Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.
I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.
To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.
I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.
I apologise if the wording of my question offended you H. The simple fact is that released murders have killed far more innocent people than the number of wrongly convicted people who have been put to death.
Agreed sentencing them to a full 'life' sentence cuts down that risk but it does not eliminate it, prison guards, visitors, other inmates have all been murdered by convicted murderers. Innocent people have also been killed by escaped murderers.
If only you could just execute the people that are definitely guilty. We are just really, really bad at sentencing full stop. That doctor in the US, got 175 years on top of the 60 he is currently serving. That's a proper sentence. We let them out in less than 10 years.
If only you could just execute the people that are definitely guilty. We are just really, really bad at sentencing full stop. That doctor in the US, got 175 years on top of the 60 he is currently serving. That's a proper sentence. We let them out in less than 10 years.
Not sure I buy that, Tony.
Johnny Martorano (aka The Executioner aka The Basin Street Butcher), a member of Jimmy Bulger's Winter Hill Gang in Boston, Mass, admitted 19 murders, was sentenced to 12 years & was out in 8.
I stand corrected. I am not sure what the powers that be think what public opinion is in respect of this type of sentencing. They have other controversial sentencing policies, like three strikes, and seem to release a disproportionate number of death row prisoners who are later cleared.
I stand corrected. I am not sure what the powers that be think what public opinion is in respect of this type of sentencing. They have other controversial sentencing policies, like three strikes, and seem to release a disproportionate number of death row prisoners who are later cleared.
It's inconsistent everywhere, that's the point.
And that's probably a good thing. Every case is different.
I think that most people would be much happier with "Ronseal" sentences. They should be exactly as it says on the tin and not discounted. Good behaviour should mean getting out on time, and misbehaving should mean added time.
Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.
I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.
To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.
I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.
I apologise if the wording of my question offended you H. The simple fact is that released murders have killed far more innocent people than the number of wrongly convicted people who have been put to death.
Agreed sentencing them to a full 'life' sentence cuts down that risk but it does not eliminate it, prison guards, visitors, other inmates have all been murdered by convicted murderers. Innocent people have also been killed by escaped murderers.
You got any statistics to back this up?
No, sorry no statistics. I did once read a very interesting, if disturbing, book on serial killers which is probably where I formed the view that it would be safer if they were given a lethal injection. Unfortunately I think we gave the book to a charity book shop a while ago as I can no longer find it. Here's a few examples though:-
I stand corrected. I am not sure what the powers that be think what public opinion is in respect of this type of sentencing. They have other controversial sentencing policies, like three strikes, and seem to release a disproportionate number of death row prisoners who are later cleared.
It's inconsistent everywhere, that's the point.
And that's probably a good thing. Every case is different.
I would disagree, if we are talking murder, in this country the mandatory penalty is a life sentence. However the judge must specify the minimum sentence, and this is where the perceived unfairness occurs. In the USA the first degree murder penalty in many states is life without parole or death. depending on which State, or if there are other factors involved, like a hate crime, or murder for hire. Obviously 2nd and 3rd degree carry more lenient sentences. In some cases which appear to be murder at first glance may involve mitigating circumstances, which may involve the pursuance of a lesser charge, and result in a lesser sentence. Your American example was given a lesser sentence as a result of a plea bargain, where he grassed up, and testified against his colleagues. In my view, if you take a life, you should get a life sentence, which should mean life.
Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.
I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.
To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.
I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.
I apologise if the wording of my question offended you H. The simple fact is that released murders have killed far more innocent people than the number of wrongly convicted people who have been put to death.
Agreed sentencing them to a full 'life' sentence cuts down that risk but it does not eliminate it, prison guards, visitors, other inmates have all been murdered by convicted murderers. Innocent people have also been killed by escaped murderers.
You got any statistics to back this up?
No, sorry no statistics. I did once read a very interesting, if disturbing, book on serial killers which is probably where I formed the view that it would be safer if they were given a lethal injection. Unfortunately I think we gave the book to a charity book shop a while ago as I can no longer find it. Here's a few examples though:-
Great debate and something I have wanted to weigh in on but have not had the time to do so until now.
