Was Britain a murder free area when we had the death penalty, do countries like the USA, Saudi etc have low murder rates due to the death penalty being in operation. I believe not, the death penalty will not stop a serial killer etc from committing the crimes they do.

As I said earlier if we had a referendum on any topic in this country the result would be swayed by the major media corporations, most people, and I include myself, don't understand the intricacies of law and policy such topics would generate so the vast number of people would get there in depth knowledge of the topic from the News of the World and whatever twist was put on it by the jouro that wrote it.

Any death sentence would be carried out in line with political motives and not for the greater good of the public, ie. if a jobless, homeless immigrant comits a knife murder which was idely publicised he would be more likely sentenced and executed than a member of the arristocracy who killed his lover.
Examples are abundant in the states, George Bush whilst never govenor of Texas never executed a white man but did so to 50+ black men.

DNA although solid evidence has been proven to be falable, who's to stop someone planting someones DNA, what if you were in the area minutes before the crime etc..

Revenge and satisfying the baying crowd is the only reason for reinstating the death penalty, sorting out the criminal justice system is the only rational way to sort out crime and giving meaningful sentences and punishments from this is the only solution. Just remember due to the NotW paper a Paediatrician got stoned out of his house......

The Washington Sniper was executed today by lethal injection .

Good post

and if I may add


When we had the death sentence for murder the home secretary had the final say in the matter. A week before Ruth Ellis ( last female to hang) hanged another woman was due to hang and because she was middle aged and ordinary looking no one gave a dam. Her husband managed to get her sentence commuted to life, but poor Ruth went to the gallows because the Home secretary felt he had to make a stand.

The same would happen again, a popular one would not get the drop and another would.


When people are sentenced to life its means that



They are let out on licence after a tariff has been served ( around 15 years for murder) and they can be returned to serve out the rest of there sentences at any time in there lives. Very very few people re - offend and are sent back to prison after a murder sentence which suggests to me that the system is working. Most murders are spur of the moment things, crimes of passion and or stupidity

One famous case of a child murdress is living amongst us , she a Grandmother now and living a normal balanced life. She is not a danger to anyone anymore and would not have been then, but for bad parenting.

and the arguement there could go on for years. It was argued he had mental issues that meant he maybe shouldnt have faced the death penalty but should have gone to a mental institution for life instead. The judge threw out the plea. Could rumble on for a while.

I still maintain if he happened to shoot any of our close family we would be baying for retrebution.Just my opinion of course.

I fully agree, thats why the people who are directly affected and therefore emotionally involved shouldn't be the ones making the decisions...

If someone burgled my house, therefore terrorised my family I would want retribution, should they hang?

Classic case is the lad who got photographed urinating on the cenotaph in sheffield, I agree he was very disrespectful, stupid, loutish and in no doubt extremely drunk. It was his 1st offence, yet the judge is talking of a custodial sentence, if this lad is jailed then it will be nothing more than baying to the public rage. Whereas a junkie can rob old ladies, wield a knife and yet still not get a custodial sentence. How many cases do we here of youths running feral on estates with 100's of offences to there name yet still not jailed.

Save your sympathy for the 'poor' bloke she killed.

So let me get this right. What many are saying is: "it is bad to kill people and just to show you how bad it is, we're going to kill you".

That sounds about right

Same as every thread that runs on this subject right across the boards, no difference here.

The death penalty would do very little, if none, to reduce the crimes in which the death penalty would be envoked.

People argue it would be a deterrant but the type of person who commits a sick act agaisnt a child or commits a sadistic murder is far from a normal, rational thinking person. Ergo they would be acting on a manifestation of thier illness/warpedness and with little regard for any consequences.

The crimes would still be commit but the public would be gratified by the fact they have been executed.

Both sides of the argument bring in favourable statistics to support their claims, I only know one fact, it prevents re-offending 100%

Getting back to the programme, did anyone else think that the Home Secretary bore more than a passing resemblance to Sun hack Jane Moore?

I doubt that was purely happenstance

Yup, and on ocassion it will stop people who haven't commited any crime having the chance to do anything else atall. Or are they acceptable colateral losses?

Try looking up the case before commenting

Blakely was anything but a poor bloke

Just as extra locks on you doors wont stop a determined burgler, the death penalty wont stop a determined murderer.
The death penalty should not be looked on as a deterent but as THE punishment for the most terrible of crimes...murder...
Lets just take Ian Huntley again, what he did was the worst crime anyone could think of...he gained the trust of those two little girls, lured them to his house and MURDERED them and then dumped their two lifeless bodies in a ditch to rot, i hate to think what those girls went through in their final moments, fighting to save each other, who knows, but DNA evidence convicted this piece of ####.
Anybody who thinks this animal deserves the best medical treatment and to be sat in a cell with all mod cons that some people can only dream of owning, is beyond me, as is making out people wanting the death penalty for people like him to be just as bad as him. I dare say as well, going by some peoples posts they would feel vindicated in their views if in say 15 yrs huntley was given the all clear to resume a normal life in society and did so without any further "problems".............................as long he didn't get moved next door to them.

Ah, so Ruth Ellis didn't deserve to hang for taken a human life, but Blakeley deserved to die for being a $hit. Interesting concept.

Havent read this post all the way through so dont know if it's already been mentioned, but, I read a truly fantastic story in the paper the other day documenting the trial of a peodophile in Suadi who had been abducting children aged between 3 and 7 and abusing then murdering them, leaving one child to die of dehydration in the desert.
The judge decided that the offender was to be beheaded then to show that this inhuman behaviour will not be tollerated they will take his headless corpse and nail it to a cross in the city square. This punishment was to take place publicly, with a large cheering crowd.

Got a lot of time for them Saudis.

Ian Huntley has now attempted suicide on 3 occasions since being locked up. He will never be released we know it and he knows it. He has a lifetime of anguish to contemplate what he has done.

Offer him the death sentence and he would thank you.

Careful, you're showing wooly liberal tendancies by not demanding he be publicly executed and then dragged round the streets to everyone can on him.




Does anyone have an opinion on what should be done regarding the possible execution/murder of those wrongly convicted, I asked earlier but it seems to have been ignored in the general 'kill em all kneejerkery.

Why not leave a razor blade and rope in the cell of every convicted murderer and phaedophile and if they choose to help the tax payer and top themselves it will save all the dogooders breath in telling the rest of us that their horrendous crimes were caused by a bad upbringing and other related e.

So you believe there is the possibility that Huntley just might innocent and future advances in criminal detection just might prove this?

Problem with comprehension?

Where did he suggest that Huntley may be innocent?

Huntley no, (now if you can see where I said that I'd appreciate it) I'll give you a clue, the bit you highlighted pretty well excludes huntley from the people I was thinking about.

The Guildford Bombers, Colin Stagg, the Guy that was found guilty of murdering Jill Dando etc etc etc....

Death sentence will never happen.
Kill 20 people in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses and all you have to do is admit your guilt. The judge will be so impressed that you havent wasted thousands of pounds going to court and that you are repentant you'll get community service.

Maybe one day they will find out who actually did do those crimes, but next time do the investigation properly so as not to leave anyloop holes.