Burka

[Limehouse]

Hi Nats

Certainly I would allow the relatives of the victim to attend the execution, if they wished. It's funny that you should mention public executions, for anti-hanging film-makers have never had any problem re-enacting executions to show the "cruelty" of the punishment. In such cases, however, they usually come over all squeamish at the idea of depicting what the murderer actually did to his victims. There are no flashbacks to when the victims were innocent little children, and how they were once happy, etc etc. If the victims get on screen at all, it's usually in the first few minutes, after which the next hour or more is spent whitewashing the murderer.

Birch - yes.
Stocks and pillory - might offer them to those on very short sentences as an alternative to jail. The trouble would be, how do you stop people throwing dangerous objects instead of tomatoes?
Hand cut off for stealing - no. If the State makes a mistake, there's no possibility of rectification, and unlike hanging, where the general population's very lives depend on deterrence, the stakes here aren't high enough. So a prison sentence would do.

Perhaps those who argue that short prison sentences don't deter and long prison sentences don't deter and capital punishment doesn't deter and it's all so terribly inhumane and beastly - perhaps those people would like to disclose how they would tackle crime. And please don't tell me that crooks can be "redeemed" with a copy of the New Testament in one hand and a book by Lord Longford in the other.

Hi Robert

Do you really think the threat of capital punishment deterred people from committing murder? For example - when Brady and Hindley killed those children - capital punishment was still in force and they could easily have been hanged. Was there no child murder before capital punishment was abolished - and is there more of it now because there is no capital punishment? I don't think so.

There is also an assumption that that those of us who don't want to see a return to capital punishment have less sympathy for victims of murder but that is not the case at all. It is because I want to see fewer victims of crime that I think it so important to get the balance right in dealing with crime and criminals.

I don't believe people are born evil - I believe they are made that way by a variety of issues too numerous and complicated to go into on this thread (about burkas!) but as a society we have to work together to make positive outcomes more rewarding than negative outcomes. Perhaps I'll start a thread on 'how to put our society right'. One thing's for sure. It won't include any ideas about 'big society' from me!

Have a good day all.

[Robert]

Hi Limehouse

Well, if capital punishment deters only some of the would-be murderers, it will have done its job.

I am not making any assertions about you personally, but I do honestly think that in general those who are constantly championing the criminals' "rights" do have less sympathy for the victims. In fact, I think that's probably because the "humanitarians" are potential criminals themselves. Criminals manque, as it were.

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Robert

Do you really think the threat of capital punishment deterred people from committing murder? For example - when Brady and Hindley killed those children - capital punishment was still in force and they could easily have been hanged. Was there no child murder before capital punishment was abolished - and is there more of it now because there is no capital punishment? I don't think so.
.

There is little doubt that the death penalty deterred a lot of would be murderers and there are at least three threads of evidence that back this up.

1. The Antiquis case 1947. After the gang leaders were hanged the papers splashed it all over the headlines to try and whip up anti hanging sentiment. However a police officer who worked on the case reported that after the executions discarded weapons were being found all over London.

2. The Heathrow Airport Robbery. This robbery was planned and executed by two well known London gangs who joined together to pull off the crime. After the final briefing when the men were on their way to the robbery both gang leaders stationed themselves outside the room and searched every member for firearms. The reason given was that if a firearm was carried it would be used and that would mean the rope, which was one thing they were afraid of. Incidentally this was one of the last operations by the Police Ghost Squad who ambushed the robbers at the scene. Later in court the robbers concerned complained to the judge that the police had used their batons too freely. The judge replied that they themselves were armed with clubs and had gone prepared for trouble – they found it so tough!

3. I attach a graph of homicide statistics for the UK. Just after the war there was a rise in homicide rates which is quite a common occurrence. However rates then fall steadily UNTIL the abolition of the death penalty where they have just soared away and carried on climbing. Now I’m quite sure there could be a thousand reasons why this should be, but let’s just consider the abolition of the death penalty was one of them!

Obviously the death penalty is not going to deter in all cases, of course not, but surely if a handfull of lives are saved each year isn't that worth it?

[claire]

I don't know that the abolition of the death penalty alone (or even to any real extent) deters would-be murderers; it's at least as much to do with the fragmentation of society, the deterioration in community, increased general levels of incivility and a failure to teach children consequences of antisocial behaviour (perhaps these are all different ways of expressing the same thing).

For me, though, I don't give much of a damn about deterrence; I don't think that should be the primary function of a penalty which must, surely, be about punishing the act. Over the last several decades, there has been a trend to justify punishment by imagining it has an a priori effect (ie. deterrence). I don't know why this is; it also seems to go hand in hand with the reluctance to punish children (I'm not talking corporal punishment; just sanctions in general) in favour of bribing, 'understanding,' et cetera.

Maybe this is where we link back to burkas...in the past, where we have integrated incomers, the supposition has been that they have come here because of an understanding that the UK will offer them a better standard of living (I'm thinking, for example, of the immigrations of the 19th C.). Now, we have become so intent on achieving a pluralist society that we have, in fact, ended up with a fractured one. I think there is nothing in British society that cannot accommodate communities and cultures from anywhere on the planet--but when we imagine that we can have competing systems and administrations (eg. the demand for Shari'a law from some Muslim quarters), then we're done for. Perhaps the burka/niqab is a symbol of a competing system that makes us wary, rather than being a threat in itself? Possible?

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse

Well, if capital punishment deters only some of the would-be murderers, it will have done its job.

