MovieChat Forums > The Last Hangman (2006) Discussion > Albert Pierrepoint a man of HONOR!

Albert Pierrepoint a man of HONOR!

posted 19 years ago by Bladerunner
25 replies | jump to latest

As far as I'm concerned this man is a patriot and a gentleman! Whereas many people come up on either side of the death penalty debate, NONE but the executioner actually puts their actions where their philosophy lies. Whether he "believed" in the death penalty or not, this man was able to do the dirty things that our society DEMANDS be done.

The politicians and the philosophers and the god d*mned pontificators sit around and make laws and pass judgment and then they leave it to men like Albert Pierrepoint to put into action their ideas and condemnations.

The conservatives and the liberals spew their line. The conservatives pat him on the back while they step aside and look away as he pulls the handle. The liberals spit on him and spew their vile on him and attack HIM a man who is a valiant servant of the system. These liberals, they break the law via "civil disobedience" and they hate men like Pierrepoint, but how are they "involved". Do they work within the system and exact change as a *servant* to the system?! NO. All they do is shout vitriol from the sidelines and attempt to bully those who do what must be done. When will they stop standing on the outside and spitting on those who do what they will NEVER do. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it and I admire and salute those who do the ugly things that we take for granted that make our lives livable and sustainable. (the motto of the Discovery show "Dirty Jobs")

Albert put into action those things that we as a society have deemed necessary to the workings of that society. Later in his life Albert denounced the death penalty as worthless as a deterrent. Mr. Pierrepoint is one of a *very* few men who have the full and complete right and insight to make this claim. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I'm saying that he — much more than I — has the right and the wisdom to make this claim. I take his words very seriously, with an open mind and it does weigh heavily on my opinions of the death penalty.

I say this man in a HERO, not because of my beliefs of the death penalty, but because when society demanded that something so grotesque, so repugnant be done, this man stepped up and assured that it be done. The conservatives, the liberals, the politicians, the philosophers, the clerics and everyone else *stood by* and put this burden on this man's shoulders and he BORE that weight for his country. Who else can say that they stood up and — with their own hands — carried out the ugly business of a society's laws? Until you have done that, you have no right criticizing this man - a hero of his country.

I'll only say this about Mr. Pierrepoint's comments concerning the death penalty: "All the men and women I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder." This is probably a true statement, although many could argue the truth of it and quite well. However, the fact is that the death penalty is not always about "preventing" or "deterring" other’s (who might commit such crimes), in fact it is also about justice and about preventing the person who committed a murder from doing it again.

If a man is convicted of the cold-blooded murder of a child and sentenced to life in prison and is paroled (or escapes) and kills another, then those who failed to take his life so that he would never take another become responsible for the latest murder. It is the responsibility of a society to *permanently remove* a murderer from the society so that he may never murder another. The only sure way to remove a murderer is to take his life, because the chance that he may kill again is so great that taking his life is (by far) the "lesser of two evils". Which is a greater evil, taking the life of a convicted murderer, or a convicted murderer being given the chance to murder ANOTHER innocent child? Since the taking of an innocent child's life is a greater evil than giving the death penalty to a man for killing an innocent child, we must enact the ultimate price so that we will never be guilty of abetting a murderer to commit another murder.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] clive-ihd 17 years ago

A man of hounour and integrity, yes. A hero, no. And I don't think he saw himself as a hero.

I am against the death penalty. But Albert Pierrepoint always made sure the prisoners were executed as quickly and painlessy as possible, and he never discussed his work in public. In fact he always dsistanced himself from the details of the case so he wouldn't have any opinions about the prisoners.

[–] stopfief 17 years ago

You're right, he never discussed his work in public - he went to newspaper editors to do that for him.

[–] clive-ihd 17 years ago

I don't think he discussed his work with the press while he was serving as hangman.

He wrote his autobiography some time after his retirement, and after Britain had abolished the death penalty for murder. And he only wrote the book because he felt that so much that had been written about him was nonsense and he wanted to set the record straight.

[–] Clyde_Donovan 17 years ago

He didn't talk during the executioner years.

He is a man of honour and integrity and we can't be biased against anyone from those eras of the past based on today's standards of judgement.

Q:People kill for Allah, I bet they'll be pissed when they find out he doesn't exist.Q

[–] red-rob 16 years ago

I feel your logic is flawed, Bladerunner.

These liberals, they break the law via "civil disobedience" and they hate men like Pierrepoint, but how are they "involved". Do they work within the system and exact change as a *servant* to the system?! NO. All they do is shout vitriol from the sidelines and attempt to bully those who do what must be done.

