Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Nutter who killed the baby.
As a rule I disagree with the death penalty, but in this particular instance, try as I might, I just can't see a reason for keeping him alive - he is evil personified and has no redeeming features whatsoever.
What is the point in wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds keeping him alive?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not interested in entering into a discussion, am merely interested in people's opinions as to why he should be kept alive, however, those two particular arguments are hackneyed and, IMO, rubbish, and therefore I will roundly ignore them - other people may pay credence to them, but I will not. That is my choice.
The real problem I have with the death penalty is the idea that it could be chosen for certain cases & not others. I will try & explain myself!
If it were made law, who would decide which cases were more deserving than another? the jury would have to deliver a verdict on a manslaughter or murder case ~ for instance someone may stab a spouse & kill them due to years of abuse..they may even have planned this (even if they planned it right at the last minute) which is intention to kill, therefore the death penalty could come into force & I wouldn't agree with that.
On the other hand, someone may kill a baby even though this wasn't their intention, & this may even have followed on from sustained abuse. The death penalty wouldn't neccessarily be served then ~ although I believe it should be!
Apologies if this doesn't sound logical ~ I have been up half the night with my little daughter so lacking in sleep...zzzzzzz
However, it is my basic opinion that there are way too many prisoners having taxpayers money wasted on keeping them alive. If they were kept in a darkened room and fed only porridge & water I would feel differently. Maybe.
Like Loosehead, i'm torn on the issue. What it's worth noting though, is that the cost of killing someone is a lot more than you'd expect. Anyone sentenced to death is going to appeal and go through another costly trial. They may be in prison for years whilst this rages on. In many cases (I'll see if I can track then down) in the US, executing someone ends up costing the taxpayer more.
Plus I think that death might be the easy way out. Life in prison is an appalling prospect, especially for someone who will disgust even the hardened criminals. Leave him to face that.
Let's not think of him as 'a nutter'. If he was suffering from a pychological condition and his lawyers are able to prove/explout that - then his prison term may reflect that (ie. it'd be less).
But that then opens up another issue with the death penalty - would it be morally right to execute someone who carries out a horrific murder, but is legally incompetant?
(BTW - I have no idea how to spell incompetant/incompetent).
I have always found the concept of capital punishment a very complex moral issue.
What I am sure of is that perfectly justified moral indignation and disgust should have no impact on the laws we make, or the sentences we carry out because of them.
The knee-jerk reaction from any parent, indeed almost any individual, is perfectly normal, but that does not make it acceptable as a process of justice.
Each case has to be assessed individually with all the facts at hand, not the immediate media-fernzy that this type of case attracts.
I don't claim to have the answers, but I know that balancing finnancial concerns against a human life is not a rational way to proceed.
I don't agree with capital punishment, because it's one way to social/ethnic cleansing.
The people who will be able to pay for the best defence will be the rich.
The people who will be killed, will be the poor and non-white.
This is what happens in America - is a poor murderer any worse than a rich one?
Answers on a postcard please.
To answer flip-flops question - there is no reason whatsoever to justify keeping this piece of scum alive. If it were up to me I would chuck him in a pit (along with the two creatures who raped the 12wk old baby and the b*stard who raped his dying stepdaughter) douse them with petrol, throw in a match and forget about them and I would not lose one wink of sleep about it. I have said this before in other posts but child abusers should be treated like the vermin they are and exterminated in much the same way as we exterminate rats or cockroaches or wasps etc. In my opinion child abusers do not deserve to take up space on this already overcrowded planet and breathe oxygen which could be much better used elsewhere.
Hanging is a hot topic, there are many reasons for, but a very strong reason against, Judges can sometimes get it horribly, horribly wrong!! Especially when the Police have stitched someone up just to close a long case. I don't think hanging should be implemented unless the case for murder has been 110% proven and has been proven beyond all question. I think the answer is to make life sentences just that, imprisoned for the rest of ones life, no remission, no escape, no comforts, just decades of jail because they took away a life and deserve no better.
killing them is too good for them - i would like to see them suffer years and years of horrendous pain and abuse at the hands of the other inmates
lock them in damp cell with a hay bed and 2 buckets for swill and crap, and leave them there to rot - except for their daily 'exercise' sessions with bruiser macblood and knuckles macfist, and 'leisure' activities with horndog macbummer
'he is evil personified and has no redeeming features whatsoever'
To categorise someone along these lines is simply moral cowardice. You do not know these things and I doubt very much they are true. In killing him you are murdering a human being - the money spent is worth it to prevent a murder from being committed.
Perhaps you could explain why he should be murdered?
To categorise someone along these lines is simply moral cowardice. You do not know these things and I doubt very much they are true. In killing him you are murdering a human being - the money spent is worth it to prevent a murder from being committed.
Perhaps you could explain why he should be murdered?
Im not quite sure what case you are refering to here but how about this.
A man and his pregant girlfirend are hijacked. The girl is shot 3 times in the stomach the man is shot in the shoulder. The girl survives but loses her baby the man is lucky as his wound is severe. The perpertrators are caught and it turns out the man hired someone to shoot his girlfriend because he didnt want the baby then to shoot him to make it look like a random attack . True case in South Africa. A vicious person like this does not deserve to live.
I dont see the point at all in keeping him alive. I hate to think that he will probably get free tuition whilst being "rehabilitated" whilst students who dont murder their children struggle by paying for fees and equipment. I feel the same about anyone who hurts children unintentionally. Punishment to fit the crime, and the fire pit sounds suitanle for what he did. What a ******* ****!!
I am undecided on capital punishment, although like yourself I do get angered by things that happen and the criminal doesn't seem to get what they deserve - I have been on the recieving end and it is truly frustrating. I do wonder why we get so much more angered when a child is involved rather than an adult, I understand that children are innocents and it is more of a shock factor (this is not intended to offend, just making an observation). But why arent we as angered by the Sally-ann Bowman case? or are we?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.