|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR NOT FOR JACK?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR NOT FOR JACK?
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 03:12 pm |        | Hi all
With so many comments on the UK system and the alck of the detah penalty here I thoguth I might contribute a little something. The Evans/Christie case was not shortly before the abolition of the death penalty here in the UK. In fact it was over 10 years later that a moratorium was put on the death penalty for murder (in 1964). The death penalty does still exist under British law but some of the more unusual offences for which itwas retained after 1964 (e.g. arson in the Queen's dockyards) have been whittled away and now the death penalty is only retained on the statute books for piracy and treason.
There was a series of high profile and emotive cases during the 50s and early 60s - Evans/Christie, Ruth Ellis, Craig/Bentley, Hanratty - which led to first a moratorium on the application of the death penalty for murder in 1964 and its final abolition in 1967
There have been a number of votes in Parliament to reintroduce hanging either for all murder cases or for limited reintroduction e.g. mourder of a police or prison office in the course of his duty but these have all failed. Such issues as the death penalty and abortion etc are seen as "matter of conscience" i.e. there is a free vote and no party pressure is to be applied to follow an officially proved line. All such votes have failed to reintroduce hanging and have failed by a large majority. There is still one gallows maintained in working order on the off chance that a pirate or traitor may need to be dealt with!!!
It may be interest that since the last Treason Act, under English Law treason now consists (in peacetime) of only three offences:
- killing or attempting to kill the sovereign
- killing or attempting to kill the heir to the throne
- denying the sovereign's right to occupy the throne
(This last does NOT apply to any would be republican advocating the abolition of the monarchy! It specifically applies to a rival claimant to the throne)
Hope this is of interest and will post again iof anything else on this threads grabs my interest
Thanks all
Chris Scott |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 07:43 pm | | Dear Everyone,
Some interesting points about the death penalty. Here's something else to ponder on. No person who was ever executed ever killed again.
Although we often hear the argument about innocent people being executed, how many innocent people have been killed by killers who have escaped or been released? I believe the figure for Britain is 270. do their deaths matter less than the person wrongly executed?
The death penalty was abolished in this country because a few people, a very few people felt uncomfortable about it. Its very noticeable that the main supporters of abolition were those who lived in a protected ivory tower type of existance.
The poor sods who were mainly preyed on by these monsters were by and large in favour. The main point used to sway opinion was the promise that if the British would accept abolition a life term would mean life for murderers. We are now in a situation where a man who has killed twice ( and is in fact still in prison) was awarded a large amount of compensation because his conviction for a third killing MIGHT have been unsafe. He is shortly to be released and will no doubt enjoy spending his tax free cash which came out of the pockets of the tax paying families of his victims!
How do you justify that? Several other murderers ( mainly child killers) have also won the right to be released early by appealing to the European Court.
If the public are not to be given the protection of the death penalty, then a life term should mean just that.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 09:58 pm | | | Most lifers in the UK spend about 9 years in prison at which time they are released on licence and if they offend again their licence can be revoked. Hundreds of criminals serve far greater terms than 9 years for lesser offences which relate to property etc. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 03:22 am | | I really wanted to avoid this thread, but here goes...
The average life sentence in the UK runs between 13 and 14 years (source - H.M. Prison Service).
There are two types of life sentences - mandatory and discretionary. Ivor, you are obviously referring to the latter when you speak of 9 year sentences.
If you have been convicted of murder, you are known as a 'mandatory lifer' because life imprisonment is the only sentence which a court can pass for that offence. If you have been sentenced to life as the maximum penalty for another serious offence, such as manslaughter, attempted murder, rape, buggery, armed robbery or arson, you are a 'discretionary lifer'. The difference between 'mandatory'and 'discretionary' is important because when it comes to considering possible release the processes are different.
Of course, you are right, Ivor, crimes against property historically are more highly regarded than those against individuals. The lord of the manor is likely to receive a lighter sentence for raping the maid than the maid will for stealing from the lord.
Until we can see each person as being of equal value then the death penalty can not be applied judiciously. We must not single out children or police officers, or any other group as special; no more than the judicial system should single out minorities and the poor as the main target group for executions.
Can anyone tell me how often an affluent white male is executed in the US?
Cheers |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 11:36 am | | Hi All,
Logic tells me that genuine messages from God would be just as likely to end up misheard, misunderstood, badly transcribed or misinterpreted as any other kind of message. So, even if I believed in God, it wouldn't surprise me to find the bible itself fatally flawed by man's handiwork. All a believer can do is take God's words, as man has passed them on, work with all the contradictions and ambiguities until they find a set of guidelines that works for them personally.
