Bring Back Hanging! - 10 Rillington Place (1971) Discussion

[–] dirt-box 16 years ago

Hanging if done correctly is a very quick and humane form of execution, it would save tax payers money on keeping the likes of Ian Huntley and Steve Wright jailed for the rest of their lives.
So bring it on.

WTF did you expect to find here?

reply

[–] johncsw 16 years ago

Hmm, maybe if this story took place today perhaps your sentance would read "it would save tax payers money on keeping the likes of Timothy Evan and Ian Huntley jailed for the rest of their lives."

The question is do you want to get revenge on such people or rehabilitate them, Thomas More compared such an ideal to a teacher who was more interested in caning a pupil for an incorrect answer than teaching them the correct answer. Although, I think its also worth noting that he was in prison awaiting execution when he wrote this, but then his offence was not granting Henry VIII a divorce, which I think was a bit of an over reaction.

reply

[–] dirt-box 16 years ago

The likes of Ian Huntley are never going to be rehabilitated, nor released. Surely hanging would spare them the lifetime in jail as well as the costs of inprisoning such people.

Timothy Evans and Derek Bently were miscarraiges of justice, not helped by the swift way executions took place in the past, both were hanged within a month of being found guilty.

One would expect that if this took place today there would be laws in place to ensure DNA evidence must be used in capital trials, as well as exhaustive appeals as in the US with a death row where prisoners wait years to be executed.

WTF did you expect to find here?

reply

[–] johncsw 16 years ago

I see where you're coming from but your arguement hinges on the dea that some people will never be rehabilitated. Which is an idea that I have never been able to get on board with. I don't know why people like Ian Huntley, Harold Shipman etc do what they do, I don't think any body does. I doubt that even they themselves understand why they do it. Based on that how can we account for the fact that it is a permanent condition and that there is nothing that can be done for them.

reply

[–] jurassicmarc 16 years ago

johncsw, what a great arguement Ive never looked at it like that before. My main problem with the death penalty is that it is hypocritcal and usually comes from people/courts/states who claim to be religeous 'thou shal not kill' etc.

Im not sure how much rehabilitation is effective but prison I think is much better idea than putting people to death who are later found not guilty. The American system of people being kept on Death row for years before finally executing seem to be more cruel than just sentance and quick execution.

"Its just a ride"

reply

[–] johncsw 16 years ago

Thats true; leaving people on death row for years would just give them false hope. That is quite inhumane in itself.

As for the whole rehabilitation thing. It is one of things that is hard to deal with. On one hand you can put them in a normal prison and they will be tortured by the other inmates, which is again so inhumane.

The other option is that you can put them together in the same wing where they can be protected, but then when you put these people together they can look at each other and think "Wow, I'm not so much of a freakshow after all, look at these guys, its normal to be like this". Which is rather counter productive.

So what do you do?

reply

[–] cythna 15 years ago

"I don't know why people like Ian Huntley, Harold Shipman etc do what they do, I don't think any body does". However we do know partly what causes it: 100% of sexual psychopaths are beaten abd treated cruely as children. Obviously not all damaged children grow up to become seriel killers, so there are other things at work, or maybe as Alice Miller suggests, a 'good' angel, someone who can see what is happening and help the child to rationalise it, makes a difference.

But you're right, it can't be cured, which is why it is not considered an illness, but a personality disorder.

reply

[–] investideal 16 years ago

well they were not miscarriages of justice.Evans murdered his daughter and paid the price and Bentley was involved in the murder of a policeman.

reply

[–] djeinbrum 15 years ago

What utter rot! Tim Evans's daughter Geraldine was murdered by John Christie. Derek Bentley did not commit any capital offense, but was hanged purely as a scapegoat since Christopher Craig was too young to be hanged. Both have received posthumous pardons.

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

I notice that most of you seem to be exclusively concerned with the rights and the needs of the culprit. Don't forget, a murderer is someone who deliberately takes another person's life. He/she doesn't stop to consider the victim or the victim's family for a second. Beyond the need to be sure of their guilt and therefor avoid a miscarriage of justice by executing the wrong person, why should the culprit be considered at all?