I have studied, thought about and am now teaching sociology, psychology and some aspects of criminology etc so this is of particular interest to me.
IMO you need to consider a couple of points first...
* What do we want the prison system to do? Punish or reform? * To decide the above I feel you have to consider if these people are inherently evil.
So can people be inherently evil?
I would say without doubt that this could be the case. This article refers to a study which suggests that several mental disorders have a genetic basis. Now I am not saying that all of these disorders mean people are likely to go on a killing spree. However, if these are largely genetic then it seems reasonable to assume that some mental disorders, which may result in people being more likely to commit crimes such as murder, may also have a significant basis in genetics.
With that considered, it is probably important to mention that plenty of mental disorders will not stem from genetics or at least genetics will not be as significant of a factor.
Obviously some people who commit crimes such as murder do not have any heredity mental disorders. So what is driving them to commit these crimes? If there is no genetic explanation then it must surely be their socialisation process that has gone awry? I.e. their experience in society has shaped them to become capable of such crimes. This assumption lends itself to the 'Tabula Rasa' theory proposed by John Locke which suggests that we are all born as blank canvases/slates and are simply shaped to become who we are via our experiences in society.
So lets take the first example and say someone has committed these crimes as a result of their genetics...
Are we going to kill people because of their genetics? That is a serious question. There are points for and against this path but it skates into very dangerous territory and any supporters of this method risk being considered alongside some pretty heinous individuals from history. I mean what do some dog breeders do when they want overly aggressive or overly nice dogs? They breed the traits in or out by discarding the dogs/genes they do not want.
To take the other example... If we assume people commit these crimes as a result of their socialisation, are we going to kill them because of their socialisation process which, like their genetic makeup, may have been something largely outside of their control?
To delve deeper into this point... If you hypothetically take 200 examples of yourself and have 100 of them growing up in a privileged environment with plenty of money, love and support and the other 100 growing up in the roughest areas imaginable with lots of gang culture, exposure to drugs and family environments rife with abuse... Which group of 100 do you think would produce more individuals capable of murder? I would bet it would be the 2nd example. So, in that scenario, who is responsible? Is the individual responsible because they grew up in a hideous environment?
Although I feel the obvious answer is that people become who they are due to a mixture of 'nature and nurture'. I think personally that the above 2 examples suggest that people are less personally responsible for what they do than what we might at first think to be the case. Therefore, I would side away from holding someone so responsible for their actions that they are executed.
Now it is quite easy to come to the conclusion if you agree with the above that people are neither evil or good but rather a product of either their genetics and/or their environment/socialisation. This could lead to the reasoning that we should not be punishing people, maybe attempting to reform them, but not punishing them. However, this would send a message out to society that this type of behaviour is to some extent socially acceptable or at least tolerated. This would likely result in the number of people being murdered rising and possibly the breakdown of society.
For this reason I would suggest that the prison system should set out to strike a balance between punishment (to reinforce social norms) and reform, a balance that IMO should fall way short of capital punishment.
Brilliant post Mark. I fully agree that in the vast majority of cases it would be better to try and reform offenders rather than just punish them, unfortunately that's highly unlikely to happen though due to prison overcrowding and cost. For me the death penalty should be there as the ultimate deterrent and only used in very extreme cases.
I fully appreciate that there have been wrongful executions in the UK, in the 1950's. I would hope that the quality of police investigations and the thoroughness of the judiciary process and appeals process are all far better now than they were then.
Against.to many cases in Glasgow alone of people being wrongly convicted of murders.and sentenced to years in prison. Lot of it was down to police just trying to get a result/or fitting people up.
As this thread debates capital punishment, maybe worth reminding ourselves that on this day in 2000, Dr Harold Shipman was found guilty of the murder of 15 of his patients.
It later emerged that he had murdered at least 218, possibly as many as 250, 80% of whom were elderly women.
