[Archived] Hang Em High

[Rovermatt]

The fact that the hangings happen after people commit murder. As a society we're not yet able to predict crime, Phillip K. Dick style.

[Eddie]

On the fact that the United States has the death penalty and still has a high crime rate. True, they don't have public hangings, but you can't seriously view that as the piece America is missing. Crimes didn't stop when we had public hangings before.

Also, I seem to recall you being critical of those in Northern Nigeria and the Middle East after they have stoned women to death in public. Now if you want to turn state sanctioned killings into public entertainment, surely you can't then be critical of others? Once you feel that sort of punishment is right, it becomes all the more difficult to argue that a particular method of killing is incorrect or that the punishment is too severe for the crime.

[American]

The fact that the hangings happen after people commit murder. As a society we're not yet able to predict crime, Phillip K. Dick style.

But those people will never murder again.

[Eddie]

On that basis, why not just lock them up forever then and avoid the moral issues involved in killing someone?

[Rovermatt]

But those people will never murder again.

They won't murder again if they're locked up. Or If Tom Cruise jumps on them from out a helicopter.

[American]

Yes, murders never occur in prison....

[Rovermatt]

Yes, murders never occur in prison....

I never said that. I was referring to the threat to society.

[BuckyRover]

Yes, murders never occur in prison....

Simple. Only lock them up with other murderers.

Then if they do end up murdering somebody you can feel a sense of glee.

Everybody is happy....

[bellamy11]

Simple. Only lock them up with other murderers.

Then if they do end up murdering somebody you can feel a sense of glee.

Everybody is happy....

If you locked, say, 20 murderers up in an unsupervised room, and said that the last person left standing would go free, then we'd really be onto a winner.

Positives: 19 fewer murderers. Cheap.

Negatives: Possible outcry over facilitated murder. The release of a psycopathically dangerous person.

I'd say we'd be at economic advantage.

[Rovermatt]

If you locked, say, 20 murderers up in an unsupervised room, and said that the last person left standing would go free, then we'd really be onto a winner.

Positives: 19 fewer murderers. Cheap.

Negatives: Possible outcry over facilitated murder. The release of a psycopathically dangerous person.

I'd say we'd be at economic advantage.

You could put it on TV. '20 MURDERERS! 19 SHIVS! WHO WILL LOSE!?'

[Eddie]

Yes, murders never occur in prison....

Does it matter if they murder someone who you would have otherwise wanted killed?

[AggyBlue]

Public hangings would do nothing to stop them.

I'd be for bringing it back. The present system obviously isn't working. There is absolutely no deterent, sentances are far too short and in reality many don't even serve ten years.

Even Peter Sutcliffe is up for parole in three years!!!

[BuckyRover]

I'd be for bringing it back. The present system obviously isn't working. There is absolutely no deterent, sentances are far too short and in reality many don't even serve ten years.

Even Peter Sutcliffe is up for parole in three years!!!

BUILD MORE PRISONS!

[Eddie]

99% of people who "support" the death penalty always say that "we have to because people never serve their proper sentence and are always let out far too early". Instead of bringing in the death penalty, why not simply reform the system so that people aren't released early and make sure everyone spends longer in prison? It just seems like you're starting at A and jumping to Z.

[bellamy11]

You could put it on TV. '20 MURDERERS! 19 SHIVS! WHO WILL LOSE!?'

Definitely. The idea was born for PPV TV.

The possibilites are endless. Get a couple of commentators in and we're all ready to go. Could even have family members of the victims as guest pundits.

[thenodrog]

99% of people who "support" the death penalty always say that "we have to because people never serve their proper sentence and are always let out far too early". Instead of bringing in the death penalty, why not simply reform the system so that people aren't released early and make sure everyone spends longer in prison? It just seems like you're starting at A and jumping to Z.

Cos this is what that soppy option leads to eddie............ http://news.aol.co.uk/ripper-launches-huma...514104709990002

The issue wouldn't have arisen or being debated if he was brown bread like his many victims would it? What is the point of keeping these individuals in existence eddie? Or do you think he is 'recoverable' and will ultimately be a benefit to society?

[Eddie]

I think some can be released into society, but if their crime is too horrible then no, they need to be locked away. Is there a point to keeping them alive? No. I just can't support the idea of a state sanctioned killing. Killing in any form is against my principles.

[thenodrog]

I think some can be released into society, but if their crime is too horrible then no, they need to be locked away. Is there a point to keeping them alive? No. I just can't support the idea of a state sanctioned killing. Killing in any form is against my principles.

You need to save your sympathy for victims eddie. The civil rights laws will probably see Sutcliffe released at some point rem we almost saw Myra Hindley released) but laws made by men will not allow any of his many victims to return will they? Can you imagine being a family member of his victims knowing that he is out and living the life of Riley under an assumed identity at the nation's expense?

[Eddie]

We don't have a judicial system that is governed by relatives of the victims, hopefully we never will.

I wouldn't want to see someone who killed someone I knew released early, but at the same time I wouldn't want to see them killed. You can reform the system without have to resort to the death penalty, that is my point.

[joey_big_nose]

I used to oppose the death penalty on moral grounds (its not for humans to take a life and so on) but on that side of things I am getting more sympathetic to the death penalty as I get older. If used appropriately I feel it is acceptable (ie. absolutely safe evidence).

However my main reservation comes from the fact that when you introduce it crime seems to get worse not improve. And in many ways it increases the liklihood of those who commit crime to use fatal force to remove witnesses because whether they are caught and sucessfully prosecuted or not determines whether they live or not.

The state using more lethal wepons seems to trigger a state/criminal arms race.

[thenodrog]

(its not for humans to take a life and so on)

But humans who take lives as those above must surely forfeit any right to human rights. Shouldn't they?

[ABBEY]

scum

[Eddie]

But humans who take lives as those above must surely forfeit any right to human rights. Shouldn't they?

A society that takes lives does the same, particularly if were to ever execute an innocent man, which would eventually happen.

I believe that in a perfect society the population will always show itself to be greater than the lowest individuals. A culture that takes on the death penalty is sinking to that level rather than rising above it.

[Tris]

Definitely. The idea was born for PPV TV.

The possibilites are endless. Get a couple of commentators in and we're all ready to go.

That's a great idea for getting rid of Alan Green and Alan Parry ...

[Rovermatt]

Not before Clive Tyldesley is set loose in a room full of hungry lions.