"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Later in his life Albert denounced the death penalty as worthless as a deterrent. Mr. Pierrepoint is one of a *very* few men who have the full and complete right and insight to make this claim.

So, if you have to have carried out an act to have the "full and complete right" to say that it's wrong, then only a murderer is qualified to sit in judgement on another person who has committed murder. The Judge who has never murdered, has no right to say that it is wrong. Perhaps though, on the contrary, a person who has examined the the effects that the death penalty has on society, its impact on the crime rate and on people's view of the legal system, might be better placed to decide whether or not it is worthless than someone who just views it as "a job"?

I say this man in a HERO, not because of my beliefs of the death penalty, but because when society demanded that something so grotesque, so repugnant be done, this man stepped up and assured that it be done.

Without wanting in the least to suggest that such a comparison applies to Pierrepoint, it is difficult to see how your argument would not also apply to the guards at Auschwitz-Birkenau. After all, their society demanded of them things that were grotesque and repugnant.

However, the fact is that the death penalty is not always about "preventing" or "deterring" other’s (who might commit such crimes), in fact it is also about justice and about preventing the person who committed a murder from doing it again... It is the responsibility of a society to *permanently remove* a murderer from the society so that he may never murder another... Since the taking of an innocent child's life is a greater evil than giving the death penalty to a man for killing an innocent child, we must enact the ultimate price so that we will never be guilty of abetting a murderer to commit another murder.

There are problems with this arguement. You assume that all people executed for murder are guilty. People are wrongly convicted. Sometimes evidence is withheld from the jury, or only comes to light years later. Sometimes juries are swayed by emotion rather than the facts. In these cases, the sending of an innocent person to the gallows is a wrong in which society is complicit, and for which there is no possibility of restitution (unlike the case where someone is wrongly imprisoned). Also, to my mind, unless the death penalty acts to reduce the overall number of killings in society, and there is no evidence that it does, then there is no possible justification for it. Otherwise, the state is simply continuing a cycle of violence (and your "Justice" feels rather like revenge to me).

My Movies: http://uk.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=24218096

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. Albert Einstein

So, if you have to have carried out an act to have the "full and complete right" to say that it's wrong, then only a murderer is qualified to sit in judgement on another person who has committed murder. The Judge who has never murdered, has no right to say that it is wrong. Perhaps though, on the contrary, a person who has examined the the effects that the death penalty has on society, its impact on the crime rate and on people's view of the legal system, might be better placed to decide whether or not it is worthless than someone who just views it as "a job"?

Hmmm... Albert Pierrepoint wasn't a murderer. Someone who has the "full and complete right" to sit in judgment is someone who has done their part, not someone who won't do anything who sits on the sidelines and derides others.

As far as people "examined the the [sic] effects", many, many people have studied the "effects" and proponents of the death penalty can sight just as many studies, impact, and so forth. Pretending that the liberals are the only ones doing any "research" is simply sophistry.

Without wanting in the least to suggest that such a comparison applies to Pierrepoint, it is difficult to see how your argument would not also apply to the guards at Auschwitz-Birkenau. After all, their society demanded of them things that were grotesque and repugnant.

Well, despite "not wanting in the least to suggest" it, you went right on and did it. The trials at Nuremberg clearly showed that there is a difference between following orders and what the guards at Auschwitz did. There were many people that worked for the Nazis that did so without torturing and murdering people. Perhaps you should do some "research" on that.

There are problems with this arguement. You assume that all people executed for murder are guilty. People are wrongly convicted. Sometimes evidence is withheld from the jury, or only comes to light years later. Sometimes juries are swayed by emotion rather than the facts. In these cases, the sending of an innocent person to the gallows is a wrong in which society is complicit, and for which there is no possibility of restitution (unlike the case where someone is wrongly imprisoned). Also, to my mind, unless the death penalty acts to reduce the overall number of killings in society, and there is no evidence that it does, then there is no possible justification for it. Otherwise, the state is simply continuing a cycle of violence (and your "Justice" feels rather like revenge to me).

First of all, I do not "asume" that all people who executed for murder are guilty". Our system is set up so that it is easier for guilty man to be found innocent than an innocent man to be found guilty. That is why a person is innocent until found guilty as opposed to being guilty until found innocent (as is the system in some places). That is also why there are *extraordinary* things that are part of the process, the mandatory appeals, etc. Have there been innocent men executed? Yes. Have guilty men gone free and murdered again? Yes, many, many times. Have some men been falsely convicted of a crime and spent decades in prison? Yes. Have some men convicted of murder gotten out and murdered again? Yes, too many times. This is just a part of the process. Lady Justice is blind and sometimes innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent.

