is the job of the court system to determine. I'm not a judge.
To ask you something back: A mass murderer is imprisoned for life (actual life, not the poor excuse for a life sentence we have these days). He is a threat to everybody and can never be released. Rehabilitation is unsuccessful.
One night, there is a major mistake made at his prison and he escapes. He finds the nearest house, and attacks the occupants, which include children, killing them all.
Would execution not have been a better idea at the time of sentencing, and saved numerous lives?
Last edited:
Or even Trial by Combat, remove the lawyers entirely.....
And show it on TV, making more money in the process. Brilliant!
We are all just a product of environment and circumstance. He deserves pity. Why did such a sad thing happen? I am fairly sure it's not because of some kind of 'bad soul'. In many cases we will not have a means of rehabilitation to take these people from where they are to where society allows people to be, but I don't think that's an excuse to kill them.
... and this is where you have the risk of mistakes. We are all fallible, and we are not able to make a certain decision as to whether somebody deserves life. We are not the creators of life and as such trying to make a judgement on the validity of it is just impossible.
In that case, yes, in hindsight, it would have been a better outcome to execute him. However, those are a set of circumstances we cannot predict, and an extreme form of the same logic could be used to justify the killing of everybody at birth i.e. kill people that could be a threat in the future.
Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
If being in prison is where you have the time of your life and is preferable to being free and out in the World then anyone who feels that has my sympathy.
Personally the prospect of being locked up sounds bad enough to me without any other privations but who am I to say what's fun for others...
Don't have a problem with the last request but it should be handled sensibly i.e. a cap on how much it costs, etc. I think rather than it being granting someone a consideration they wouldn't have allowed their victim(s) its symbolic that we aren't the same heartless evil that the person being executed is (for want of a better way to put it).
Death penalty should be only for exceptional circumstances IMO and nasty as it is the death of a single police officer shouldn't be punished with the death penalty. Heads of organised crime families/syndicates, etc. where they or their organisation have committed atrocities would be one potential area I'd consider it, likewise mass murderers where there is overwhelming evidence, I certainly think that if there is the slightest credible doubt then it should not be gone ahead with it makes those carrying it out just as bad as the criminal.
Death penalty should be only for exceptional circumstances IMO and nasty as it is the death of a single police officer shouldn't be punished with the death penalty. Heads of organised crime families/syndicates, etc. where they or their organisation have committed atrocities would be one potential area I'd consider it, likewise mass murderers where there is overwhelming evidence, I certainly think that if there is the slightest credible doubt then it should not be gone ahead with it makes those carrying it out just as bad as the criminal.
My apologies, were you in any of the armed forces or have I mixed you up with someone else?
Agree with this, besides if the death penalty is meant to be any sort of deterrent, it's obviously not a very good one as people in countries that have it, still commit murder.
I was a soldier, I was a Royal Marine. However my previous occupation has no bearing to the discussion in this thread or civilian justice systems so I fail to see the point of the question.