Someone makes a reference to Sir Thomas More, and his apparent disavowel of the death penalty whilst at the same time he was put to death for placing his loyalty to the Roman Catholic church ahead of his loyalty to the king. But I wonder which way Sir Thomas would have turned when the same Catholic Church began the inquisition, torturing and killing people for no greater crime than simply disagreeing with its diktat.

reply

[–] johncsw 16 years ago

I was the one who quoted Thomas More, I just thought I it was a cool quote that illustrates, in light manner, that the death sentance is not good.

I agree with you that murder is not good. When a person deliberately takes somebodies life the affects are devastating, beyond words. I have been fortunate enough not to be the victim of any crime in any entity. So you may argue "come back to me if your child is murdered, and see if you feel the same way."

I cannot imagine how I would feel if my child was murdered, in the same way cannot I imagine how I would feel if my child murdered someone elses child.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johncsw 16 years ago

Our technology has certainly advanced but I do not think we can place so much confidence in it as to determine the life or death of anybody, regardless of what they have done. And as for corruption I don't think that is something that we can ever dismiss unfortuantely.

I used to know a guy who was racist against the germans, and thought they were some sort of lower beings (as racists tend to do). His reason for his racism was the Nazi thing. Aside from that just being completely stupid, I could never understand how he could justify being racist against a country "because they are racists", which was kind of his arguement.

(Just to clear the air, I'm not calling anyone a nazi on this board)

But how can we profess murder to be wrong and then encourage it by enforcing the death penalty.

As for my "naive" opinions, I am perhaps more on sympathy with this sort of thing than you suppose. And from my experiences, people either learn to forgive or they sink into bitterness, ruin their own lives in some cases the lives of others. Forgiveness is better.

So I return to my original question; are we for public revenge or rehabilitation?

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

I don't think you're being naive, johncsw. But I answer your points as follows:

Firstly, it's perfectly true that there's no such thing as a foolproof system. But every day we put our trust in flawed systems even though they may cost us our lives. For example; nobody who takes to the skies in aeroplanes expects to die in a crash. But every year quite a few people do - far more than would likely be executed in the whole western world. By the same token; not many people get into the seats of their motorcars, turn on the ignition, and say `I may not be coming home today'. Yet in Britain alone, every year, over 3000 end their journeys in the mortuary.

Most don't bat an eyelid at these statistics. And yet mention judicial execution and they become extremely motivated. It's very much one of perception and (the illusion) of control. If as many died in passenger-jet crashes as died on the roads, nobody would fly. Yet most people secretly (and erroneously) think that roads are safer.

Secondly, killing is not MURDER. MURDER is defined by law. In the absence of law there is no murder, nor any other crime for that matter. It is law that defines criminality. If the law defines murder as the premeditated and unjustified killing of a human being, then that is what murder is. It is nothing else, and nothing else is murder. It is down to the finer points of law to evaluate `premeditation' and/or `justification', and therefore guilt or innocence. Hence a trial.

If the law does not define execution as murder, then it is not. You may call it murder. In your conscience you may sincerely believe it to be murder. But your definition and your conscience are not the law.

Personally, I do not think the present adversarial criminal justice system is suited to the trial of murder suspects. It is weighted towards finding a culprit (any culprit)`rather than finding the truth. Things could be substantially improved. Neither do I think that the police and others face severe enough penalties when they pervert the course of justice. If they knew that they might also hang for perverting a capital case, they would be less inclined to do so. But they are under pressure to get results.

It is a profound hypocricsy to arm the police and license them to assassinate SUSPECTS, and yet deny the courts the sanction of capital punishment to execute CONVICTS. The latter at least have enjoyed a full (if flawed) hearing. Police suspects are given little, if any chance. `Ah', people say, `the police need to defend themselves'. But I say `doesn't society as a whole have the same right?' If judicial hanging meets your definition of murder, surely the police shooting of an innocent or unarmed suspect must also qualify?

I, too, very much subscribe to a belief in rehabilitation. And I think a great deal more could be done for those who commit lesser crimes. Their rehabilitation could go hand-in-hand with making restitution to their victims. But the victim of murder is beyond restitution. And for those who have knowingly, deliberately and wilfully taken their life, I feel neither shame nor guilt in demanding they forfeit their own. That, to me, is not revenge, neither is it retribution or even punishment. It is justice.