I am not making any assertions about you personally, but I do honestly think that in general those who are constantly championing the criminals' "rights" do have less sympathy for the victims. In fact, I think that's probably because the "humanitarians" are potential criminals themselves. Criminals manque, as it were.

I am not championing criminals' rights at all! I am trying to create fewer criminals! I do not disagree with capital punishment because the criminals have a right to live - I disagree with it because it is a barbaric response to a barbaric act and it can only make society worse - not better.

[cappuccina]

I completely agree with you Limehouse! Not only does it "set a bad example", but it is also clearly NOT a deterrent...

[Robert]

Limehouse, why do you call it barbaric? Is that your own subjective response, or do you have a reason?

Cappuccina : I see, the death penalty doesn't deter. Strange then that the very people one would expect to know most about it - the criminals themselves - unhesitatingly use it among their own kind, whether it's against rival gangs, or informers, or people who have set up "in business" without paying the right dues to the right people. You should take a stroll down to all the criminal areas and explain to the crooks that all these shootings and knifings are quite, quite irrational.

[Robert]

Claire, I agree that a great improvement could be achieved by restoring discipline etc from a child's early years onwards. But while we're waiting for that to filter through, we still have to clear up the mess that the bleeding hearts have landed us in.

[Natalie Severn]

Robert,
Why not ban movies for a start that suggest to youngsters that life is at its most exciting,cool and glamourous if you have got a gun in your hand ?
My Dad was a most gentle,liberal man but as soon as John Wayne came on the telly on his horse with his gun he would walk over to the telly with a funny swagger, slap his thigh and sit boss eyed through a series of loud shootings and blood shed, and look kind of elated at the end at the site of the carnage on screen as a result of John Wayne"s "heroism"!I even think he dreamt of buying a gun
some day!
Well things are ten times worse now with regards to the glamourisation of shoot outs,gang warfare etc on tv, films and games.

[Robert]

Hi Nats

There are certainly films that I think the young shouldn't see - wasn't there a horrid one called Driller Killer some time ago?

But let's not get on a slippery slope where we ban everything in case one person is influenced in a bad way.

[Zodiac]

Why not ban movies for a start that suggest to youngsters that life is at its most exciting,cool and glamourous if you have got a gun in your hand ?
My Dad was a most gentle,liberal man but as soon as John Wayne came on the telly on his horse with his gun he would walk over to the telly with a funny swagger, slap his thigh and sit boss eyed through a series of loud shootings and blood shed, and look kind of elated at the end at the site of the carnage on screen as a result of John Wayne"s "heroism"! I even think he dreamt of buying a gun some day!

Hmmm, I wonder if that nice, gentle, charming and lovable criminal James Hanratty experienced that same feeling of elation that your dad did? I even think he dreamt of buying a gun! Only, unlike your law abiding and liberal father, the criminal never has any problems getting hold of a "shooter".

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[Limehouse]

Limehouse, why do you call it barbaric? Is that your own subjective response, or do you have a reason?

Cappuccina : I see, the death penalty doesn't deter. Strange then that the very people one would expect to know most about it - the criminals themselves - unhesitatingly use it among their own kind, whether it's against rival gangs, or informers, or people who have set up "in business" without paying the right dues to the right people. You should take a stroll down to all the criminal areas and explain to the crooks that all these shootings and knifings are quite, quite irrational.

Robert - the link shows the end of the film 'Let him have it' concerning the judicial hanging of Derek Bentley. I guarantee that the reality of this event was much worse than that created by the screenwriter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aCcYmhc6Y

[Natalie Severn]

Zodiac,I will answer you on the A6 thread later as this doesn"t seem the right thread to discuss Hanratty.
As far as hanging goes and the likes of Myra Hindley,I think Lord Longford made a big mistake over this woman and the press had a field day what with him being a bit of a kindly but in this instance misguided eccentric .So a lot of people associated the bamboozlement of Lord Longford by Myra Hindley with those who found hanging a Neanderthal way to go about things .Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion .Very, very few people were taken in by this monstrous woman,who many did wish dead along with her grotesque lover,
but wishing someone dead is one thing, actually carrying out murder by law - state execution quite another.
I wouldnt want to go back to this primitive and quite revolting state punishment....

[Robert]

So, Limehouse, your point is the miscarriage of justice argument. I've already mentioned this as being part of an argument or decision which every person must make for themselves. The point is that this decision, which affects everyone, should be taken by everyone, and not by a bunch of expense-fiddling hypocrites.

By calling hanging barbaric, you conjure up images of hanging, drawing and quartering. In any case, there is lethal injection. As a last resort, we could bore murderers to death by playing them C & W records. But no, no...that's too horrible!

Nats, it doesn't actually matter if Hindley repented, for if she had, then she would have asked to stay inside. Someone who did what she did and then came to realise the enormity and evil of it, might commit suicide, or go insane, or retreat into a state of shock. Here is Hindley's reaction :

"Let me out, I've paid for my crimes."

[Ally]

Who cares if capital punishment is a deterrent? That's an illogical and uninteresting argument. People who commit murder are clearly diseased. Pruning off the diseased branches of a tree promotes the health of the overall whole. The same principle applies.

Cut out the diseased portions for the overall good of the healthy. It's basic logic. Why precisely waste time, resources and energy attempting to rehabilitate someone like that? There are billions of people on the planet who don't piss away their lives and their chances. Why waste the effort on those who do?