Lindsay Sandiford Latest: UK Government opposes Bali death penalty

“okay, I agree that the death penalty may have it's flaws in that someone executed and then found not guilty afterall cannot be brought back to life but I do think the prison sentences given out nowadays are completely stupid. You get more time inside for stealing money than taking a life. It's high time that sentences fit the crime and if it is proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that you took someone's life then you deserve the same done to you - if not by lethal injection etc then by hard labour. No poncy cells, no tv's, no playstations etc. Why should prison be soft and caring when the pereptrator was anything but?
You do-gooders who care about the prisoners rights need to take a step back and look at the crimes they have committed and if you still think that the prisoner is being 'hard done by' by having 'rights' taken away from him then in my book you are as guilty as them.”

“Dontchaknow, bonkim,
We can all cite the most heinous examples but what is the guarentee that it would only be used for such crimes? Given the current governments attitude to public spending it is not out of the realm of possibility that it would be seen as having financial benefits to dangle prisoners rather than incarcerate. Easy way to put an end to the pro-execution lobby, ensure that every man and woman who votes for or petitions for reintroduction goes into the pool of names, one of which is chosen randomly to be the one to pull the lever/ press the button. Pretty sure most of those who whoop from the sidelines would think twice is it was them who had to end a life...”

“I imagine the "pinkos" will have an excuse for one of the outcomes of not executing Thompson.

http://tinyurl.com/cj7q2qv”

“@ Bonkim2003

You said "Modern communications, huge data bases, documentation, etc, etc, have altered how the Police work" and "don't believe all that you read on Google."

I'm a little surprised that someone apparently so 'au fait' with modern communications hasn't realised that Google is a search engine and thus for our purposed neutral. It's the websites you reach via that which offer data and information and of course some of it is rubbish.

It was in an effort not to patronise you that I didn't mention that you need when seeking surveys and statistics to take into account who conducted the surveys and the methodology used.

The statistics I have used in this and another topic this weekend have come from the following sources:

Crime Survey England & Wales
http://tinyurl.com/cjcv2yr

The Office for National Statistics - Crime & Justice
http://tinyurl.com/9bjzlmy

YKCrimeStats.com
The Leading Independent Crime Data Platform
for constituencies, neighbourhoods, police forces and streets with maps, analysis and reports
http://tinyurl.com/aea5ryo

What I don't do is look up ravings on some obscure blog, and simply pray that they might be accurate.

Although I am old enough to remember fictional policemen like PC49, Dixon of Dock Green et al, I am aware that modern policing has seen the phasing out of police boxes.

I am also aware living in neighbourhood that has seen a dramatic fall in its crime rate that changed police strategies are the reason. What has also changed is that in Gloucestershire police stations have had to be sold off (there comes a time when you run out of family silver to take to the pawn shop), and nationwide the number of police officers under 26 has due to the coalition government reduced by 50%. To pretend all this especially the latter is down to efficiency is simply to insult the intelligence of the average TIG reader. Who do we believe you, or the new Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall who says "Police officers were forced out of their jobs after 30 years' service because of a "financial tsunami" triggered by the Government's spending review..."?

When speaking of hanging you say "There are many studies citing its deterrence value over long term imprisonment" I think your own advice to be wary of information supplied via Google is apposite here. If the USA who not only have the death penalty and use it, but also impose prison sentences that may run for hundreds of years could not prevent the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford the Arizona Senator, the Columbine Massacre, US former police officer Christopher Dorner who shot dead three people including a policeman then it simply isn't the panacea you argue for.

As for Anders Breivik, I don't think you will find that the Norwegian crime rate is worse than ours. In any event, what the Norwegians most wanted was to avoid making Anders Breivik a martyr.

The debate on capital punishment is more than politics. It's about taking people's lives. Given that our judicial system has proved itself fallible time and again, is it acceptable to view the hanging of innocents as collateral damage?”

“to quote from the dreaded Wikipaedia "A November 2009 television survey showed that 70% favoured reinstating the death penalty for at least one of the following crimes: armed robbery, rape, crimes related to paedophilia, terrorism, adult murder, child murder, child rape, treason, child abuse, or kidnapping. "

One of the determining factors in the abolition of the death penalty was the existence of various degrees of murder some attracting capital punishment and the difficulty the judiciary/Juries were in consistently defining the variations.

The Scandinavians have a different set of values arising from their small relatively ****geneous populations (until recent times), isolated communities and sense of tribal affinity/natural democratic/egalatarian instincts.

British justice has always been adversarial, (I should say one of the strengths that made it so successful historically) and if not for the brutal system of transporation of criminals (some on flimsy grounds in our present day view) to the newly opened up colonies in the 18th and 19th centuries would not have become the superpower it became in the 18/1900s.