All I ask is that the verdict is more reliable than aeroplanes. After that I'd much sooner take my chances in the bright lights of open court than the back-streets at night.

reply

[–] tom-1536 16 years ago

It seems to me that none of the previous posters have been the victim of a violent predator. Unfortunately, such was not the case with my own daughter, sexually assaulted by a pedophile. It was not even especially violent assault, as those things go. We were (and still are) thankful for that. However, the sweet and innocent sixteen year old that was the light of our lives has never been the same. She's battled depression and anxiety ever since. She never induced this animal into his assault; in fact he was my best friend and she'd known him all of her life. He fooled both of us that he was a good, normal fellow... fooled us for years and years, keeping his deviant nature well hidden.

I was talked out of executing him myself, but I wish now that I had. There were those who felt he could be rehabilitated, and he did appear to be so... rehabilitated that is. He served most of his five year sentence under the care of doctors, undergoing psychological therapy several times a week. Is this what you all mean when you speak of rehabilitation?

Less than two weeks after his "rehabilitation" was over and he was released, he took the life of a very young little girl after a brutal sexual assault.

Now... tell me that this creature should not have been executed after he'd assaulted my daughter. Let me hear your reasoning. Impress me with your arguments. Show me your compassion. Just make certain your compassion is properly placed.

Personally, I cannot think of a punishment cruel and unusual enough! If it was up to me, I'd have him hanged, drawn, and quartered. With no hesitation whatever.
TjB

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

Yours is an absolutely diabolical story. Frankly, it's what I'd call a worst-case scenario. And it's precisely the kind of crime that knocks the more liberal apologists and excuseniks into a cocked hat. Any normal human-being would flay this fiend alive if they were in your shoes, no matter what judgemental platitudes they might utter under different circumstances.

I'm reminded of Lord Longford et al, clamouring for the release of Myra Hindley, claiming that she was just misunderstood, she was prey to the evil influence of Ian Brady, she was a reformed character, and that she had made a full confession and contrition etc etc. Eventually, when it looked like she might be in line for parole, Brady let slip that there were 2 other murders in which she had been complicit, and about which up to that point she had kept schtum.

I believe Longford had a nervous breakdown. And it served him right.

Personally, I would like to see a new offence of `gross violence', in which it would not affect the outcome of trial whether the victim lived or died. If the attack was deemed to have been so wicked and violent as to be incomprehensible to civilised society, it should still incur the death penalty. That would take in all of these people who irreperably harm kids, or old people, or even the other species for that matter.

My complete sympathies are with you and your kid, for what they are worth.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johncsw 16 years ago

First of all, I just want to express my sympathies to you.

Yes I agree that what happened was dispicable. And you're right; I don't even have any children, so I cannot even begin to imagine something like this. However as I have mentioned I am not totally without experience in this area. I would rather not give any details over the internet but I will try to explain where my point of view comes from.

The situation that I was in was perculiar in that I saw both the reaction of the family of the victim. And the reaction of the family of the criminal. As for as you say placing compassion in the right place, is there anything wrong with placing it on both sides?

To quote Gandhi "An eye for an eye, only ends up making the whole world blind"

As for the rehab issue as I said before I don't think we are in a position to say that it is impossible to say that such people cannot be reformed as we know so little about the nature of these illnesses. I think there should be more research into this area.

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

Diabolical behaviour is not necessarily the result of `illness'.

Too often that term is used as an excuse to marginalise the culprit's action. It seems to me that those who employ it are afraid to face the fact that clinically sane and sound people can enjoy causing others to suffer. By describing such behaviour as `illness', an arbitrary and false line is drawn between those who do and those who don't. Those who don't, sleep more soundly in their beds if they know that those who do are `ill'. In some way the `sick' are reresented as having fallen below a pre-determined `universal' standard of human civilisation. It helps to keep `good' people and their `good' behaviour sacrosanct and unsullied. They maintain the ideal, they keep the faith.

When in truth, that distinction doesn't exists. There's no such thing as an `inherently fundamental goodness'. That idea derives from our Judeo-Christian mythology about gods and devils. Humans are just animals. They are the product of evolution. We are the top predator on this planet, and we didn't get there by being nice.

