Yesterday a bloke was found guilty of the murder of a young girl back in the 90's after being found guilty of the murder of another young woman a couple of years ago. He has received two life sentences and , it said on the news,"will die in prison"

So

What is the point of his existence? It would surely make economic sense to terminate his life and may also give the families concerned a sense of justice if he was gallowed.

I can think of a few more where we could save a few quid

Maybe he does deserve to die,but we cant have a death sentence.

The point is we don't do barbary any more. We leave that to the murderers and try to show that we are a little bit better than that.

I don't see why that is so hard for some people to understand.

My thoughts exactly.

Is it that simple though?

I wonder if the family of the girl in question feel the same way, in a chin stroking kinda way??

Of course they don't, and I wouldn't if it was a member of my family. But Mr Head's point is still perfectly valid.

It's not though. It's a bleeding heart brigade doctrine.

they keep 'em on death row for years in the States - there's more than ample oppoortunity for new evidence to come to light - but when it's nailed on cast iron 100% definite they've got their man (or woman) then depending on the the nature of the crime, a lot of these twats need to die (come on, can anyone seriously give me a reason for keeping Dennis Nielsen alive? This is the type of crime I'm on about)
Categories would have to be proven, and given a score. Once that score is above a certain point, then it's curtains for whoever did it. There could even be a blurring point, so there's not such a clean cut off - to either re-examine the case again with regards to sentencing, or else let the culprit off with a life sentence.

there's always a lot more other factors to take into account. The way the country is monitored these days, I would imagine it's quite easy to show you weren't at the scene of any crime, but regardless it's the nature of the crime. For mass murderers who kill for kicks, that is definitely one I'd execute the bastards. It would be very hard to convict, let's say me, by placing my DNA everywhere at half a dozen murder scenes but have no other evidence linking me to the crime .
A robbery gone wrong with someone getting shot might carry a life sentence, because the intention wasn't definitely to kill someone. The categories would be important.
I challenge anybody to say mass murderers and child rapists/killers should not die, and give me a satisfactory reason as to why they should not

Concurring.

Ian Huntley. should be stoned to death never mind quick death. that is for one.

peadophiles who admit that they have a problem. kill them. stop wasting tax payers money to try and rehabilitate them. they wont change.

Suppose we did have a justice system where people were executed for certain crimes. How would you run it? Who would decide who would cop it and who wouldn't?

Leaving aside the atrocity factor for a minute, the crimes that arouse public condemnation are usually the ones where, when it comes down to it, very few victims involved, sometimes only one victim. But what about the case of Margaret Thatcher who, whatever her supporters say, was responsible for untold misery and loss of life by her policies. This is supposed to be justifiable be the 'fact' that Labour left the country in an economic mess??
Dangerous ground, I'd say

like everything else, it would have to be decided upon and ratified by people such as MP's, people in the judicial system, civil servants, as well as high standing members of the public. You would have a cross section, but it would have to be accepted that the death sentence is definitely on the table for the people I described. There would need to be a public referendum first - and we all know what the outcome of that would be. If people are fit to vote to elect a government, they are fit to vote on an issue such as this. It would be a one-off, because ultimately it's such a radical thing to vote on. Governements don't like allowing these things though, because they take their mandate to govern from the election process and can't go too far down that road. However this is something that should be put out there.
I only see it as dangerous ground for those who are guilty of these crimes

It'll never happen though - so you've won.

Huge level of toss.

I can only assume that you are on a wind up.

No, what I meant by dangerous ground is that people who are guilty of,say, political crimes, as Margaret Thatcher was in many people's eyes, are let off the hook, whereas the 'lesser' criminals excite public anger/horror. If you don't agree with me that Thatcher was criminal, that only goes to show there'll never be consensus about this sort of thing.

In exactly the same way, 'dole fraudsters' are relentlessly hunted down and punished, while multi-millionaires whose little dodges are far more of a drain on the economy, are allowed to do what they like.

You'll have to do better than that I'm afraid
As you make this sort of emotional response every time someone differs from your point of view, you'll have to excuse me from replying.

But you get people like that Lord Longford and that other bloody woman trying to get them released because they have served long enough ( Hindley and Brady ).

Ms Flo, we may not always see eye to eye on things, but I had you down as being a lot more intelligent than to make ridiculous statements like that unless you really are on a wind up, hence why I didn't "bite" or burst out laughing.

I fail to see how Government policy causing someone to commit suicide or murder through desperate situations, can be compared to a psycho like Dennis Nielsen. It is different. They are different. Thatcher, whether she was a bastard or not, did not intend to do that. People who committed suicide were that way inclined anyway when the going got tough, people who killed in the heat of the moment will regret that for the rest of their lives and should serve life sentences.That brings us back nicely to the categorisation. Nielsen DID intend to kill those people that he did. Nielsen should be snuffed out without delay!!!!
It's crystal clear to me. I don't see it your way at all.

Sorry Richard its hard for me to understand, kill em get rid of em ! when you say We dont do barbary who's We? its not me for sure and when someone when gets a poxy sentence for commiting a crime that in my and many others opinion is worthy of the death penalty, and then is released and commits the same crime again, where does that leave WE? we are guilty arnt we..................bollox im drunk cant make me point.........

I get you. You don't want to be lumped in as "we" with the do-gooders and apologists.

Ta Ripper

I know you don't; as I said there's no consensus!

I'm not arguing that Nielson isn't a criminal. I'm arguing that other people are criminals also but aren't necessarily labelled as such. Therefore, by your criteria, some criminals are going to be executed while others escape any punishment at all. But we're talking about justice, si that can't be right.
As for Thatcher, she was PM and therefore morally bound to do her best for all sections of society. In fact, she disregarded whole swathes of society, and let them go to the wall, quite deliberately because she thought they weren't important. Nothing to do with suicides...it's to do with destroying lives in slower ways