Death penalty for murder

There seems to be no way of dealing with these low lifes without lowering ourselves to their level. I do think though, that our society has bent too far backwards to make allowances, give them the benefit of the doubt, feel sorry for them rather than seeing these people for what they now and the damage they inflict on their hapless victims. They have too many rights.

We have rather a lot of prisons in Durham and we have had some nasty pieces of work incarcerated here . Sadly it costs to keep people and they are very aware of what they are entitled to. There was a jokey comparison of life in prison as against the hell holes that some senior citizens are obliged to live in (care homes) but it wasn't very funny. I do think life should be life and however well behaved prisoners are they should serve their sentence. I hate reading about criminal acts which would not have happened if X had not been let out five years early for " good behaviour"

NfkDumpling Regardless of the ethical issues, the death penalty has turned out to be the least practical solution - in the USA it costs far more than a life sentence, because of all the appeals etc. Sometimes they are on death row for more than 20 years. Killing them asap is impractical too, as it is too late if they turn out to be innocent. And of course the authorities lose the moral high ground: showing it is wrong to kill, by killing, hardly seems logical.

I think useful, necessary work, or production work of some kind, is best. I read about prisoners working as hand knitters for a fashion house in South America. Three days of knitting knocks one day off their sentence. Posh prisoners in England teach other inmates to read and write, or voice audio books: their abilities are put to good use.

Nelliemoser - I have no problem with prisoners watching TV but I do have a problem with them watching SKY TV and Sky Sport. I would love to be able to afford to watch these programmes.
I agree it would be counter productive to remove TV altogether as many of them cannot read so have no other way of passing the time.
I am aware that the stitching of mailbags is a thing of the past but there must be some other job, equally soul destroying but which may be of use to a company outside.

It really is a problem - perhaps, in practical terms, the death penalty would be the solution of last resort.

In the absence of any or enough constructive rehabilitation, useful employment or education and training, sticking prisoners in front of televisions probably saves a lot of prison violence and rioting. It must reduce total boredom which would otherwise develop into real trouble.
In the long run it is probably the cheap option for helping prison security. It would be very counter productive to stop that.
Like sticking kids in front of televisions to stop them being a nuisance.
Its the persistent peodophiles, wife beaters and murderers etc they let out at all or far too soon that worry me most.

"Extra time should be added for poor behaviour." Yes, fine in theory, but there would soon reach a point where a prisoner realised he or she was never going to get out, so the bad behaviour would become even worse...

Chain gangs could litter pick on motorways. Soul destroying!

The death penalty is too easy. A brutal murderer should be locked away and forgotten.

I do see a problem with life meaning life. If life meant the rest of the person's natural life he/she/it would be very hard to handle in prison. But 15 years is not nearly long enough, not by a long chalk - 50 more like.

And I think that giving time off for good behaviour is the wrong way around. Good behaviour should be expected. Extra time should be added for poor behaviour.

Yes Charley, I did mean to add that these people should be put to work of some sort, I know years ago they used to sew mail bags. But again work can also be enjoyable, so not sure how that would be implemented.

Pam, that is awful and it is your life sentence in a way as it is something that you cannot ever forget.
In my youth I was part of the "hang em and flog em" brigade but there were so many miscarriages of justice that I changed my mind totally. I do agree with Thistledoo and I do not think that they should be allowed flat screen TVs etc. At least Sky has been removed.
I am aware that it is not very practical but heavy labour would keep many out of mischief.
Life should mean life.

Pam I absolutely agree with you. Life should mean life, and not a life of luxury with flat screen TV etc. Lets send all these people to America where life means just that. We dont need the death penalty, just whole life imprisonment. [hugs]

I think the sentence passed down to Hazell has at least made sure his "life" will be effectively be spent in prison. At 75 he will have nothing and no-one (which he deserves ) and the world will be a very different place if/when he leaves prison. I think that this was a fair and realistic sentence for the horrific thing he did. I don't think as a child murderer he will have an easy ride in prison either.

pam losing a child is the worst that can happen to any mother.
Stuart Hazell has received a minimum sentence of 38 years, as he is only 37 that means he could be out when he is 75. I'm wondering if that is long enough?

Oh pam how awful for you , I am truly sorry. It must seem like a real kick in the teeth to learn that your darling sons life was only worth 15 years. I absolutely agree with you about the death penalty and miscarriages of justice and think that given what has happened to you, you obviously have a very generous spirit. I also think that taking the life of someone who took a life is a bit sick and almost saying that this makes everything equal (which it doesn't) your poor son would still be dead. Having said that I do not think 15 years is anywhere a long enough sentence for someone who has taken a life in the circumstances you describe (an unprovoked attack). I am not sure what the answer is (definitely longer more appropriate sentence) but the death penalty? Definitely not.

Like most of us. I agree that the death penalty is an appalling thing that does not belong in a civilised society, nor anywhere, actually. It is not a preventative measure: there are as many, if not more murders where it still exists, and juries can be afraid to convict it the death penalty is there.

But I do agree that sometimes life should be life - 'at her Majesty's pleasure' is the expression used, I believe. Of course, for most prisoners, there has to be some remission of sentence for good behaviour, or prisons would be ungovernable. But this should be around 10 to 20%, not half the sentence.

That creature who murdered Tia should not be out until he is an old man, IF he survives that long.

I do agree that a life sentence should be much longer than it seems to be at present. If it is not going to be for life then it should not be called "life."

The whole business of sentences being reduced is frankly daft - if the judge says life it should be life; if he/she says 30 years then that is what it should be. Of course people feel remorse in prison - that does not mean they should not serve the whole sentence.

Pam - how angry you must feel - 15 years is not enough for your son's life. But I do admire that you do not want to bring back the death penalty - that takes some courage.

And life should mean life. No arguments, no ifs and buts.

Pam I remember the last time you talked about this . Murder imposes a life sentence on the loved ones of the person who has lost their life, so why shouldn't the murderer have to stay in prison for their life?

Oh Pam. You may have mentioned this before but we can't read all the threads these days.
Killing people is wrong. Even if the state does the killing.

Bringing back the death penalty will never happen. It would be a step back to the dark ages.

I concurr!

OH, pam!! x (Not a lot of use, but a gesture of affection)

But I agree with you - a death penalty is never right. It reduces us, as human beings, to the level of the killers. And it achieves nothing in terms of justice. They should pay, of course, and pay dearly, and what you suggest is probably the best way.

I know I have mentioned this before and sorry for repeating myself, but my son was murdered 19 years ago and I know I did not want the death penalty for this person(I use this term loosely) what I wanted for my son was justice and no, I did not get this, because he served 15years of a "life" sentence and is now out of prison, enjoying his life. Am I angry? too right I am!! But, I wanted him to go to prison for the rest of his life and it be a punishment for what he did. In our case our son was subjected to an unprovoked attack and I did not recognise him after what happened to him.(He was my son so of course I knew it was him,just not from his face at the hospital) I agree with ninny life sentence should mean just that. Whether it is a child, a policeman or whoever, all life is precious and when it is taken away by someone they should pay with their freedom. I think parts of America have it right when they deliver sentences of 90 years etc. We are sometimes too lenient but I still would not like to see the return of capitol punishment as we have seen miscarriages of justice occur and at least you can let someone out of prison if this happens, but if you execute them well.......

I think premeditated child and police murderers should get the death penalty but unfortunately it is never going to happen. A life sentence should be just that, they should remain in prision until they die.