As this thread debates capital punishment, maybe worth reminding ourselves that on this day in 2000, Dr Harold Shipman was found guilty of the murder of 15 of his patients.
It later emerged that he had murdered at least 218, possibly as many as 250, 80% of whom were elderly women.
Hideous man and a doctor at that at least he had the decency to top himself
Regards Marky's question, reform or punish. If we keep the status quo i.e. no capital punishment then life should mean life, therefore no need for reform as the murderer will not be released back into society and can be kept locked up as cheaply as possible. Mark also raises the interesting question of nature v nurture. I personally think that some people are just plain evil and whether they come from a sink estate or some leafy suburb is irrelevant. Also, having views slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, I would be in favour of the return of capital punishment for any premeditated murder but would introduce lesser charges (2nd / 3rd degree would suffice) for crimes of passion etc.
I personally think that some people are just plain evil and whether they come from a sink estate or some leafy suburb is irrelevant.
The evidence really doesn't support this position at all. At least as much as I can remember from looking at relevant studies.
For example this study [link] makes the distinction I hinted at above...
Murderers who commit these crimes but are from "good" homes tend to have brain activity distinct from those from "abusive" backgrounds. This suggests that those who commit these crimes but come from "good" backgrounds have a different neurobiological makeup. It further suggests that those from "abusive" backgrounds are being shaped to behave this way as a result of their socialisation process.
I doubt I would have trouble linking a lot of studies which have similar findings.
In light of this I just see capital punishment as punishing people for either their biology or the environment they were born into or a mix of these. These are things outwith the individual's control.
Having said that, I do think there should be some form of punishment, as mentioned earlier. There has to be social control to act as a deterrent for this type of behaviour otherwise more people with these predispositions would act upon their urges.
Comments
We are just really, really bad at sentencing full stop. That doctor in the US, got 175 years on top of the 60 he is currently serving. That's a proper sentence. We let them out in less than 10 years.
Johnny Martorano (aka The Executioner aka The Basin Street Butcher), a member of Jimmy Bulger's Winter Hill Gang in Boston, Mass, admitted 19 murders, was sentenced to 12 years & was out in 8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Martorano
They have other controversial sentencing policies, like three strikes, and seem to release a disproportionate number of death row prisoners who are later cleared.
And that's probably a good thing. Every case is different.
Good behaviour should mean getting out on time, and misbehaving should mean added time.
Convicted murderer stabs to death prison guard
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089951/Female-prison-guard-stabbed-death-convicted-murderer-investigating-report-contraband-SHOES.html
Escaped murderer murders again
https://tribune.com.pk/story/117709/escaped-murderer-kills-again-rivals-respond-in-kind/
Convicted murderer murders 3 other inmates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maudsley
Another murderer who murdered whilst in Broadmoor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bryan
Prison visitor (his wife) killed by convicted murderer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/wife-killed-on-prison-visit-1506497.html
In the USA the first degree murder penalty in many states is life without parole or death. depending on which State, or if there are other factors involved, like a hate crime, or murder for hire. Obviously 2nd and 3rd degree carry more lenient sentences.
In some cases which appear to be murder at first glance may involve mitigating circumstances, which may involve the pursuance of a lesser charge, and result in a lesser sentence.
Your American example was given a lesser sentence as a result of a plea bargain, where he grassed up, and testified against his colleagues.
In my view, if you take a life, you should get a life sentence, which should mean life.
I have studied, thought about and am now teaching sociology, psychology and some aspects of criminology etc so this is of particular interest to me.
IMO you need to consider a couple of points first...
* What do we want the prison system to do? Punish or reform?
* To decide the above I feel you have to consider if these people are inherently evil.
So can people be inherently evil?
I would say without doubt that this could be the case. This article refers to a study which suggests that several mental disorders have a genetic basis. Now I am not saying that all of these disorders mean people are likely to go on a killing spree. However, if these are largely genetic then it seems reasonable to assume that some mental disorders, which may result in people being more likely to commit crimes such as murder, may also have a significant basis in genetics.
