> Kev, you do know to WHAT you are responding?

Snipey, snipey, chicken-shit, keyboard warrior.

WM

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:29:01 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>>> And I feel certain that you would agree with every word of that
>>>> wouldn't you Nige?
>>>
>>> You support the death penalty, then?
>>>
>>> MM
>>
>> No, because it is irrational and unacceptable to me.
>>
>> I have little idea what Ret meant.
>
>I meant that I agree that people like Peter Chapman should be executed, -
>and as you posted the article, I assumed that you also agreed with that.

For the record, although my views on the DP should be common knowledge
by now, I do not support it at all, for anybody, under any
circumstances. It is a wholly ridiculous and logically inconsistent
act to accuse, then convict someone of, say, murder, and then for the
state to indulge in state-sponsored murder.

MM

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:47:12 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Can you give me one good reason why we
>should keep him alive, feed him and clothe him at our expense for the rest
>of his life?

Yes, we are not Nazis. We should not condone Nazi practices.

MM

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 at 16:06:43, Steve Walker <spam-trap> wrote
in uk.legal :

>Ret. wrote:
>
>> The price we pay for the uber-liberals having abolished the death
>> penalty is a massive increase in murders - and numerous repeat offences
>> by people who should have been executed but, instead, have been released
>> to murder again.
>>Bullshit.
>
>Abolition of the death penalty isn't an 'uber-liberal' idea, it's a basic
>principle of human rights and recognised by every civilised nation.
>
AIUI, at the time it was abolished here, the public only swallowed it
because they were assured that a life sentence would mean *literally*
that!

Of course, we were also promised that the EEC would never be any more
than a simple trading bloc...

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 at 04:47:40, Nigel Oldfield
<wmcriticalestoppel> wrote in uk.legal :

>The only way to clear the internet of perverts: bring back the death
>penalty for murder
>
>By Tony Parsons 13/03/2010
>>You want to know how to control the abusers of children who patrol the
>internet?
>
>Bring back the death penalty for murder.
>
>It is all right telling our ­children to be afraid of ­strangers. But
>it is high time that the ­strangers learned to be afraid of the
>parents.
>
>[..]
>r-the-internet-of-perverts-bring-back-the-death-penalty-for-murder-11587
>5-22107044/

If that's 'going insane' then they'll need to put most people over 50 in
loony bins ASAP...

Not to mention many younger ones...

> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Indeed, when do we begin?

WM

> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

....and woad really looked good.

WM

> If that's 'going insane' then they'll need to put most people over 50 in
> loony bins ASAP...
>
> Not to mention many younger ones...
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Of course, the insanity allegation was not about the DP, that's his
business, it was about his premise in the title.

I blame Julie Burchill's vagina.

WM

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 04:47:40 -0800 (PST), Nigel Oldfield
<wmcriticalestoppel> wrote:

>The only way to clear the internet of perverts: bring back the death
>penalty for murder
>
>By Tony Parsons 13/03/2010

Well, if coupled with legalisation of consensual child sex, such a
measure would probably lead to a reduction in the number of youthful
bodies in ditches, though not their total elimination.

And are we to take it from this that Mr Parsons thinks that sexual
attraction to 17-year-old girls is a perversion? If so, that's an
awful lot of perverts on the Internet.

Ophelia wrote:
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
> news:nz2d
>> Kev, you do know to WHAT you are responding?

Oh yes.

Kev

Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>
> Firstly, you presume free will exists, let us say it does.
>
> Only Mr C has ANY IDEA what actually happened, all we 'know', is that
> two people had sex and one of them is dead at the hands of another.
>
> That's it.
>
> Mr C, apparently, has some issues (many reasons possible for this) and
> he will now deal with the consequences.
>> Hardly.
>> Quite the opposite.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html

Britain.
The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since
abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the
population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful
killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The figure
for homicides in 2007 was 734. The principal causes of homicide are fights
involving fists and feet, stabbing and cutting by glass or a broken bottle,
shooting and strangling. 72% of the victims were male with younger men being
most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against
manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably.
Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57
in 1965 - the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the
year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. There have been 71
murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life
sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office
statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of "life in
prison" for murder. Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65
prisoners who were released after serving life were convicted of a further
crime. These included two murders, one suspected murder, one attempted
murder, three rapes and two instances of grievous bodily harm. The same
document also noted that 304 people given life sentences since January 1997
served less than 10 years of them, actually in prison.