As far as there being "no justification for it" (the death penalty), I would suggest you are very wrong. First, if a man is guilty of first degree murder and he gets out of prison and murders again, then we as a society are guilty for allowing that person to murder again. We had a responsibility to make sure that he/she NEVER murdered again, and we are therefore complicit in allowing that person to murder again. Innocent people have a right to be protected by our society, and it is FAR worse for us to allow murderers to get out and murder again, than it is for justice to occasionally break down giving the death penalty to an innocent man. Why? Because that innocent man had a chance, he had a trial, he had appeals, a chance at clemency, a pardon, and the society did every thing it could to prevent that mistake, but an innocent person who is murdered by a freed murderer had NO chance and the system didn't do it's job.

We let people drive cars every day, *knowing* that thousands are killed every year on the streets of our nation. Do we then stop every one from driving because some innocent people are killed? No, because that is simply the risk of living and driving. Innocent pedestrians who aren't even *driving* get killed by moving vehicles every day, do we then stop every one from driving? No, because those are simply the risks one takes walking across the street, and we acknowledge the fact that being able to use a vehicle is worth the risk, it is worth the thousands of deaths each year, because we do everything we can to prevent those deaths. We have safety laws, and safety devices (stop lights, pedestrian walkways) to help prevent those accidents and the majority of our citizens have decided that it is a risk we are willing to take so that we can drive. The citizens of this country have also decided that the possiblity of executing an innocent man is worth the risk, and that it is more important to remove murderers (permanently) from our society by using the death penalty.

We have decided that it is worse to be complicit in letting a murderer go free to murder again, than it is to be "complicit" in trying, convicting and executing an innocent man.

The death penalty isn't just about "reducing the overall number of killings". It is also about never allowing a murderer the chance to go free to murder again. It is also about justice for the person(s) murdered and the families of the victims. Justice is not "revenge", it is about the consequences of one's actions being brought to bear on them. It is about upholding the law, and rightness of action. Do you call making a person pay restitution "revenge"? Is making a person spend 50 years in prison for rape and murder "revenge"?

I think you need to take a long look at your idea of "revenge" and "justice" before lecturing me.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] red-rob 16 years ago

"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

I don't think that this quote is in fundamental disagreement with the Thoreau quote (though I think that Burke and Thoreau themselves would have had differences). Thoreau's point was that, when the law is opposed to the right, it is necessary for a good person to oppose that law. This is the stand taken by many whom you disparage as liberals.

... it is FAR worse for us to allow murderers to get out and murder again, than it is for justice to occasionally break down giving the death penalty to an innocent man. Why? Because that innocent man had a chance...

Here, we are in fundamental disagreement. Society does not allow the murderer to murder, a person commits murder in despite of society's rules. To say that the execution of someone who is unjustly condemned to death is mitigated by the fact that he or she "had a chance" is laughable. You could say (likewise) that the murder victim "had a chance" of fighting the attacker off, and so is complicit in their own murder (in fact, in cases of rape, such an attitude is taken all too often).

The film portrayed the execution of Timothy Evans, wrongfully convicted for a murder committed by John Christie. What chance did he have? The full weight of the state railroaded him to the Gallows. What's more, his conviction left Christie free to kill again.

To my mind it is clear that to deliberately kill an innocent person is wrong, whether it is the act of an individual or the state, and doing so undermines the moral foundations of the legal system.

My Movies: http://uk.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=24218096

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

I don't think that this quote is in fundamental disagreement with the Thoreau quote (though I think that Burke and Thoreau themselves would have had differences). Thoreau's point was that, when the law is opposed to the right, it is necessary for a good person to oppose that law. This is the stand taken by many whom you disparage as liberals.

I know exactly what both men meant, I don't need to suffer lectures from you on this. Burke's point was that if something is right and needs to be done then all that need happen for evil to triumph is for the good men to stand ideally by and do nothing. This applies perfectly to the death penalty. It is a ugly business, but it must be done and it takes good men to step up to do it so that justice may triumph. Pierrepoint did that, and he is a man of honor for that reason (and others).

ere, we are in fundamental disagreement. Society does not allow the murderer to murder, a person commits murder in despite of society's rules.

We have no "fundamental disagreement" whatsoever! It is very simple and you are twisting the truth. When a murderer murders and we catch him, try him and punish him, our job is to NEVER allow him the opportunity to murder again. He has forfeit his life, and if we let him out to murder again WE are responsible and so is he! We gave him that opportunity that he should NOT have had.