With that considered, it is probably important to mention that plenty of mental disorders will not stem from genetics or at least genetics will not be as significant of a factor.
Obviously some people who commit crimes such as murder do not have any heredity mental disorders. So what is driving them to commit these crimes? If there is no genetic explanation then it must surely be their socialisation process that has gone awry? I.e. their experience in society has shaped them to become capable of such crimes. This assumption lends itself to the 'Tabula Rasa' theory proposed by John Locke which suggests that we are all born as blank canvases/slates and are simply shaped to become who we are via our experiences in society.
So lets take the first example and say someone has committed these crimes as a result of their genetics...
Are we going to kill people because of their genetics? That is a serious question. There are points for and against this path but it skates into very dangerous territory and any supporters of this method risk being considered alongside some pretty heinous individuals from history. I mean what do some dog breeders do when they want overly aggressive or overly nice dogs? They breed the traits in or out by discarding the dogs/genes they do not want.
To take the other example... If we assume people commit these crimes as a result of their socialisation, are we going to kill them because of their socialisation process which, like their genetic makeup, may have been something largely outside of their control?
To delve deeper into this point... If you hypothetically take 200 examples of yourself and have 100 of them growing up in a privileged environment with plenty of money, love and support and the other 100 growing up in the roughest areas imaginable with lots of gang culture, exposure to drugs and family environments rife with abuse... Which group of 100 do you think would produce more individuals capable of murder? I would bet it would be the 2nd example. So, in that scenario, who is responsible? Is the individual responsible because they grew up in a hideous environment?
Although I feel the obvious answer is that people become who they are due to a mixture of 'nature and nurture'. I think personally that the above 2 examples suggest that people are less personally responsible for what they do than what we might at first think to be the case. Therefore, I would side away from holding someone so responsible for their actions that they are executed.
Now it is quite easy to come to the conclusion if you agree with the above that people are neither evil or good but rather a product of either their genetics and/or their environment/socialisation. This could lead to the reasoning that we should not be punishing people, maybe attempting to reform them, but not punishing them. However, this would send a message out to society that this type of behaviour is to some extent socially acceptable or at least tolerated. This would likely result in the number of people being murdered rising and possibly the breakdown of society.
For this reason I would suggest that the prison system should set out to strike a balance between punishment (to reinforce social norms) and reform, a balance that IMO should fall way short of capital punishment.
I fully appreciate that there have been wrongful executions in the UK, in the 1950's. I would hope that the quality of police investigations and the thoroughness of the judiciary process and appeals process are all far better now than they were then.
Lot of it was down to police just trying to get a result/or fitting people up.
As this thread debates capital punishment, maybe worth reminding ourselves that on this day in 2000, Dr Harold Shipman was found guilty of the murder of 15 of his patients.
It later emerged that he had murdered at least 218, possibly as many as 250, 80% of whom were elderly women.
Mark also raises the interesting question of nature v nurture. I personally think that some people are just plain evil and whether they come from a sink estate or some leafy suburb is irrelevant.
Also, having views slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, I would be in favour of the return of capital punishment for any premeditated murder but would introduce lesser charges (2nd / 3rd degree would suffice) for crimes of passion etc.
For example this study [link] makes the distinction I hinted at above...
Murderers who commit these crimes but are from "good" homes tend to have brain activity distinct from those from "abusive" backgrounds. This suggests that those who commit these crimes but come from "good" backgrounds have a different neurobiological makeup. It further suggests that those from "abusive" backgrounds are being shaped to behave this way as a result of their socialisation process.
I doubt I would have trouble linking a lot of studies which have similar findings.
In light of this I just see capital punishment as punishing people for either their biology or the environment they were born into or a mix of these. These are things outwith the individual's control.
Having said that, I do think there should be some form of punishment, as mentioned earlier. There has to be social control to act as a deterrent for this type of behaviour otherwise more people with these predispositions would act upon their urges.
(+1 for me, Hunted is owning the 9pm slot in my gaff)
p.s. loving Hunted, just found US version on youtube but haven't watched it yet.
Will have to check out the US version.