>
>> and numerous repeat offences by people who
>> should have been executed but, instead, have been released to murder
>> again.
>
> IYHO, again the price we pay for being civilised and being 'free'.

But some people pay more than others don't they? Not only the victims - but
the families of the victims.

>> I know, how could you with your beliefs?

Indeed.

Kev

MM wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:47:12 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Can you give me one good reason why we
>> should keep him alive, feed him and clothe him at our expense for
>> the rest of his life?
>
> Yes, we are not Nazis. We should not condone Nazi practices.

Are the Americans 'Nazis'? How about Singapore - which has one of the lowest
crime rates in the world?

Is it civilised to allow vicious criminals to prey upon our citizens?

Kev

>> having abolished the death penalty is
[..]
> year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. There have been 71
> murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life
> sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office
> statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of "life in
> prison" for murder.  Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65
> prisoners who were released after serving life were convicted of a further
> crime.  These included two murders, one suspected murder, one attempted
> murder, three rapes and two instances of grievous bodily harm.  The same
> document also noted that 304 people given life sentences since January 1997
> served less than 10 years of them, actually in prison.

.... and your evidence this is due to DP abolishment is what?

Now, try throughout a longer history or comparison with other
countries, in the present, who do and do not have the DP.

> >> and numerous repeat offences by people who
> >> should have been executed but, instead, have been released to murder
> >> again.
>
> > IYHO, again the price we pay for being civilised and being 'free'.
>
> But some people pay more than others don't they? Not only the victims - but
> the families of the victims.

As I say, the price we pay ... so rare, from 'your' figures, as to be
irrelevant to almost everyone.

WM

> Are the Americans 'Nazis'?

No, they are worse ... at least you knew where you were with the Nazis
and they had striking uniforms.

>How about Singapore - which has one of the lowest
> crime rates in the world?

Singapore is Disneyland. Early days yet.

> Is it civilised to allow vicious criminals to prey upon our citizens?

It is inevitable in a civilised society.

WM

Ret. wrote:
> MM wrote:
>
> Are the Americans 'Nazis'? How about Singapore - which has one of the
> lowest crime rates in the world?
>
> Is it civilised to allow vicious criminals to prey upon our citizens?
>
> Kev

The reference to Nazis was unhelpful here.

Going back a step, "can you give me one good reason why we should keep him
alive, feed him and clothe him at our expense for the rest of his life?"
isn't a valid reason to have the death penalty. Contrarily, there are plenty
of valid reasons for not have the DP, not the least of which is that
mistakes have been known to have been made, and therefore innocent people
killed by the State, which according to the doctrine of "parens patriae" is
the protector of all its citizens, including those who commit crime. In the
latter context, you could ask why should the state have given Venables and
Thompson new identities when it could easily have thrown them to the wolves
of public opinion, and you know what? The police, whom you served proudly
for about 30 years, would have been obligated to investigate their revenge
murders and bring the perps to justice, and would have been criticised in
most quarters if they had not done so.

Singapore is also irrelevant; it's a different culture, and since we
relinquished it as a colony, not necessarily in line with traditional
British penological theory and policy; a more recent example is Zimbabwe,
and since the UK gave that country its independence more recently than
Singapore, you might expect them to be more in tune with UK principles, but
although they have a legal system strongly and constitutionally based upon
ours, you wouldn't cite them these days as deriving from our "cradle of
justice".

One of the prices to be paid for abolishing the death penalty is that "we
should keep him alive, feed him and clothe him at our expense for the rest
of his life?" However, that's all we do. We can't protect him from other
prisoners (Peter Sutcliffe was blinded in a eye by a fellow-prisoner,
remember), we don't feed them well (average cost per meal in a UK prison is
now about 48 pence), and we certainly don't clothe them (recycled,
semen-stained joggy bottoms & torn tops).

In the case of prisoners such as Ian Brady, it's only tabloid interest that
continues to inform the public of the enormity of his crimes, and if he had
been executed at the time, that may not have happened.

As for "Is it civilised to allow vicious criminals to prey upon our
citizens?" There's only one answer to that, but it's a largely theoretical
proposition. I have been the victim of crime twice this year already, but
the police seem either unwilling or incompetent to follow it through, even
though I've given them names of perps and relevant vehicle registration
numbers. As for Victim Support, that's just an irrelevant lip-service,
because they don't seem to be able to actually DO anything.

Although a former Traffic Inspector in Cheshire (not the most crime-ridden
of counties, in my experience) might have some insight into some crime, a
criminologist you are not, and you should stick to what you know.

Regards.