Society doesn't ONLY have the onus to make laws, NO, it also has the responsibility to ENFORCE those laws. The punishment should reflect the crime. If a person is convicted of a felony, they are never again (in the US) allowed to own a handgun. It is against the law. In this way, society is (attempting) to remove any possibility that the person will use a gun to hurt someone. Of course, there are ways around this, but this is an example of society's responsibility, which goes beyond simply *making* laws.

When we give a man 10 years in prison for robbing a bank, we are protecting the citizens of our country from his bank robbing for 10 years. That is the amount of time we have decided is fair. When a man *murders* another man (and when I say man, I mean mankind, men and women) the time that we have decided is right to protect society from him is LIFE. Unfortunately our bureaucratic system doesn't always KEEP them for life. We have determined in this country that if you murder a man in cold blood, your life is forfeit, and society has a responsibility to ensure that you NEVER murder another human being. If we break down in that responsibility then we have FAILED in our duty, and are complicit in his/her next murder. It's that simple.

The Timothy Evans case was a break down of the English form of justice, not the U.S. Nonetheless, it was still the price we paid to have a system of blind justice.

To my mind it is clear that to deliberately kill an innocent person is wrong, whether it is the act of an individual or the state, and doing so undermines the moral foundations of the legal system.

See, here is your fundamental lack of understanding, and it is one many liberals make. We are not executing *innocent* people! We are executing *murderers*. If someone is falsely accused and tried and sentenced, then the system didn't "break down", because we KNOW that sometimes an innocent man will be falsely convicted. We KNOW this, but it is the price we pay for Lady Justice being *blind*. The system doesn't intentionally convict and innocent man, corrupt officials manipulate the system to do that! And then those officials need to be brought to justice, not justice itself, because it is BLIND.

If the people working in the system do their jobs correctly, then once in a while an innocent man will still be convicted, there is NO WAY to avoid that permanently. We have DNA tests, and all that to help ensure we have the right man, and we have many, many balances in place to make sure an innocent man isn't convicted. I have mentioned them: innocent until found guilty, a person can't be made to incriminate themselves, a wife can't testify against her husband, a defendant doesn't have to take the stand, found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, all that. We KNOW innocent men are convicted and we accept that as part of the price we pay for justice being blind, but we don't just stop trying criminals because once in a while an innocent man is convicted, because the alternative is far worse.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] Corner_House_guest 16 years ago

Only people who are willing to carry out an execution should support the death penalty. Pierrepoint did his job well and made it quick for the condemned.

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

I agree with this, I think people who support the death penalty should be also willing to flip the switch. Now, someone might not want to do it because it is too grotesque for them, but they still must be willing to do it. In other words, if someone says, "I support the death penalty, but I could never flip the switch, because that is murder", then they are a hypocrite! Plain and simple.

Pierrepoint was a good man who tried to do his job in a way that was of the most minimal suffering to the condemned. He lived his convictions and in that way, no matter which side of the debate we come out on, he deserves our respect.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] Corner_House_guest 16 years ago

Agree with your last post completely Bladerunner

[–] lornamd-1 16 years ago

Our job is to make society as safe as possible and societies which have the death penalty have higher murder rates and violent crime rates than those that do not.

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

That is patently absurd! This country did not have the death penalty for many years, and our murder rate went up.

Venezuela and El Salvador are number two and number three in murder rates and they have no death penalty. Honduras is number five in murder rate and they have no death penalty. Jamaica is number six and is a de facto abolitionist of the death penalty, they haven't had one in the last ten years. I could go on, and on, and on.

Of the 30 countries with the highest murder rates, only SIX have the death penalty. Check it out yourself:

Murder rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Country status on the death penalty: http://www.handsoffcain.info/bancadati/index.php?tipotema=arg&idtema=10000532

I wonder what makes people like you spout utterly wrong and ridiculous remarks like? Do you think the people you are talking to are stupid, and don't know the truth? My grandfather called that "talking out of your ass". Amazes me.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] lornamd-1 16 years ago

The murder rate in Britain went up in the 1940's to the 1960's (dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/murderrt.html) while the death penalty was used but the murder rate held steady for decades since capital punishments abolition (apart from the last few years due to the increasing number of guns) and comparing homicide statistics between the UK, Canada and the US casts doubt on the view that the death penalty is a deterrent (www.gallup.com/poll/11005/Support-Death-Penalty-US-Britain-Canada.aspx)

I didn't say that the death penalty was the only thing that affected the murder rate. Its not surprising that troubled countries like El Salvador have huge murder rates however governments which have the death penalty have higher civilian (ie non military and political) murder rates than those who do not (archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=4&mid=1071),
10 out of 12 states that don't have the death penalty have lower homicide rates than average (www.truthinjustice.org/922death.htm) and the murder rate went down in Canada after the death penalty was abolished (www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php)

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

I give you hardcore facts and stats, and you give me a propaganda article from the United Methodist Church?!?! The site makes no mention of "political or military murders".