None of those tried at Nuremberg entered pleas of insanity. Neither did those in the Balkans or Rwanda. People commit the most brutal acts of ruthless cruelty and they do this in a mental state that is as sound as yours or mine. The recent crimes of Josef Fritzl are a case in point. That man knew exactly what he was doing from square one. And he carried on doing it for 28 years. Very likely he would still be doing it now if the secret hadn't finally got out. He has shown not one particle of guilt or remorse.

That man is not sick; he's a monster. And monster is as monster does.

Incidentally; despite all his evident humanity, Ghandi was assassinated - just like Jesus Christ. `Peaceful lives do not deliver freedom.'

reply

[–] johncsw 16 years ago

I am of the opposite opinion. I believe that writing these people of as monsters is more of a denial of the reality that these people are still human beings. They are not aliens that come down from outer space they're one of us. No matter how diabolical their acts are. I do believe that these people are sick, and we should investigate more thoroughly what causes this. Afterall our children could become ill. How would we react to that?

If human's are just animals than this entire conversation is pointless. Unless you wish to employ a justice system in the animal kingdom as well; No more child abandonment, rape, or canablism. Because thats what goes in the animal world. Or else we would have to allow the same sort of thing to happen in our society.

Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, the Kennedy Brothers etc. Yes they were all murdered, and murdered really for the good things that did and would have continued to do, but thats a debate for another day.

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Firstly; I don't write all violent people off as `monsters'. But I believe Fritzl certainly deserves that definition. Remember; he and his legal team were free to offer any defence they could think of, including one of illness - even madness. `Diminished Responsibility' is the usual caveat. So, if neither he nor his lawyers saw fit to claim illness as a mitigation, is it not a presumption upon your part to suggest it yourself? Do you know better than they? Up to now you haven't offered any measure by which the `illnesses' you imagine might be explained.

Wickedness is surely a matter of degree. In describing someone as a monster, I do not dismiss their humanity. Monstrousness is measured by humanity. The one could not be without the other. Indeed, it is because they are human that I call them monsters. The other species do not possess sufficient cerebral function, and therefore cannot be held accountable. Even the most intelligent chimpanzee is only about equal to a 3-year-old human child. If you wish, I will compromise and say that he is a monstrous human being. But that will not diminish his crimes, nor - in my opinion - mitigate mercy.

Clearly; if you do not accept the 2 principles of Darwinian evolution, then any conversation is pointless, because our animal nature is absolutely beyond any biological refute. Professor Richard Dawkins has suggested that any who fail to embrace this fact are themselves evidentially dillusional, and I am apt to agree. Yet being evolved from more `primitive' species does not preclude a statutory code of moral conduct based upon behaviour. As a matter of fact, it is possible to observe rudimentary morality amongst our more intelligent cousins. If you haven't already; I suggest you look-over the research of Frans De Waal. He and many highly regarded primatologists now refer to the subject of identifiable behavioural restraint as `ethology'. Some even refer to a `moral' gene. Being `animal' doesn't mean you can't be `ethical'. Neither does being an ape mean you cannot be civilised. Unfortunately; being human doesn't guarantee you won't be a beast.

Any evaluation of human conduct that precludes our evolutionary heritage is not only a facetious affectation, but plain wrong. And moreover; such an evaluation is doomed to failure. For the most part; we are just `monkeys in the fast lane'.

One last point, and I'll shut up. What we call `Good' behaviour is not inevitable; it is an evolved trait. Amongst organisms that have evolved a gregarious lifestyle, some degree of cooperation has been an essential compromise. And that cooperation has inevitably meant exercising a degree of self-restraint amongst its members. That restraint has become the adhesive of the community. Which is why `bonding' is so important and practiced so often between its members. But if there is a greater survival advantage to be got from being `wicked', then wicked behaviour will develop instead. And no amount of idealistic hand-wringing can change that.

reply

[–] lastmidnite2 16 years ago

so in conclusion: KILL KILL KILL!, Just don't abort a baby, because human life is precious! lol. oh and by the way, Evans was innocent after all, so the argument would be more against hanging than for, wouldn't you say?