I am interested to see how people use phrases like 'an eye for an eye', 'turn the other cheek', 'vengeance is mine saith the Lord', 'thou shalt not kill' and so on, to support sometimes opposite points of view. And I do understand that feelings run high over how a society decides to treat those who offend against its members. I just wonder how people think their God would feel about man taking another man's life, albeit according to a society's laws, if there were any other way of preventing that person offending in the future.
I don't think anyone would disagree that, in certain situations, where innocent lives are in, or believed to be in immediate danger, the person or persons responsible have to be physically stopped - too bad if the only sure way of doing it is to kill the guilty there on the spot. I have only admiration and gratitude for those who have ever put themselves at risk in this way and have to live with all the consequences.
Once a killer has been safely removed from a situation where he/she could have done further harm, it seems to me that all the arguments for putting them to death lawfully boil down to punishment and revenge, or the huge cost and practical difficulties involved in keeping them securely away from the rest of society until they can no longer be a danger to anyone.
I can appreciate that many people feel punishment and revenge are enough to justify the death penalty. And I certainly sympathise with the view that the innocent shouldn't have to pay a penny more in tax to deal with the guilty than necessary. But if money were no object, governments could spend as much on working out why some people end up as killers while others don't, and ways of addressing those issues, as they could spend on the cleaning up process, including the punishment and revenge aspects.
Love,
Caz |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 12:25 pm | | Dear Caz and Jack,
Well said, m'dear. Isn't it interesting just how many use the words of that particular book to justify certain behaviours? Or, WORSE, to condemn other behaviours. AND, isn't it interesting that three different people can find three different interpretations in the same passage? So, the next time anyone comes at me with "this is the ONLY truth", I suggest they ask WHICH truth? Yours, mine or Jack Horner's?
And Jack,
While I have no stats to prove this, I would bet (heavily) that few, if ANY, affluent white males are EVER excuted in this country. NOW there's an argument for the death penalty!
Cheers, and I hope everyone has a lovely week.
J |
Author: Ally
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 01:53 pm | | CAz,
You continually say "if money were no object" but money is an object. And what good would the studies do? Suppose it was determined that a specific gene was to blame, are we going to outlaw anyone who has the gene from reproducing? Sterilize them to make sure they don't? Lock up any baby born with the gene to keep them from committing crimes in the future? Suppose it was determined that heriditary and genes together are to blame, do we genetically screen every baby and if they have the gene remove them from their parents into a controlled environment so we can assure their outcome?
And honestly if it isn't supposed to be about punishment and vengeance, I would think being a lab rat is a worse punishment than death and how many are likely to volunteer for being brain shrunk in the interest of mankind and what do we offer them if they do? Early parole?
Ally |
Author: Ally
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 01:56 pm | | Jack,
Probably about as many as affluent black males.
Ally |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 01:56 pm | | Ah, almost touching on the philosophical, ....the meaning of truth.
Possibly, .....Truth is the prism of life.
It depends on which side you stand as to what you see.
Change your perspective, your position, your point of view and your truth will also change.
Refraction, reflection & perspective.
Don't you think the biggest mystery about the Whitechapel murders is,...why?
They didn't have the sophistication in the late 19th century to analyze the criminal to the extent we have today so if he had been found and proven guilty, as Stewart said, he would have been placed in Newgate to swing or rot.
Regardless of who he was I think its the "why" that is the most intriguing.
Happy holidays Stranger....
Best regards, Jon |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 03:01 pm | | Hi, Jon,
Thanks for shifting the thread a bit; there is no way proponents will change the minds of the anti-death penalty advocates.....NEITHER will the opposite be true, so possibly a change of focus is called for. While we debate whether or not the death penalty works, there is no question in my mind, that if the Ripper had been caught and convicted, he would have swung. FULL STOP. It was the law at the time, and his crimes placed him on the gallows tree.
It's interesting that "why" is the reason for your fascination with our old friend, while mine has never been the "who" OR the "why". The sheer damn, dumb luck has always interested me, along with the atmosphere, the area, the social conditions,and all the rest. I have never thought we would name the Ripper, nor have I really ever wanted to.....he would probably be as boring as Joe Schmoe, fishmonger and killer of women. Most of these guys are...you know: the neighbors are all amazed, and disbelieving: "he was just a regular bloke", and all that. If these guys walked around with dripping fangs and a head tucked under their arms, we just MIGHT suspect something. It's too late to get justice for any of the women, and Jack well and truly got away with murder.....I would also bet that he is DEAD by now! Funny how this case gets under your skin, and makes you think up the damndest questions at 2 in the morning......