The stats I gave you are MURDER CASES in CIVILIAN LIFE. They are NOT "political or military" murders (how absurd). The site makes no mention of "political or military" homicides. Once again, you are simply making things up. Once again, since you seem to have difficulty understanding, out of the 30 countries with the highest murder rate (not POLITICAL MURDERS, NOT MILITARY MURDERS [whatever the hell that would be]) 24 do not have the death penalty! The site I referenced lists murder rates among the civilian population, try to keep up.

The bottom line is, the grand majority of countries that have the highest murder rates are countries that have abolished the death penalty. It's fact, and none of your Methodist propaganda spin is going to change that.

The murder rate in Britain went up in the 1940's to the 1960's (dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/murderrt.html) while the death penalty was used but the murder rate held steady for decades since capital punishments abolition (apart from the last few years due to the increasing number of guns)

You are HILARIOUS! When the murder rate goes up you blame it on guns, when it goes down you credit the abolition of the death penalty. HAHA! The murder rates went up EVERYWHERE in the 1940s to 1960s, regarless of whether they had the death penalty or not! However, since 1991 the murder rate in England has gone UP, while the murder rate in the U.S. has gone DOWN. This is despite the fact that England abolished the death penalty and has enacted the most restrictive gun control laws among democratic nations.

and:

According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape. from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

10 out of 12 states that don't have the death penalty have lower homicide rates than average

HAHA! They had lower homicide rates BEFORE they abolished the death penalty! They've ALWAYS had lower homicide rates, REGARDLESS of the death penalty! Wake up and quit posting useless statistics that you *do not* understand!

comparing homicide statistics between the UK, Canada and the US casts doubt on the view that the death penalty is a deterrent (www.gallup.com/poll/11005/Support-Death-Penalty-US-Britain-Canada.aspx)

Oh, come ON! Why do you keep twisting the facts and making things up?! That is a poll concerning ATTITUDES about whether people support the death penalty or not. 64% of Americans support the death penalty, so there is no "majority" and no one is "casting doubts" on the death penalty as deterrent.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lornamd-1 16 years ago

"I give you hardcore facts and stats"

You gave a Wikipedia article with a warning that it doesn't have adequate citations.

"The site makes no mention of political or military murders"

The National Post gives civilian murders as "non-political murder victims" (johnrlott.tripod.com/other/canadiancoverage.html) and a friend of mine who is a criminologist gave the definition as a non-political, non-military murder .

"The stats I gave you are MURDER CASES in CIVILIAN LIFE. They are NOT "political" or "military" murders"

The article says "intentional homicide rate" it does not take into account whether the murders have political or military motives or if the victims are part of the civilian population.

"When the murder rate goes up you blame it on guns, when it goes down you credit the abolition of the death penalty"

I'll admit that the weapon comment is just my opinion The Crime and Society Foundation believe it is poverty (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4348238.stm), some feel it is the increasing availability of class A drugs but I don't see how you can make a connection with the abolition of the death penalty back in the 70's. The murder rate going down in Canada after the death penalty was abolished is not just my opinion it is a fact and it happened the next year not 20 years later.

"They had lower homicide rates BEFORE they abolished the death penalty"

Many of those states abolished the death penalty between 150 to 80 years ago when they didn't have accurate methods of measuring homicide rates.

"The murder rate went up EVERYWHERE between the 1940's and 1960's regardless of whether they had the death penalty or not"

I'll have to trust you on that one as I couldn't find any statistics to back that up.

"since 1991 the murder rate in Britain has gone UP"

Twenty years after the abolition of capital punishment the murder rate goes up and you think the abolition of the death penalty is blame?

"while the US murder rate in the US has gone DOWN"

But is still much higher than the UK's murder rate.

"That is a poll concerning ATTITUDES"

That is a death penalty neutral article about attitudes towards capital which states that comparing homicide statistics casts between the UK, the US and Canada doubt on the deterrence affects of the death penalty if you read it all the way through.

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

The National Post gives civilian murders as "non-political murder victims" (johnrlott.tripod.com/other/canadiancoverage.html) and a friend of mine who is a criminologist gave the definition as a non-political, non-military murder .

A "friend" who is a "criminologist told" you? Haha. So? The article I referenced is murders in the civilian population, no political assassinations, not deaths in the military or in wars. I love it when people don't have facts to quote, so they reference a "friend" who "told them" something.