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

Erm... I'm not quite sure as to which points you are responding, but I think I do say at some stage that I believe the death of Timothy Evans was an indictment of capital punishment AS IT THEN WAS. We could be a lot more exacting today. In fact his retarded mental condition would nowadays almost certainly mitigate a plea of diminished responsibility. The recent execution of Mr DeMenenes by police at the Stockwell tube station in London in mistake for a terrorist was no less an affront to justice. Should we disarm the police then as we have disarmed the courts?

reply

[–] lexp2005 15 years ago

Johncsw you are a very learned and compassionate individual.The world would be a much better place with more people like you.May your LIGHT shine brightly for a long time!!!

reply

[–] cp1957 15 years ago

Have any of the posters actually watched the film? Written by Ludovic Kennedy it is a commentary on the vagaries and attrocity of capital punishment. Although his innocence isn't proven beyond doubt, Evans's guilt is certainly far from established given what we now know about Christie. If the state even takes just one innocent life, then it is a price not worth paying, and there are now too many examples of innocent individuals being murdered by the state. The Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six would all have been dead within weeks of their original convictions if capital punishment had still existed in Britain. Innocent people have also been murdered in the USA in the name of justice, where, despite the reintroduction of capital punishment thirty years ago it has not proved to be a deterrent. A mature, confident and just society is one that doesn't feel the need to take the lives of its own citizens.

reply

[–] robbo7 15 years ago

This is not the case to justify the death penalty, only the most blinkered person would suggest evans or bentley even were guilty of anything but plain stupidity.

reply

[–] DeathToPigs 16 years ago

Brady , Huntley etc actually want to die, for them hanging would be a blessing.
Is that what you want, for the likes of Huntley to get their quick , easy escape?

reply

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 16 years ago

Hey mate. Are you a fan of this film? It's doing pretty badly in my 1971 poll over at FG. Here's a link if you want to help it out. You can also see if you want to vote on my 1970 thread as well. I'm gonna send you a PM as well in case you don't read this.

Here are the links:

1970 - http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/142512129
1971 - http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nest/142524044

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

In response to `DeathToPigs'; I guess it depends what you intend the death penalty to be. If you check the threads you will see that I don't advocate it as `punishment', but as a means of `justice'. Much as I revile these people I would not have them gratuitously `tortured'. I don't care what Brady or Huntley want. They should have no say in the matter. For me, they would get what the law prescribed - and that would be hanging. If that also happened to be what they wanted, then that's life (or in this case - death). And they're welcome to it. I don't see the efficacy of spending millions of pounds of taxpayers money on metering-out a lifetime's campaign of low-level suffering, simply to thwart them for actually wanting what they deserve.

Incidentally; neither of these guys would have wanted to die at the outset. Both steadfastly pleaded their innocence right up to and beyond their convictions. It's very easy to plead for something terrible that you know will never be given. Don't you think?

reply

[–] DeathToPigs 16 years ago

Murderers are often tortured frustrated people beaten down by life, death is often a blessing for them. Giving them a quick and relatively painless exit to satisfy the public's bloodlust isn't my idea of justice. I wonder how many people would support the death penalty if it was a relative of theirs' due to be hung and they knew they hadn't done it.

reply

[–] judd_clarke 16 years ago

Not many, obviously. Generally, the people getting hung would be guilty though.

www.igloooftheuncanny.blogspot.com

reply

[–] screenman 16 years ago

Actually, I suspect most people would not want to see their nearest and dearest hanged even if they knew they were guilty. And it's for just that reason that family members are excluded from a jury panel. Conflict of interest.

reply

[–] user-153 15 years ago

"Bentley was involved in the murder of a policeman."

A good example of why there must never be a public vote on whether the death penalty should be brought back. Shocking.

reply

[–] screenman 15 years ago

So there should be no democracy if it risks an outcome of which you disaprove?

That sounds like classic `socialism'. You must be a `Guardian' reader.

reply

[–] a_heathen_conceivably 15 years ago

"So there should be no democracy if it risks an outcome of which you disaprove?

That sounds like classic `socialism'. You must be a `Guardian' reader."

Venezuelans democratically elected socialist leader Hugo Chavez, and the US Government disapproved....

Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for Islamists Hamas (like it or not, but they did), due to the perceived corruption (I would not presume an opinion) of opposition 'moderates' Fatah, in an election declared free and fair by international observers; the whole 'West' disapproved and imposed sanctions; Fatah were handed power, Hamas retook power in the Gaza Strip (violently, it has to be said) in what has been declared by the West an illegal coup ever since...