NOW, everyone go make a $5 donation to the Casebook so we can keep on with this!!!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 04:36 pm | | | Ally: Dammit,you stole my response to Mr Traisson ! I think we forget that our English/European amigos are not all aware of the American Creed: Money Talks and Bullshit Walks( penned by Ozzie Myers,another Philadelphia legend)........Mr.Traisson,with all due respect,you got one half of the answer.True,rich Euro-American's see the Hot Seat about as often as I have dates with Elizabeth Hurley.....The SAD thing is that not enough pedophiles,black,white or candy stripe,don't taste the jolt o' justice juice. Toss in recividist rapists and that ilk to boot........California,where they practically invented liberals,or so it seems,at least is sane enough to have the "3 strikes and you're out" law.......Great law...Hangin'Judge HB |
Author: Paula Wolff
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 05:54 pm | | Gee, Howard, do have an opinion on the death penalty??? I would never have known.  I'm with Judith, now that we all have sounded off and will never change each other's minds, let's get to the real problem here. Who done it?? Why? How many, etc. Right or wrong, if they had caught Jack with blood dripping from his sweet little hands, they would have hanged him. No problem. Today? Who knows? They might have felt sorry for him for his horrible childhood, etc. So nuff said.
California? Is that part of the US, How? I thought it was a land far, far away where no man dared to go.
Thanks,
Paula the Texan |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 07:08 pm | | Today Jack would have nothing to worry about, caught red-handed or not the Johnnie Cochran's of this world would see him off on what?...insanity?....and if Jack was a minority....self-defence?
(Sarky)
Regards, Jon |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 09 December 2002 - 11:13 pm | | Hi again, Paula...and I thought we would never agree on anything in this thread! Just goes to show, you can NEVER say NEVER.
As to California, I'm going out on a long, narrow limb here (and, PLEASE, don't send me any dead animals or curses) to repeat an old saw I learned a million years ago in college.....California? It's like a box of cereal; take away the nuts,and you are left with the flakes. SORRY, SORRY, SORRY!
Cheers to all,
J |
Author: Ky
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 02:50 am | | Judith,
I'll take the 'sorry, sorry, sorry', And I won't send any dead animals ( I just ran Out ). I grew up in So. California, the only "nuts and flakes' we ran into were generally people transplanted from somewhere else wanting to live the so called California lifestyle, which doesn't really exist outside of T.V., movies and a small section of L.A. I always thought they should build a wall around L.A. let them have there own little kingdom!
ciao baby, Ky |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 08:42 am | | Hi Ally,
Thanks for responding to my post and for your observations.
However, regarding all the hypothetical questions you raise, I’m not sure how they relate to anything I actually wrote on the subject.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 08:50 am | | Caz,
You have posted several times that we could study the killers to determine why some end up as killers and others don't. What would the end result of the study be? What would be the practical application of the knowledge that would justify the expense?
Ally |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 10:50 am | | Dear Ky,
Thank you for accepting the apology in advance; you're right, of course: the flakes all seem to be transplants from somewhere else seeking who knows what! I was suffering a simple moment, and was getting a case of the giggles, so every inappropriate thing came to mind! Thanks for being a good sport and for the kind reply. I TRULY meant no harm, but that didn't work, either.
Cheers,
J |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 11:01 am | | Hi Ally,
Have I? Do you mean recently? I don't recall writing 'we could study the killers' as such, but I admit I may have done in the past. I certainly don't claim to be qualified to either study the minds of such people myself, nor even to know what use it could be to the rest of us, if any, nor indeed what the end result of such a study would be.
I merely meant that if money were no object (or put another way, if no one had to 'justify the expense' - do you see?), then perhaps all the causes of violent crime could be looked into in greater depth than they are now, with a view to trying to address them to see if such offences could be reduced in the long term, in addition to the cleaning up processes our governments are currently stuck with. You might believe it would all be a wasted effort, and you might well have good reason - I just don't know either way.
Certainly, as you say, since money most definitely is an object, this ain't likely to be anyone's top priority anytime soon. So I wouldn't fret about it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 11:12 am | | Ah, I get it. Last Friday (I've been to sleep since then - not a lot, mind ), I posed the question:
'...if considerations like cost were no object, would it be preferable to keep convicted killers away from the public for the rest of their natural, but at least try to learn all we can from them (if anything)?' [emphasis added]
Hope this, together with my previous post, clarifies my thoughts sufficiently now.
Ally, you could always have responded the first time round with a simple "No".
