"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
In uk.railway Pyromancer twisted the electrons to say:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tim Fenton
We don't execute.
That's the problem. We let them out to re-offend, again and again, and
each time some other innocent victim's life is ruined, often forever.

You don't need the death penalty in order to prevent reoffending. You
just need a society that is prepared to lock people up such that they
either come out of prison in a box or not at all ...

There may be an initial expenditure excess in the "Death Penalty" but, over
time it will work out cheaper. An excellent reason to adopt it along with
the other benefits gained.

--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"
(For membership email... )
"Leave the Mobile Phone at home day Oct 25th 2006"

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Ken Ward wrote:

There may be an initial expenditure excess in the "Death Penalty" but, over
time it will work out cheaper. An excellent reason to adopt it along with
the other benefits gained.

"over time", where "time" is past the next election is concept that is
alien to UK governments (of any colour).

Cheers

Chris
--
Chris Johns

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:45:25 UTC, Pyromancer
wrote:

: [ response for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread ]
:
: Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tim Fenton
: gently breathed:

: We don't execute.
:
: That's the problem. We let them out to re-offend, again and again, and
: each time some other innocent victim's life is ruined, often forever.

Have you any evidence for that? And are you arguing that we should
kill all rapists, or only serial ones?

: The underlying problem is that a proportion of the human race is
: naturally evil.

Proof?

Ian

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:43:11 UTC, Alistair Gunn
wrote:

: In uk.railway Pyromancer twisted the electrons to say:
: Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tim Fenton
: We don't execute.
: That's the problem. We let them out to re-offend, again and again, and
: each time some other innocent victim's life is ruined, often forever.
:
: You don't need the death penalty in order to prevent reoffending. You
: just need a society that is prepared to lock people up such that they
: either come out of prison in a box or not at all ...

Or one that changes people while they are in prison so they don't
reoffend when they come out.

Ian

--

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Ian
Johnston gently breathed:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:45:25 UTC, Pyromancer
wrote:
: [ response for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread ]
: Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tim Fenton
: gently breathed:

: We don't execute.

: That's the problem. We let them out to re-offend, again and again, and
: each time some other innocent victim's life is ruined, often forever.

Have you any evidence for that?

See numerous reported cases where serious sex offenders have been
released only to commit more offences?

And are you arguing that we should
kill all rapists, or only serial ones?

I don't think it's safe to execute anyone for a single offence, the risk
of convicting someone innocent would be too high. But if someone has
committed a really horrific crime like violent rape several times and
the proof is to a high enough standard that there is no reasonable
doubt, then we should either execute or lock up forever. Given finite
resources, I'd rather execute and put the savings to better uses like
health or pensions. TBH, execution is probably more humane than locking
someone up for 60 years.

: The underlying problem is that a proportion of the human race is
: naturally evil.

Proof?

Um... Where would you like me to start? Witchburning? Serial killers?
The UK guy who was interviewed in a programme on mercenaries during the
Bosnian war who said "I've always wanted to kill legally"? Serial
rapists? People who rape six month old babies? The people who
brainwash other people into being suicide bombers? Just about any
religious war you care to name? The list is endless...

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:44:17 UTC, Pyromancer
wrote:

: Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Ian
: Johnston gently breathed:
: On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:45:25 UTC, Pyromancer
: wrote:

: : We don't execute.
:
: : That's the problem. We let them out to re-offend, again and again, and
: : each time some other innocent victim's life is ruined, often forever.
:
: Have you any evidence for that?
:
: See numerous reported cases where serious sex offenders have been
: released only to commit more offences?

How numerous? What proportion of them? Compared to what proportion of
those who weren't caught the first time?

: And are you arguing that we should
: kill all rapists, or only serial ones?
:
: I don't think it's safe to execute anyone for a single offence, the risk
: of convicting someone innocent would be too high.

So actually you're in favour of letting people out to offend again, in
order to see whether they do?

