Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Michael Portillo - Death Penalty

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here you are Flashman, I've found a reference:
    The Town of Ramsgate located a little down river at Wapping Stairs is another ancient pub. Less well known than the Prospect of Whitby down the road, The Town of Ramsgate has a more pubby feel to it. It also seems to be the pub where the locals of the area drink and although a little bit more pricey it seems less touristy. Its location is very close to where Execution Dock stood. At this site condemned men were chained to posts in the river and drowned.

    http://tinyurl.com/2thkkr


    I wonder what kind of criminals got condemned to this death. I'd rather have my head chopped off to be honest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.57/chapterId/998/London-and-the-pirates.html

    I think that tale is untrue and an urban myth which is repeated in pub guides.

    According to this site the pirate was hung and then left for three tides (which accords with other stuff I've read on piracy). I've never heard of drowning, and for anyone to be executed within the bounds of the tide, it needs to fall under the juridstiction of the Admiralty, so its likely to be mutiny or piracy.

    You'd mainly have to be a member of the nobility to get your head cut off with an axe.

    ETA - I've found some examples in Scotland, so I stand corrected

    http://www.sorbie.net/covenanters.htm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I wonder what kind of criminals got condemned to this death. I'd rather have my head chopped off to be honest.

    Poor ones, mostly. As I recall from GCSE history, it was only the rich aristocrats who had the pleasure of the axe.

    I have to say that in the worst cases I am not against the death penalty, but Portillo was right when he said that execution should be as far removed from murder as possible. Although there are a lot of people who would benefit from a good flaying (like the vermin who killed that poor man in Warrington) I don't think it is the state's place to torture.

    I do know what the pro-death penalty lobby mean though. When you know the condemned has raped and tortured someone to death its a bit galling to see him go out as happy as larry. A bit more pain certainly wouldn't be a bad thing.

    The other way would be to go the whole way- eye for an eye- rapists get raped to death and torturers get tortured to death. Eugh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I felt sorry for that elephant. I looked it up and it turns out she was put to death due to killing her trainers who abused her. :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've never heard an argument for it that isn't based on emotions rather than facts, and the people that support the death penalty ime seem to be driven by anger and revenge (also known as justice when they want to appear reasonable in front of the TV cameras).
    But then again some people think that revenge is a good enough reason in itself to have the death penalty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I do know what the pro-death penalty lobby mean though. When you know the condemned has raped and tortured someone to death its a bit galling to see him go out as happy as larry. A bit more pain certainly wouldn't be a bad thing.
    That's really warped logic imo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The link doesn't work
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I do know what the pro-death penalty lobby mean though. When you know the condemned has raped and tortured someone to death its a bit galling to see him go out as happy as larry. A bit more pain certainly wouldn't be a bad thing.

    I don't think people leave prison after a murder sentence 'happy as larry'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the whole ideology behind execution and whether it should be a painful torturous punishment or more like euthanasia depends on the justification behind it. Seeing that western legal practice doesn't adhere to the 'eye for an eye' system or revenge, rather it seeks justice, this implies that any death penalty would be for the greater justice of removing those individuals from society permanently rather than to appease and need for revenge on the victims behalf.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nah, it's all about revenge, in the West or elsewhere.

    Someone serving life without parole is permanently removed from society. Pro-death penalty Americans are the first ones to happily admit that that it's all about revenge and an eye for an eye.

    Of course, it makes them as bad as the murderer himself.

    Premeditation is a massively serious aggravating factor in a killing (in many cases making the difference between manslaughter and murder). That is because it demonstrates something that is beyond odious: the careful planning of wilfully ending the life of another human being.

    Well, it doesn't get much more premeditated than a state-sanctioned execution. From the legal process that allows it to the teams of specialists, experts and doctors employed to the task of building a device designed to kill a human being, the death penalty is the ultimate exponent of premeditated murder, and indeed the ultimate exercise in pure fucking evil.

    Let me change my previous statement. Nations that carry out the death penalty and those who execute the deed are not as bad as the people they execute- they're worse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Nah, it's all about revenge, in the West or elsewhere.

    Someone serving life without parole is permanently removed from society. Pro-death penalty Americans are the first ones to happily admit that that it's all about revenge and an eye for an eye.