Take your pick - we are all creatures of history and change with the times - no death penalty now and just see the consequences - particularly examples like the Wests, some of the brutal rapists, the Yorks Ripper, etc, etc, keeping some of those serving whole-life/ long term prison sentences and also keeping suicide watch, etc, costs the taxpayers plenty - a quick termination for some of these evil characters would have been the kindest way. It is interesting that some of these nasties get natural justice from their fellow inmates now and then.

To compound matters subscribing to the European human rights convention is bonkers - preventing the UK from deporting unsavoury characters back to their home countries on the basis that they will not get our standards of justice, or will be executed or that they will lose their rights to a happy family life on social security, etc, etc, - absolute bonkers the way we have tied ourselves into knots.”

“If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, then I believe the death penalty is a suitable punishment for the most heinous crimes.

Bonkim mentions Anders Breivik, who is a prime example of someone who deserves to be on the receiving end of such a sentence. I would be surprised if anyone can reply on here and say that he does not deserve the death penalty - 77 people he murdered, the vast majority aged under 20 and he was given 21 years.

Absolutely pathetic given the lives he took. 'Liberals' have a lot to answer for when sentences like that are handed out.”

“eyeopener - there is wide spread of conclusions in the experts' reports on the subject and statistical data, change of times, the fact that the penalty is just one factor in the criminal's mind, etc, etc - and don't believe all that you read on Google.

You are now on a different track - that of Police funding - quantity of funding does not equate to results - and times have moved on from the village Bobby nipping the budding criminal's ears to make him change track.

Modern communications, huge data bases, documentation, etc, etc, have altered how the Police work - conversely you cannot flood the space with a policeman behind every possible crime-spot or criminal - much of policing is by consent that the vast majority are law abiding and do not want an overbearing police presence in their midst.

So going back to your political comment - funding quantity does not equate to police performance - we all spend what we have in different ways - and some do it more efficiently than others. Chasing targets or community PR occupied a lot of police times in the old days - all that is in the past, all sections of the community are having to tighten belts - why not the Police or other sections of the public, and private sectors?”

“@ Bonkim2003

You said: "life is full of contradictions - I do not profess to be a criminologist, equally we both should not pretend that we are competent to discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment against other penalties in a scholarly manner."

Yes life is full of contradictions, but rarely as you acheived in one sentence.

You do not have to be a scholar to Google and see what studies have been done into any subject, or to determine if the statistics support your case or not. It is of course understandable that you would want to downplay the value of looking anything up, when the facts are against you!

When you said "equally we both should not pretend that we are competent to discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment." Why did you discuss If you don't feel competant to discuss it?

Your final point "one does not worry too much in deciding to exterminate vermin" makes clear that you have little respect for the sanctity of life and that you view the miscarraiges of justice as 'collateral damage'.

However it is not a surprise considering the political party you support, that in replying you avoided commenting on the fact that the New Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall said "Police officers were forced out of their jobs after 30 years' service because of a "financial tsunami" triggered by the Government's spending review"

It was however a surprise that as a member of a party that claims to be the party of "law and order" that you did not agree that If you want to reduce the murder rate, and crime in general; one should improve police funding!”

“eyeopener - life is full of contradictions - I do not profess to be a criminologist, equally we both should not pretend that we are competent to discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment against other penalties in a scholarly manner.

Setting aside the issue of miscarriage of justice and the risk of sending an innocent person to the gallows, cursory reading of some of the expert work on the subject leads me to believe that the question has been discussed for as long as people have been hanged or terminated in some other manner.

A 1970 paper on the subject gives the following view:

"Whether the death penalty constitutes for the average potential
criminal a more severe form of punishment than life imprisonment cannot
be settled on purely logical grounds, though crime control legislation,
ancient and modern, clearly answers this question affirmatively. Indeed,
the fact that convicted offenders almost universally seek and welcome the
commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment is consistent with an
Intuitive ranking of the death penalty as the harshest of all punishments."

If you look up the history of abolition of the capital punishment in the U.K following the 1964 executions, there was little coverage at the time and the arguments were more on questions of mercy over revenge, and also whether executions are the mark of a civilized society / religious connotations - not that relating to its effectiveness as a deterrent.

There are many studies citing its deterrence value over long term imprisonment, five decades following the last hanging in Britain, much of the discussion today is more gut-feel on both sides - but if you were to take a poll today, the majority would vote for a full review of the state of the criminal motivation today (bearing in mind that our lifestyles, and motivators today are quite different from that in the 1960s).

The question is a political one - and given that EU law now does not support capital punishment - and recent example of the most heinous crimes (that of the Norwegian Nazi last year) and the degree of stupidity shown in sentencing him, one wonders where Western societies are headed.

Your answer is no better or worse than mine in that respect - in simple terms - one does not worry too much in deciding to exterminate vermin.”

“Oh, but it's their way of dealing with things, remember - that's what OUR Government told us, as they collectively approved the hanging of Saddam!”