The article says "intentional homicide rate" it does not take into account whether the murders have political or military motives or if the victims are part of the civilian population.

What?! Give me a break! These are murders reported to the police by civilians. Political and military deaths are totally separate. Quit grasping at straws.

I'll admit that the weapon comment is just my opinion The Crime and Society Foundation believe it is poverty (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4348238.stm), some feel it is the increasing availability of class A drugs but I don't see how you can make a connection with the abolition of the death penalty back in the 70's. The murder rate going down in Canada after the death penalty was abolished is not just my opinion it is a fact and it happened the next year not 20 years later.

There are many factors that impact the murder rate. You can't claim that abolition of the death penalty is the reason the murder rate went down! How would that work anyway? HAHA! Criminals go, "Hey, there's no more death penalty, I was going to kill someone, but now I'm not.

Also, who give a flying SH!T if the death penalty deters murder?!?! I don't care if it does or not! What I do care about is this: when a murderer kills someone and then has the possibility of getting out and killing again. It has happened HUNDREDS of times, and when that happens it is OUR fault. Personally, I could CARE LESS if the death penalty deters murders. What I do know is this, if you execute a man who has committed murder in the first degree, he'll NEVER get out to do it again, and that is a VERY good reason to keep the death penalty.

Many of those states abolished the death penalty between 150 to 80 years ago when they didn't have accurate methods of measuring homicide rates.

That's bull. You count how many murders happen. It's not hard. They may have not had sophisticated techniques to discover the perpetrator, or the fact that some deaths were murders, which may have lowered the rate in a minor way. Most murders aren't clandestine anyway, so it's not hard to count up the murders.

I'll have to trust you on that one as I couldn't find any statistics to back that up.

I did a study, complete with a questionaire on the death penalty. You can find a myriad of books in the library with stats on the murder rate going back hundreds of years. Take a trip to your local library, you'll find it's there and easy to find. If you can't find something, I'll be more than happy to list three or four books for you.

Twenty years after the abolition of capital punishment the murder rate goes up and you think the abolition of the death penalty is blame?

Frankly, I don't care. I'm not concerned with whether or not it "deters crime". It rids the earth of murderers, and that is a fantastic reason to me. However, yes, I think the abolition of the death penalty and strict gun control laws only means that good people can't get guns and murderers have a chance to get back on the street.

But is still much higher than the UK's murder rate.

Yes, it is, but that is quickly changing. In the near future, the stats will flip and England will have the higher murder rate. This proves that strict gun control laws have NO impact on murder rates. Also, England has a higher "serious crime rate" than the U.S. does. Those are rapes, armed robbery and so forth. A country with the most strict gun control laws of any democratic nation has one of the highest "serious crime" rates. Now, tell me gun control laws work.

That is a death penalty neutral article about attitudes towards capital which states that comparing homicide statistics casts between the UK, the US and Canada doubt on the deterrence affects of the death penalty if you read it all the way through.

I read it all the way through, but the "doubt" it "casts" is an interpretation by the author. The stats are very, very clear. People in England and the U.S. overwhelmingly support the death penalty. No spin by the author is going to change that. Canada is in a world of it's own, but many people there also support the death penalty. Canada also has many small towns and rural areas with low murder rates, which drastically impacts those attitudes. What I would love to see is the opinions of *city dwellers* vs those in the rural areas.

The death penalty is the greatest crime deterrent there ever was... you put a man to death for murder, I'll guarantee he'll never murder again. That's security like none other.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] lornamd-1 16 years ago

The article itself says "Homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care leading to changed lethality in violent assaults, so the homicide rate does not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence"

"The article I mentioned is murders in the civilian population . . . These are murders reported to the police by civilians"

Where in the article does it say that? It says intentional homicide which according to Websters Online Dictionary is "Homicide in which the death of a person is caused intentionally but where the special requirements for the offenses of murder, manslaughter, homicide at the request of the victim, complicity in suicide or infanticide are not fulfilled". It does not say murder (intentional homicide is actually a bit different from murder) and it does not specify the motives, who reported it to the police and if they are part of the civilian population and you saying they are only civilian murders reported by civilians doesn't somehow make it true.

"You can count how many murders happen. Its not hard"

You think they sat around counting up the number of murders in a state, measuring them per 100,000 of the population of people per year (which would be very difficult since they also didn't have affective techniques of measuring population) and comparing them to other states? If they did where are the results?

"In the near future the stats will flip and England will have the higher murder rate"

Speculation.