Chileans voted for Salvador Allende, and the CIA assisted to have him quickly toppled in a military coup by right-wing dictator General Augusto Pinoche, who tortured and/or killed thousands for supporting the other guy (the legitimate president) and his party, but this was fine because not only did the then US government approve, but he was later befriended by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher over the help which he undoubtedly did give to the Royal Air Force during the Falklands War. However this was no excuse for Maggie's shocking compliment to him years later when both were out of power "You brought democracy to your country" - exactly 180 degrees from the truth and she knew it. Far worse than George Galloway's infamous comments to Saddam Hussein (who was also, incidentally, installed in a military coup with the help the CIA).

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." - Henry Kissinger.

I do not support the reintroduction of capital punishment. If it were to become an instrument of the completely infallable British judicial system then wouldn't we be condoning executions not only in the US but China; Iran; our friends in Saudi Arabia, etc. ? Anyway it'll never happen in the UK unless one or other extremist party is democratically elected and we leave the European Union (would we get a referendum?).

"10 Rillington Place" may be a dramatised account of actual events, but it is not entirely inaccurate and correctly depicts the prosecution, conviction and legal, judicial execution of a man for the crime of murder, largely on the evidence of a single witness thought to be reliable but whom was later proven to be a serial killer himself. I personally believe that Evans was innocent of murder - but even if he wasn't, his conviction was unsafe. Anyway hasn't his conviction since been legally overturned, long after his posthumous pardon? No apology was forthcoming, and no compensation paid, as the man was dead.

I read "The Independent", and "The Scotsman" on Fridays (for the recruitment supplement).

"Oh look - a lovely spider! And it's eating a butterfly!"
'' ,,

reply

[–] user-153 15 years ago

I agree. Amazing, isn't it, that screenman seems to defend the assertion:

"well they were not miscarriages of justice.Evans murdered his daughter and paid the price and Bentley was involved in the murder of a policeman".

Those who consider advances in forensic science and the courts treatment of psychological issues as a fool-proof miss the point: the facts are decided by the jury. The list in recent years where mistakes made in both fields have led to miscarriages of justice (baby-shaking, to name just one) is extensive.

So it's obviously not right for people who don't fully appreciate this, or who react emotionally to the issue, or who enjoy hiding behind the ignorance of statements such as 'Bentley was involved in the murder of a policeman', should play a role in the re-introduction of the death penalty.

reply

[–] screenman 15 years ago

Hmm. I'm not quite sure which way you guys are swinging here.

I support the re-introduction of capital punishment for reasons explained quite a long way back in the thread.

I also think that if the majority of the population want it re-introduced then their wish should be granted. It strikes me as profoundly arrogant and undemocratic for a minority in that population to assume a higher moral status or claim a better understanding or education as a basis to veto the majority wish.

This is exactly what has happened with regard to the so-called European constitution. Ireland voted against it so they were brow-beaten into taking another vote. Britain has always been the eurosceptic captial and would be almost certain to throw it out. So Britain was denied a vote altogether. The euro-intelligensia call that democracy. They think they know what's best for us.

Maybe they're right. But I would sooner have my vote and vote the `wrong' way, even if it was a ticket to hell.

By the way; I also disapprove of abortion. To me that's infanticide. But I live in a society where the innocent can be legally put to death whilst murderers cannot. The courts may not sanction execution of those convicted, but the police may assasssinate suspects without trial. Crazy world. Maybe the immoral, uneducated and stupid actually know something we smart-arses don't.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Troughboss 15 years ago

How else would you describe abortion (assuming this is one of the points you are referring to).It is infanticide, it is murder, it is premeditated.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Troughboss 15 years ago

Quantify your statement! In what essence is it not a premeditated assault which results in death!! ! !!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] djeinbrum 15 years ago

screenman, will you please stop thinking that the bile spouted by the Daily Mail is at all representative of British people. Thanks.

reply

[–] screenman 15 years ago

Right, the contributions are a bit out of kilter chronologically, but here goes...

Firstly, in response to `User153' I began this thread for the express purpose of inviting other people's opinions upon the subject of pre-meditated killing. And if you look back you will see that I have responded with diligence and due courtesy. Your implied claim that I disregard contributions in preference to personal prejudice or preconceived ideas is therefore evidentially self-contradicting. I will readily engage in rational discussion with any who wish to do so.

