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 ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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.
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
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.
I don't think people leave prison after a murder sentence 'happy as larry'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How is it cheaper?
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.
Is the legal system supposed to be cruel and cause suffering though?
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.
Agree
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.
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.
What the hell, do away with the trial altogether and we could save a packet.
Something that would be rather difficult to prove (not to mention pointless) if you are executed shortly after you're convicted.
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?