"This proves that strict gun laws have NO impact on murder rates"

Thats one interpretation. Another is that the murder rates would have risen anyway due to the easier availability and cheaper prices of guns than ever before and that it could well have been worse if it were not for the UK having one of the strictest gun laws in the world.

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

Where in the article does it say that? It says intentional homicide which according to Websters Online Dictionary is "Homicide in which the death of a person is caused intentionally but where the special requirements for the offenses of murder, manslaughter, homicide at the request of the victim, complicity in suicide or infanticide are not fulfilled". It does not say murder (intentional homicide is actually a bit different from murder) and it does not specify the motives, who reported it to the police and if they are part of the civilian population and you saying they are only civilian murders reported by civilians doesn't somehow make it true.

It says it in the ARTICLE and the REFERENCES!!! For example, the reference for Iraq, the third footnote:

"Civilian deaths from violence in 2007". Iraq Body Count. Retrieved on 2008-08-14.

What are you proposing, that the deaths are also political or military?! If that is the case, then why does Burma have almost the lowest homicide rate in the world, when we all know that literally THOUSANDS of political and military murders are happening there?

Just what exactly are you proposing? That El Salvador is recording politically motivated murder as civilian homicide? That is a problem you have with El Salvador, not with the stats on the Wiki page. Besides, what gain would El Salvador have in reporting political murder as civilian murder?! Do you think they are going to report that?! NO! Wake up. Who is spinning the stats now? You are. You can't cherry pick what you want. The stats speak for themselves, quit picking out what you like and leaving the rest to make your case. Try being honest and simply working with the stats we have, or quote others you have, but don't cherry pick the hard data for your own purposes.

You think they sat around counting up the number of murders in a state, measuring them per 100,000 of the population of people per year (which would be very difficult since they also didn't have affective techniques of measuring population) and comparing them to other states? If they did where are the results?

Of COURSE they did! Are you serious? Haha! Census in the U.S.A. and particularly other democratic nations is VERY serious business. In the US it is how a state determines its budget from the federal government! Also, do you think a state is going to OVER report murder?! NO. If anything, it would be under reported! Counting people is VERY easy, tax roles, voter registration, property taxes, school enrollment, drivers license, social security numbers, births, deaths, phone numbers, electricity, employment records and census taking... there are MANY, MANY ways to count and cross check the numbers. As far as counting the murders, how much easier could it be?! Someone is murdered, the police come, the end.

Now, if you're talking about murderers getting away with it, then sure, the murder rate is going to be boosted in countries that have sophisticated detection techniques and a competent police force, which means that (by in large) democratic nations and/or so-called "first world" countries (as opposed to third world countries) are going to be much better at detecting murder and reporting murder. Also, there are political reasons why a country might not report as many murders. For example, Russia during the Cold War. Andrei Chikatilo killed over a hundred people, and the government continued to deny it to the world (that they had a serial killer). Also, many Muslim nations have been found to under report murder so they can continue to claim that a nation's strict adherence to Islam leads to less murder and violent crime. However, it's pretty easy to factor a lot of that out, but it goes BOTH WAYS. In some cases, it's going to serve your purposes, and in some it's going to serve mine, so it all balances out. Why are you complaining about that stuff, but happily quoting stats on nations that have a lower murder rate and no death penalty? You're simply cherry picking again, and then whining and crying foul when the stats don't serve you, which is hypocritical! Once again, either quote real stats and make your case, or don't, but quit cherry picking what serves you and ignoring or discounting what doesn't!

Speculation.

Of course it's "speculation", but it's based on hard data and a very, very factual, continual, consistent trend. Do the math, the homicide rate in England has consistently been going up, while the murder rate in the States has consistently been going down. It's not too hard to "speculate" that the trend will continue. Only a fool would look at the numbers and pretend that —if the trend continues as it is— that someday very soon the murder rate in England will be higher. Of course it's speculation, we're both doing a LOT of speculation. You're speculating that the death penalty being abolished in the States will not impact the murder rate, aren't you? At least I have hard data to back up my "speculation".

Thats one interpretation. Another is that the murder rates would have risen anyway due to the easier availability and cheaper prices of guns than ever before and that it could well have been worse if it were not for the UK having one of the strictest gun laws in the world.

What in the world are you TALKING ABOUT?! The gun control laws in the UK have gotten stricter and stricter! Meaning, less guns are available in that country! It's hard fact, there are fewer guns in the UK now than there were ten years ago. That's not speculation, that 's fact! How do you figure that increasingly strict gun control laws are leading to "the easier availability and cheaper prices of guns than ever before"?! Haha! I swear, you just pull this stuff right out of your butt! NO! The decreasing availability of guns to the LAW-ABIDING, CIVILIAN population is leading to one thing, and one thing ONLY: the criminals have all the guns!