: : The underlying problem is that a proportion of the human race is
: : naturally evil.
:
: Proof?
:
: Um... Where would you like me to start? Witchburning? Serial killers?
: The UK guy who was interviewed in a programme on mercenaries during the
: Bosnian war who said "I've always wanted to kill legally"? Serial
: rapists? People who rape six month old babies? The people who
: brainwash other people into being suicide bombers? Just about any
: religious war you care to name? The list is endless...

It's the "naturally" which worries me here.

Ian

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Ian
Johnston gently breathed:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:43:11 UTC, Alistair Gunn
wrote:
: In uk.railway Pyromancer twisted the electrons to say:
: Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tim Fenton
: We don't execute.
: That's the problem. We let them out to re-offend, again and again, and
: each time some other innocent victim's life is ruined, often forever.

: You don't need the death penalty in order to prevent reoffending. You
: just need a society that is prepared to lock people up such that they
: either come out of prison in a box or not at all ...

Or one that changes people while they are in prison so they don't
reoffend when they come out.

Indeed. Which is one reason to only execute serial offenders (and even
then only those who commit the worst types of crime). Re-habilitate and
reform wherever possible - but also accept that there are those who
cannot or will not change their ways.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

In message , at 00:13:31 on Thu,
21 Sep 2006, Pyromancer remarked:

Which is one reason to only execute serial offenders (and even
then only those who commit the worst types of crime).

You still get edge cases. In the USA some states automatically execute
murderers on the second offence. Unfortunately, this collides with a
separate recent ruling that unborn children count, so someone murdering
a pregnant woman (even if he was unaware of the pregnancy) is in danger
of getting his "two strikes" in one go.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:13:31 on Thu,
21 Sep 2006, Pyromancer remarked:

Which is one reason to only execute serial offenders (and even
then only those who commit the worst types of crime).

You still get edge cases. In the USA some states automatically execute
murderers on the second offence. Unfortunately, this collides with a
separate recent ruling that unborn children count, so someone murdering
a pregnant woman (even if he was unaware of the pregnancy) is in danger
of getting his "two strikes" in one go.

I think, given the object is to prevent executing someone who's
innocent, then that would still only count as "one act of murder", even
if it killed more than one person. To be executed in the system I'm
proposing, someone would have had to be convicted, beyond all
reasonable doubt, of two seperate "acts". No doubt some of the Daily
Wail congingent would claim that's too lax, but with something which
really is unreversible, better to err on the side of caution, just in
case.

The USA has peculiar religious concepts driving some of it's social
ideas, including a resurgance of the old idea that a child's life is
worth more than a mother's, which is leading to campaigners demanding
that all women of child-bearing age must at all times refrain from
drinking, action sports, or anything else that might conceivably in any
way harm any child they might happen to conceive. Women who's babies
have been stillborn have been dragged off to jail if they are drug
users and it's though the drug use has harmed the baby.

In message .com, at
03:30:17 on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Pyromancer
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:13:31 on Thu,
21 Sep 2006, Pyromancer remarked:

Which is one reason to only execute serial offenders (and even
then only those who commit the worst types of crime).

You still get edge cases. In the USA some states automatically execute
murderers on the second offence. Unfortunately, this collides with a
separate recent ruling that unborn children count, so someone murdering
a pregnant woman (even if he was unaware of the pregnancy) is in danger
of getting his "two strikes" in one go.

I think, given the object is to prevent executing someone who's
innocent, then that would still only count as "one act of murder", even
if it killed more than one person.

It might under some ideal system that you have in your head, but how do
you know that a similar issue that you hadn't predicted would arise in a
few years time? The way law and sentencing works is largely reaction to
unexpected things happening in real life, rather than what the
legislators were able to predict.

To be executed in the system I'm proposing, someone would have had to
be convicted, beyond all reasonable doubt, of two seperate "acts".

In this case, one act is killing the mother, and the other act is
killing the child. The argument which has arisen is that it doesn't
matter whether the child was in the mother's arms, or womb, at the time.

--
Roland Perry