On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep
the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from
becoming victims

Janet wrote:
In article , lid says...

Nick Maclaren wrote:

I don't normally post on this sort of thing, so shall not continue.
The reasons that it is so barbaric is that the majority of people
on death row never had a chance - not just the (deliberate)
deprivation of their childhood, but they didn't get fair trials
(due to race prejudice, not being defended properly and more), and
quite often are mentally subnormal or were sentenced for a crime
committed when they were children. In a few cases, they have been
killed despite evidence having appeared between conviction and
prosecution showing that they almost certainly were NOT guilty.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I really think that you live on another planet other than earth with
a statement like that.

Then you are disregarding the ample research evidence of death row in
the USA, and (previously) in the UK. The proven miscarriages of
justice for reasons Nick refers to, were a major factor in abolishing
the death penalty in the UK.

Janet

Janet,

I stand by that statement unreservedly - and find the cutting of my post the
way you have a little naughty!

And to respond to your statement, as always in life, there will be errors
and no amount of law passing will ever eradicate that.

Now did you not read the bit in my posts where I state that I am not an
advocate of the death sentence, but I do believe in the harshest possible
punishment for all convicted prisoners - don't you?

And I was around in 1965 when the abolition of the death penalty was enacted
and read all the arguments for and against that were available then in the
press (and that was a time when the media usually printed the truth and
without all the misleading headlines of today - you could even find a 'bobby
on the beat' then and trust him not to 'stitch you up' just to get your
fingerprints on file [the use of DNA in criminal investigations was unknown
then])

"Fuschia" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep
the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from
becoming victims

So does hanging. They never reoffend.

Steve

On 2014-04-28 09:18:57 +0000, Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0100, "shazzbat"
wrote:



"Fuschia" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep
the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from
becoming victims

So does hanging. They never reoffend.

Innocent people have been hanged, just as innocent people have been released
after serving long prison sentences.

And guilty people have gone free. But while I do realise it's not 100%
infallible DNA profiling has altered enormously the chances of a
serious miscarriage of justice.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

And guilty people have gone free. But while I do realise it's not 100%
infallible DNA profiling has altered enormously the chances of a
serious miscarriage of justice.

That is claimed, but it is not true. When as staid an organisation
as the Royal Statistical Society attempts to join a case as Amicus
Curiae (and is rebuffed), you know that something is wrong. There
are more recent cases, too, involving other ways in which it can
lead to innocent people being convicted. It has changed the chances
more by convicting people who would previously have been acquitted
than in changing the relative risks of false conviction or acquittal.

I could explain those issues in more detail, but it's very off-group,
and I have no desire to encourage our troll camp followers.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 28/04/14 11:02, Sacha wrote:
On 2014-04-28 09:18:57 +0000, Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0100, "shazzbat"
wrote:



"Fuschia" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep
the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from
becoming victims

So does hanging. They never reoffend.

Innocent people have been hanged, just as innocent people have been released
after serving long prison sentences.

And guilty people have gone free. But while I do realise it's not 100% infallible DNA profiling has altered enormously the chances of a serious miscarriage of justice.

It most certainly is not infallible, particularly if the
"advanced" techniques for small samples are used. Basically
cross-contamination is a /real/ /practical/ problem.

A dead person commits murder:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26324244
cross contamination in the autopsy room.

And there was another case (in Colorado?) where police got
a good DNA sample but refused to arrest the murderer. Very
reasonable since, at the time of the murder, he was
unconscious in a hospital ER room. Cross contamination was
via the paramedic that attended both cases.

"Martin" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0100, "shazzbat"
wrote:



"Fuschia" wrote in message
.. .

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep
the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from
becoming victims

So does hanging. They never reoffend.

Innocent people have been hanged, just as innocent people have been released
after serving long prison sentences.

And innocent people are being murdered by people who know that effectively
they'll get away with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638

Steve

I feel that prison should be a deterrent.

How better than to outsource our prisons, as we have done with call
centres, industry etc..
I'm sure that Mr Mugabe would house our long term prisoners for a lot
less than the £30'000+ per head that it costs us now, and it would fit
in well with the Governments policy of cutting costs where ever they
can. And being sent out to Zimbabwe to serve your sentence would be a
real deterrent.
I think it's criminal (sorry) that the allowance for food for a person
in prison is around twice that for a person in hospital.

In article ,
says...

And innocent people are being murdered by people who know that effectively
they'll get away with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638

In what sense has that 15 yr old killer " effectively got away with
it"? He was arrested and is in police custody. The murder of teacher
Philip Lawrence (mentioned in report) would hardly make him to think a
15 yr old can "get away with murdering a teacher" since that killer was
also caught and convicted.


Janet.

"Janet" wrote in message
t...

In article ,
says...

And innocent people are being murdered by people who know that effectively
they'll get away with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638

In what sense has that 15 yr old killer " effectively got away with
it"? He was arrested and is in police custody. The murder of teacher
Philip Lawrence (mentioned in report) would hardly make him to think a
15 yr old can "get away with murdering a teacher" since that killer was
also caught and convicted.


You know as well as I do that the liberalist criminals friends will even now
be lining up to claim he's had a deprived childhood/it wasn't his fault/ he
was provoked/it was peer pressure/he's got a syndrome etc etc, the list is
endless. He'll get a light sentence because of his age, he'll get all the
computer games his heart desires, he'll get time off as well for "good
behaviour", he'll then get shedloads of our money spent on him to keep his
expensive new identity a secret and ensure he never has to take the risk of
doing any work or suffer any deprivations. He'll probably be out by the time
he's 30, having "paid his debt to society". His other victims of course, the
relatives of the teacher he murdered, will never see an end to their
sentence. So from their perspective he will have got away with it. Quite
frankly I'd hang the little abstrad in front of school assembly tomorrow
morning.

Steve

"Martin" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:25:24 +0100, "shazzbat"
wrote:



"Martin" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0100, "shazzbat"
wrote:



"Fuschia" wrote in message
. ..

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:08:04 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
says...

No, I don't think it's right but I do think that human nature being
what it is, a punishment really must fit the crime. Whether that
punishment is losing one's own life if found to be a murderer, or a
life sentence really meaning that, there seems little doubt that
stronger deterrents are needed than exist now.

Then can you explain why longer than a lifetime sentences/ death
penalty have not acted as a deterrent in the USA, and why that highly
punitive country continues to have such a high rate of homicide compared
with ours.

Longer sentences may or may not act as a deterrent, but they do keep
the criminal out of harm's way and save other innocent people from
becoming victims

So does hanging. They never reoffend.

Innocent people have been hanged, just as innocent people have been
released
after serving long prison sentences.

And innocent people are being murdered by people who know that effectively
they'll get away with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27193638

Do you mind posting with something that doesn't falsely attribute what I
posted
to you.


Err, I wasn't aware that it had. Is that to do with all that "Fuschia
wrote/Martin wrote/Shazzbat wrote" stuff? I have no idea how to influence
that.

Certainly I wouldn't want to plagiarise you.

Steve