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ky
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 11:21 am | | Hi Judith,
Don't sweat it babe! I could hear you giggling all they way to the wild wild west. I hope I didn't come across as too serious.
best wishes
Ky |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 11:45 am | | If cost is an issue, I believe that generally, life sentences are cheaper than death penalties. When you factor in all the appeals someone on death row receives, laywers fees, etc, a death row case can cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to even a few million in some cases. I read a year ago that it cost about $20,000 a year to house someone in prison. That's $100,000 for someone who lives 50 years (plus factor in medical treatment as the inmate grows older).
Who brought up three strikes and you're out? Guys, this is a law created strictly to make some politician look like he's tough on crime. You can't use such a broad brush in the legal system, it's just not practical. Consider: commit a violent offence, parole. Commit another, parole. Steal a candy bar, you're gone for life. How much sense does it make to release someone for a violent offense, then send them away for stealing a candy bar? This isn't a hypothetical situation, I believe there's such a case in the courts right now.
Just some thoughts on a rainy Tuesday.
Cheers,
Dave
PS Florida Death Row Roster Some might find this site interesting, there's information on each inmate. I haven't taken a thorough look, but it looks like at least in a few cases, the murders committed seem to have taken place in prison. I'm not saying they're lesser crimes, but prison is a hard place. Also, another interesting thing is that white inmates far outnumber blacks. I thought the opposite would be true. |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 11:56 am | | David,
There's a simple answer to both those topics. Do away with bullsht time wasting appeals. Appeals should be allowed if there is new evidence or serious legal malpractice but not the kind of BS oh look the lawyer here forgot to cross his T and the judge didn't refer to the defendant's lawyer as Ms. Smith, clear evidence of bias and blah blah.
As for the other, the hypothetical man commited two violent crimes and should have been locked up then you are right. If he hadn't done those two, then the candy bar wouldn't have sent him away.I don't think a five year old nicking a candy bar is going to get sent to prison for life even if he does it three times so I have no sympathy for hypothetical him whatsoever. But I agree it shouldn't be three strikes you're out when it comes to premeditated violent crimes, it should be one.
Ally |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 01:39 pm | | Hi, Ally
I think we look at the appeals process differently I've always regarded the appeals process as a necessary safety net. You gave the examples of new evidence being discovered, or serious malpractice happening--but if we've had a speedy execution, these discoveries wouldn't do a dead inmate much good. And innocent people have found themselves on Death Row--the State of Illinois had to suspend carrying out executions for a time because of the advent of DNA testing (which is also an expensive process). I think I've read that Illinois is getting ready to carry out executions again, although they're having trouble financing trials. Imagine doing away with court-appointed defense attorneys because the state can't afford to appoint you one!
And the quality of defense attornys is a whole seperate issue, if you want to talk about having a fair trial. I think Jack Traisson brought up a fair point, that it comes down to money. Rolando Cruz (who was innocent, later reprieved) received a poor defense. O.J. (who I believe to be guilty) had an excellent defense, because he could afford it. Now, O.J. was entitled to the best defense, but so is the guy who can't afford it. With our current system, that's not happening, and that's why I think we shouldn't be executing anyone. At least until we can come up with something that's fairer.
It's not that I think child-murders and cop-killers should get off--they make me angry as anyone else. I just think we shouldn't forget about the guy who didn't do it.
I think it was Bob Hinton (sorry if it wasn't you, Bob) who brought up a case where someone got off on a technicality. I'm also angry when this happens, but I never blame the defense. I blame the prosecutors or the cops who worked the case, because someone wasn't doing their job. And I think that's what the courts are saying when they throw these cases out--"you didn't do your job."
But let me admit that it's a difficult, grey issue. I'd find it hard to argue, for example, that Richard Allen Davis (Polly Klaas's killer) should live. We've got lots of people out there who are just plain evil. But I think it's dangerous to forget that our system is based on an ideal, that guilt must be proven. The state shouldn't be able to accuse you unjustly. That's why I believe we should have appeals and quality defenses for the accused.
I also think that we gave up on rehabilitation a long time ago. I think we need to think long and hard about how that's going to serve us in the big picture.
It would be great if things were black and white, but it's never that simple. I wish we could settle it with arm-wrestling, because I think I could take you, my friend. (laugh)
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 08:57 am | | Judith,
NEVER say never or always. They blow up in your face!! Sure we can agree on things. I love your posts on this board. They are very pithy and (no I don't lisp) funny. You have a lot of insight also. Nice to know you.
See ya,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 09:13 am | | Oh, and Judith, I too feel the same about CA even though I enjoy visiting. I'm just always glad to get back to "my ain counry." Lizzed B. had thatinscribed on her mantlepiece at Maplecroft, where she lived after she chopped up mom & dad.
All dead animals accepted - we have coyotes to take care of that! ;)
Ta,
Paula |
|
|
|
|
