Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
A bloke by the name of Gardner this morning at approx 0710 was executed in UTAH, U.S.A.
he was a convicted murderer on death row.
And it has been found that it's cheaper to keep him behind bars than execute him?
In his final weeks he appealed and said he had changed and a life sentence HE pleaded for.
He lost the appeal, and this morning he was shot by firing squad.
Whilst fully understanding this person was a murderer, It still sits uncomfatable with me to take some ones life.
What's other forumites views
I can guess some already, but i hope a balance view of posters results.
Unregistered User
How can it be cheaper to keep him behind bars for the rest of his life than execute him? I personally am against the death sentence, barbaric!
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
MRP
Yep, Ididnt understand that comment on BBC this morning about being cheaper to keep him behind bars.
Im also against the death sentence.
but hope for some realy differing views.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
I don`t value human life like some. If someone intentionally takes another human life, then rather than pay the cost of keeping them, get rid of them. Spend the money on the more deserving. I suspect the `cheaper to keep them behind bars` which Keith mention`s above, maybe linked to the legal costs of fighting a dozen or more appeal`s. I don`t know what his case actually involved.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Its very interesting as we have debated this topic over the years...but in America where this execution took place..there is no interest whatsoever in abandoning the death penalty. I would in general terms be against the death penalty, but the old argument I used to use about it deterring others...well it clearly doesnt work. People carry on in their own weird and wicked ways and ignore the possibility that they might ever face the death penalty in the future.
So as a deterrent its a non-goer, but of course as a punishment it certainly works as there is no danger of re-offending post execution. So what we have to ask ourselves is this, is punishing people in such a way the right thing to do, is it humanitarian, is it acceptable in the modern age, particularly as it appears to have no effect on crime rates whatsoever. It is merely a punishment.
On another thread Kath did a story about old time hangings in Dover...it was interesting to note that the hangings were for the moderate crime of burglary. We have moved on from there. So periodically we do have to grasp the nettle of change and outlaw some practises in the name of advancing civilization.
The odd thing about this particular execution is that it was carried out by firing squad...which is a rather peculiar way of doing it but it is somehow related to the peculiarities of the state of Utah where it took place. The guy himself asked for it ..so it seems.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
Interesting what you say above Paul, and it has been discussed on here before. Regarding deterent, I`d personally take that out of the equation, as we`ll never know how many people are walking around today, who have escaped being shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, simply because some would be killer was frightened of getting killed himself by the state, or facing time behind bars with alot of angry prisoner`s.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I am 100% in favour of the death penalty being avaiable to the Courts for extreme cases of murder. I do mean extreme cases, the Soham murderer and the Moors murderers are prime examples of those for whom there was absolute certainty of guilt, terrible crimes that deserved the death sentence. The former, I think I am right in saying, ended up killing himself and a good job too.
Clearly there should be safeguards against the innocent being executed and there should be one final appeal process, not to do with guilt or not but regarding the type and weight of evidence that led to the prosecution. Any death sentence should only be carried out if that evidence is sufficient otherwise a life sentence should be given, life being life behind bars.
There is though one crime for which death sentence should be manditory, commutable to a term of years if the guilty party provides evidence to convict someone else involved. That is for the selling or traffiking of illegal drugs, if they 'grass' someone higher up the chain that jail sentence would be shorter, indeed the shorter the higher up the drug chain the 'grassed' (not grasser) person is.
I believe the result of that would be a huge surge in the street price of drugs (the 'risk premium') and very few people would actually suffer the death penalty (the very stupid and those at the very top...) Like this I think that an evil trade that causes so much crime and misery will be seriously curtailed.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the costs must be the legal ones as colin said, he had been on death for over 20 years.
the deceased was given the option of firing squad or lethal injection.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
That is one problem with the US system, the length and complexity of the legal process and because it is so long it reduces the deterrant effect.
On deterrance - we have seen a big growth in murder since the death penalty was abolished. Yes much of that is down to drugs, I have provided my answer to that, but some of that must be down to lack of deterrence.
Again on deterrance, does it deter when someone can commit a murder and be back on the street within a decade.... no.
Applied with a tight definition and only for blatantly obviously guilty people the death penalty is, for me anyway, acceptable.
I don't care about the deterrent argument because crimes will continue to be committed no matter how soft or tough the penalties.
What is important to me is that justice is seen to be done for the victims or their loved ones. Executing those found guilty of the most heinous crimes at least offers those left behind the chance for closure. Locking them up so they can possibly repeat offend later, or worse still, harangue and hassle their victims/victims relatives from prison is a much worse option.
I also see no issue with passing the death sentence but not carrying it out for those where it is not so clear cut and the chance for new evidence/witnesses remains a possibility. If after 5, 10 or even 15 years there has been no change then a fresh decision on whether to commute or carry out the sentence can be made.
If there is to be no death penalty then for me, anyone convicted of murder or child molestation should be given a minimum mandatory life sentence, where life means exactly that, with parole only an option after they've served 30 years and are proven to be no danger to the public.
I agree with it. In England we are to soft.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
bit of a pointless argument, it is against european law so no individual state can restore the death penalty.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Sid
probably for the last part we can agree, on your posting.
life sentence should be life.
and prisons to be like a boot camp style prison not easy going
blimey im sounding like a tory
lol
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
A bishop in Utah apparently finds guns for execution barbaric. Maybe he`s right, so let`s arm our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with syringes, and hope the other side keep still long enough to recieve a lethal injection.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Colin, haven't you heard mate? The unilateralists are getting rid of Tridnet and spending some of the savings on plastic bows and arrows. Wait 'til they find out plastic isn't usually bio-degradable!! Core blimey, imagine the furore once that gets out.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
Don`t tell me Sid, any casualties from those arrows will get plastic surgery?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
MRP. You are against state executions how barbaric!!
I am against murder!! far more barbaric than execution. If murder was committed humanely, then I would still advocate the death penalty!!
I think Barry has got it 100% right, especially regarding the punishment for
the drug merchants that are largely responsible for much of the crime and
misery, not only here, but throughout the whole world.
These people should have been absolutely hammered by the authorities many, many years ago. We are now all paying the price for previous Goverments inaction to nip this problem in the bud by being to damn soft on the perpetrators when they had the chance to at least "stem the tide".
The damage that these people do to society in general and the financial costs are massive. As far as I`m concerned this is akin to being at "war" and quite simply the "enemy" should be eliminated and if that means being strung up or shot then so be it.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not seen you on here for a while john, thought we must have offended you.
welcome back.
Thanks for that Howard.
You could say I`m still suffering from post election "Blues", if you`ll excuse the pun!