    I also disagree with the death penalty, however it's legal supporters would argue that's the legitimate reason behind it. Every law / rule has to have not only the power and control to be enacted, but must also have the authority of legitimacy and, in general, have the people it's being enacted upon (the population, not those who suffer the death penalty) agree with it.

    In general people agree with it because they believe it's 'The Final Solution'. Speaking of which... lots of similarities actually... 'you can't be used in society, we shall euthanise you'. Evil is subjective of course, there is no evil without good - but personally I'd agree that execution is evil. Cold and calculated killing for in my eyes no reason other than bloodlust.

    I sometimes get the feeling that our American cousins aren't always as well informed - not that they're stupid by any means - but that there is more control on the flows of information over there, leading people to believe something in line with the ideas of those that control the flows of information.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not exactly surprised to see Michael Portillo, who has argued against the death penalty for much of his career, making a documentary attempting to prove that he's right. Still...
    Kermit wrote: »
    When you know the condemned has raped and tortured someone to death its a bit galling to see him go out as happy as larry. A bit more pain certainly wouldn't be a bad thing.
    You might be surprised by this, but I actually disagree. On one level, nothing would make me happier than switching on the TV, and listening to a reporter tell me that some mass murderer has just been put to death and suffered an excruciatingly painful and miserable death. But on the other, there is little point.

    That person's life is over - deliberately making a death painful would be more for show than anything else, and I wouldn't want to see that. Depending on how you look at it, that person will either have nothing more to look forward to, or will burn in hell for eternity. Also, it must be reserved strictly for those who have committed the most evil of crimes. I would not be in favour of any widespread use of the death penalty, I would not be in favour of public hangings or executions, and I am definitely not in favour of the way the USA does things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    The link doesn't work

    Really? It's working on my computer. Ah well, if you want to watch it, just go to the BBC iPlayer website and look at Tuesday's TV on channel 2.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    From the legal process that allows it to the teams of specialists, experts and doctors employed to the task of building a device designed to kill a human being, the death penalty is the ultimate exponent of premeditated murder, and indeed the ultimate exercise in pure fucking evil.
    Just to point out that doctors are never involved in the death penalty in America. It's against their oath. In fact on the documentary, the designer of the death penalty said that when he designed it, he never expected it to be administered by idiots (referring to reports of technicians being stupid enough to put the needle in facing the fingers rather than the body).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I'm not exactly surprised to see Michael Portillo, who has argued against the death penalty for much of his career, making a documentary attempting to prove that he's right.

    Well the documentary wasn't about whether the death penalty was right or wrong. In fact Portillo pointed out that in the 80's he voted for the death penalty, and voted against it in the 90's because of potential miscarriages of justice, rather than any moral reasoning. This is the main reason I am against it too, as was reinforced by the Scottish bloke who was just released from prison after 20 years, even though he had previously been hours away from lethal injection. The main argument of the programme was that if the state is going to kill someone, then it should always pick the method that causes the least amount of suffering. And I think the programme demonstrated that the existing methods of execution are in many cases comparible to torture, especially the gas chamber, the lethal injection and the electric chair.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm against the death penalty for three reasons:

    1. Life imprisonment is cheaper.
    2. The criminal justice system is far from infaillible- just ask the Birmingham Six. Whilst they lost most of their life because of bent coppers, at least they didn't lose all of it.
    3. Life imprisonment without parole is crueller- that's why Brady's spent the last 30 years trying to kill himself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Great programme. I'm more concerned about killing animals painlessly (for consumption) than criminals who committed murder/rape etc.

    I hope this method can be used to painlessly kill animals in slaughter houses. That is what the scientist was initially testing it for anyway. The pig didn't look like he was in pain when he went for that apple.
    Kermit wrote: »
    1. Life imprisonment is cheaper.
    How is it cheaper? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sanitize wrote: »
    How is it cheaper? :confused:

    Court costs.

    I think that it's actually less of an issue in slaughterhouses, because they can kill and animal in a way they could never kill a human because with a human, they have issues of gore, and muscle spasms, which they need to control. That's not an issue in a slaughterhouse because it doesn't matter how much blood ends up on the floor, or whether the body is kicking around for 20 seconds afterwards. In fact hanging would've been the perfect method if there wasn't the risk of the head coming off by having the drop too long.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I'm against the death penalty for three reasons:

    1. Life imprisonment is cheaper.
    2. The criminal justice system is far from infaillible- just ask the Birmingham Six. Whilst they lost most of their life because of bent coppers, at least they didn't lose all of it.
    3. Life imprisonment without parole is crueller- that's why Brady's spent the last 30 years trying to kill himself.