Secondly, in response to `djeinbrum': In general, a newspaper does not `represent' anyone except those who contribute to it. It has no electoral mandate. Buying a paper is not casting a vote. Notwithstanding this; if you would care to offer any particular item of `bile spouted by the Daily Mail' which you believe is relevant to this thread, I for one would be happy to debate its merits.

reply

[–] screenman 15 years ago

No takers then. Why am I not surprised?

reply

[–] bernielane 11 years ago

Because this is supposed to be a board to discuss MOVIES or have you forgotten about this. If you want an argument about politics and religion why don't you join a suitable forum for it, there will be plenty out there somewhere.

reply

[–] user-153 15 years ago

"Your implied claim that I disregard contributions in preference to personal prejudice or preconceived ideas is therefore evidentially self-contradicting. I will readily engage in rational discussion with any who wish to do so."

You really have to stop loving the sound of your own voice so much. Hearing you bleat on so incessantly is very tiring. For heaven's sake, stop it.

reply

[–] screenman 15 years ago

Oh gosh; I've got above my station and upset a superior being. It's one of those silk-trimmed, periwigged, self-justifying anachronisms. Yes: a barrister! And not just any old barrister, either - a `criminal' barrister. Whoo-ee.

Here's a geezer who gets paid a handsome purse for boring a captive audience to sleep with his own brand of arcane verbosity, now bellyaching when someone else does the same to him for free. You need to hitch-up that silk a little tighter, chum; your hypocrisy's beginning to show.

Maybe a `criminal' barrister can make the clerks jump in chambers, but out here in the real world you carry no more relevance than a road sweeper. Less, in fact; we do still actually need road sweepers.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenman 15 years ago

Cheap trick, lawyer-man. Very cheap indeed.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] screenman 15 years ago

Yes...Right. Well, my chip and I both have far better things to do than indulge the juvenile bickering of some obsolescent jobsworth.

So - remembering that this is a public forum, and to refresh the thread subject; if any other contributor has some interesting observation to post regarding the death-penalty and its associated issues, please now feel free to weigh-in.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lexp2005 15 years ago

Hi,
Here is my tuppenny worth for what it is worth(excuse the pun,Not intended)
The power that gives life is the only power that should take life and anyone who brakes that law, in whatever circumstances, do themselves a disservice as they will have to carry that onto their karma and do whatever it takes to cleanse their karma in future.Having said that, man made laws as you know vary from country to country and in state to state within those countries,people will put their individual connotation on the death penalty, whether it is seen,rightly or wrongly,as a punishment or revenge.By the way I am NOT a religious fanatic as a matter of fact I have NO time for MAN MADE RELIGION whatsoever!!!

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

No to the death penalty from me... You can't always get it right, and I would rather have 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent life taken.

Also, your comparison re: "Modes of transport kill people, but we still use them!" is a bit off... To die in an accident is natural selection; to be sentenced to death by the justice system implies favouring odds and a considered decision. As far as I'm concerned, no human being has the right to decide whether another one dies or not; if we level that charge against murderers then we must also follow it ourselves, otherwise it makes it seem like a violent death is a perfectly reasonable thing to ordain, if you believe you have due cause.

Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me

reply

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

My view is that the government (a group of other humans) hasn't got the right to take your life against your will, under any circumstances. It's enough that you give the government the power to imprison you. It keeps people safe from known murderers and the like. Clearly the death penalty isn't better at that.

It's important to think of this as if you or your child are the person sentenced. As no system is perfect (including DNA matching by the way) there will be some innocent people put into prison under the harshest of sentences. In the unfortunate case that the evidence points mostly toward you or your child, do you want the government to be able to snap that neck, in what will most likely be a carnival/circus atmosphere?

Of course, you can rest easy knowing the rotting remains will be moved to the correct grave if innocence is later proven. But the dead stay dead.

reply

[–] The_Devonian 13 years ago

I think not.

"There he is. Half Iago, half Fu Manchu, all bastard."

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

And bring back drawing and quartering as well while you´re at it.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] bernielane 11 years ago

yes they should bring back hanging for idiots posting stupid comments on IMDb.

reply