Just listen to yourself! If it is true —as YOU say— that it is easier and cheaper to get a gun in the UK, when they have the STRICTEST gun control laws... then what does that mean? Huh?!?! It means that GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK!!! You're proving MY point!!! If it is true that gun control laws lead to FEWER guns in the law-abiding, civilian population, and EASIER and CHEAPER guns for criminals, then what does that mean?! Well, lets look at the stats... since the stricter gun control laws SERIOUS CRIME HAS GONE UP IN ENGLAND! So, what does that tell you?! It tells you that GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK! It tells you that, law-abiding, civilians with GUNS leads to a LOWER CRIME RATE! It tells you that when you take the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, civilian population, CRIME GOES UP!!!

Just stop for a minute, and focus on the above paragraph. I want you to see that you just PROVED my POINT for me!

By the way, I appreciate the way you've debated with me. You are calm and considerate, and I thank you for that. Sometimes I get hot under the collar and I say things I don't mean. You have been kind and even, and I just wanted to say I noticed that, and I appreciate it and forgive me if I get personal, I mean no harm. Thanks.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] Corner_House_guest 16 years ago

Here in the UK we have about 800 murders a year, this is the same rate 13 per million population as it was in 1900.
Comparing the rate with just before abolition when it was 6.5 per million and falling is always going to make abolition look bad.
It actually fell slightly in the five years after abolition, started rising again in 1970's when the baby boomers reached adulthood, now its falling again as the population ages.
No comfort of course if its you or your loved one who is murdered, but we can argue about the deterrent effect until the cows come home. Granted, the recidivism rate is 0%
Personally I'm with former PM Ted Heath, who once commanded a firing squad in WW2, he said that if it was you on the trap door, wrongfully convicted like Timothy Evans, would you be willing to accept the deterrent value outweighed the possibility of a miscarriage of justice?

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

[quote]Personally I'm with former PM Ted Heath, who once commanded a firing squad in WW2, he said that if it was you on the trap door, wrongfully convicted like Timothy Evans, would you be willing to accept the deterrent value outweighed the possibility of a miscarriage of justice? [/quot]

No, because I don't support the death penalty for *determent*! I support it to take murderers out of this world, forever. And yes, I would be willing to be unjustly executed to keep the death penalty alive for this reason.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] Thusnelda 16 years ago

Whether he "believed" in the death penalty or not, this man was able to do the dirty things that our society DEMANDS be done. (...)I say this man in a HERO, not because of my beliefs of the death penalty, but because when society demanded that...

Thus, in your view, Albert Pierrepoint was a hero (!), because he was "just following orders"?

Now THAT's an extraordinary interpretation!

Yours,

Thusnelda

Merseburger Zaubersprüche
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=tyx-IeMM-hg

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

Er, nice complete twisting of my position.

Pierrepoint wasn't just "following orders", he believed in what he was doing (at the time). People that are for the death penalty that won't "pull the switch" are hypocrites, this man lived his convictions. Watch the movie about his life (or read the book) you will find out his convictions during his service, it is about THAT I find that he is a hero.

Thus, in your view, Albert Pierrepoint was a hero (!), because he was "just following orders"?

Now THAT'S an extraordinarily bad interpretation!

Yours,

Bladerunner

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] Corner_House_guest 16 years ago

Generally, public executioners in the UK have been volunteers. The rare exceptions in the early 18th century were convicted criminals who were offered the job to spare themselves from the rope. It has been mentioned in several books that in a time of limited mobility and earning power for the manual worker, being the hangman offered pay and an opportunity to travel. The downside being you had to kill someone at the end of your trip.

Pierrepoint certainly had no qualms about carrying out the death penalty. If a society has capital punishment then it needs people willing to carry it out. However he did disagree with the capricious way some were reprieved and others weren't and this led to his resignation.
As he said "the majority of people supported hanging, but no-one thought all murderers should hang. But no two people could agree on who should be let off." Not having a clear definite policy means the deterrent effect is meaningless and hanging serves no purpose other than revenge.

Most British adult males in the first half of the 20th century had been in a war. Often conscripted, they were sent to kill someone on the orders of their government and experienced death at close hand. We in the 21st century are insulated against such horrors and cannot imagine the difference in attitude that their experiences inculcated. We cannot condemn people being what they are, a product of their times. I will condemn and argue with people who want to take us back to those times and portray that era as a mythical golden age.

For a great film about capital punishment which doesnt have a single execution scene in it. "El Verdugo" Spain 1963. A dark comedy about an executioners son in law forced into the job.