    Is the legal system supposed to be cruel and cause suffering though?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I'm against the death penalty for three reasons:

    1. Life imprisonment is cheaper.
    I don't think economic reasons can really be cited. I don't think it's acceptable to decide on the life or death of a human being based on whether what's cheaper. If the system changed and for whatever reason it became cheaper to kill them, would you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    1. Life imprisonment is cheaper.

    I'm not sure that's neccessarily true. It may bhe for the US where there are so many appeals, with expensive lawyers each time, that it can take twenty years to get someone to death row. But I imagine the Chinese method of a quick trial and then an 85p bullet is massively cheaper.
    2. The criminal justice system is far from infaillible- just ask the Birmingham Six. Whilst they lost most of their life because of bent coppers, at least they didn't lose all of it.
    3. Life imprisonment without parole is crueller- that's why Brady's spent the last 30 years trying to kill himself

    Agree
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote: »
    I don't think economic reasons can really be cited. I don't think it's acceptable to decide on the life or death of a human being based on whether what's cheaper. If the system changed and for whatever reason it became cheaper to kill them, would you?

    I wouldn't decide to kill them solely on cost, no, but if the second point about miscarriages of justice could be sorted out then I'd have no problems with it.

    I don't think there's anything morally wrong about killing someone who murdered someone or raped a child. It's all about the practicalities. At the minute it costs more and we can't be 100% certain that they did it.

    I still think that life imprisonment is better because its a lot harder for the inmate to deal with. And when we're dealing with people who have raped, tortured and murdered, then yes, that sort of cruelty SHOULD be part of the criminal justice system.

    IMHO you lose any human rights the second you decide to rape or murder someone. Should the killers of Mr Newlove be treated humanely? Should they balls. They should be locked up for the rest of their life without possibility of parole.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    IMHO you lose any human rights the second you decide to rape or murder someone. Should the killers of Mr Newlove be treated humanely? Should they balls. They should be locked up for the rest of their life without possibility of parole.
    You can do that and still treat them humanely.

    Or you could treat them inhumanely and apply electrodes to their genitals regularly and give them beatings and burns, amongst other things.

    But make no mistake whatsoever that if you allowed the latter to happen, you would be as bad (or actually worse) than them, no matter how henious their crimes might have been.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    1. Life imprisonment is cheaper.
    Only because of the endless appeals that take place. You get rid of those, or severely limit how many appeals they can make, costs will soon plummet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Only because of the endless appeals that take place. You get rid of those, or severely limit how many appeals they can make, costs will soon plummet.

    What the hell, do away with the trial altogether and we could save a packet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    What the hell, do away with the trial altogether and we could save a packet.
    :rolleyes: You know what I mean. Look at the USA. You've got these people who were found guilty in court of these heinous crimes. They then spend the next 20 years or so on death row, making appeal after appeal after appeal. Eventually, someone decides to let them go.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    :rolleyes: You know what I mean. Look at the USA. You've got these people who were found guilty in court of these heinous crimes. They then spend the next 20 years or so on death row, making appeal after appeal after appeal. Eventually, someone decides to let them go.
    Yes, almost invariably on the basis that they turned out to be innocent after all.

    Something that would be rather difficult to prove (not to mention pointless) if you are executed shortly after you're convicted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Something that would be rather difficult to prove (not to mention pointless) if you are executed shortly after you're convicted.
    Which is why I say I wouldn't be in favour of the death penalty being used extensively. It should only be used for the most horrific of crimes and the conviction has to be absolutely solid. Realistically, the number executed per year probably would be in single figures. Also, if someone has mental health problems, they should never be executed. They should be in a mental hospital being treated, not put to death.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    :rolleyes: You know what I mean. Look at the USA. You've got these people who were found guilty in court of these heinous crimes. They then spend the next 20 years or so on death row, making appeal after appeal after appeal. Eventually, someone decides to let them go.

    The only thing we should be learning from the US is that harsh prison terms and treating prisoners like shite doesnt do any good in the long run.

    If you only want to execute a few prisoners a year, why bother at all? What actually do we gain?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But why should anyone be put to death at all? What purpose could that possibly serve? :confused:
Sign In or Register to comment.