6 replies to this topic

[Wizard]

BBC Website said:

Murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers will have their appeal against spending the rest of their lives in prison heard in the European Court of Human Rights later. Bamber was jailed for murdering five members of his family in Essex in 1985. Serial killer Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter, who killed his wife 13 years after murdering a colleague, are also challenging the court rulings.

They say the whole life tariff is "inhuman and degrading".

There has been quite a bit of this in the UK news recently, but the above, in my opinion at least, just takes the biscuit. How does a person, convicted of murder by a jury of their peers, have the balls to consider any sentance as "inhuman and degrading"? Why are their lawyers not going, "Hang on a minute, I know you're paying me but, don't you think that using the phrase "inhuman" is just a little excessive, you convicted murderer?" Bear in mind that none of them are appealing their judgements, just the application of their sentance!

Thoughts?

[General]

Death sentence if used by real democratic country not by dictators; is very good. You feed them and spend millions of bucks for these psychopats while you can spend it on better uses for community. Death sentence is cheap and better for the community.

[Chyros]

Death sentences are the ones that are inhuman and degrading. If you sentence them to death, you're no better than the murderers you kill.

About the lawyer thing: the whole country wants nothing more than to punish those people as much as possible. Don't you think it's fair that SOMEONE is looking out for them?

[Wizard]

General, on 28 November 2012 - 08:56, said:

Death sentence if used by real democratic country not by dictators; is very good. You feed them and spend millions of bucks for these psychopats while you can spend it on better uses for community. Death sentence is cheap and better for the community.

There isn't one part of that statement that can be backed up by any concrete evidence. Also, this not about the capital punishment, this is about life sentances.

[General]

Wizard, on 28 November 2012 - 09:32, said:

General, on 28 November 2012 - 08:56, said:

Death sentence if used by real democratic country not by dictators; is very good. You feed them and spend millions of bucks for these psychopats while you can spend it on better uses for community. Death sentence is cheap and better for the community.

There isn't one part of that statement that can be backed up by any concrete evidence. Also, this not about the capital punishment, this is about life sentances.

Concrete evidence ? Well, it is so simple, instead of feeding terrorists and psychotic sadist murderers until they die ( which may take a hundred year depends on their body) ; you make good use of this money for public services, why this should need a concrete evidence to explain ? It is simple as this.

Life sentences are ok for rest of the killings, like a normal man goes angry and kills a few people but feel guilty for it, but for psychos ? hell no.

[Wizard]

General, on 28 November 2012 - 09:48, said:

Wizard, on 28 November 2012 - 09:32, said:

General, on 28 November 2012 - 08:56, said:

Death sentence if used by real democratic country not by dictators; is very good. You feed them and spend millions of bucks for these psychopats while you can spend it on better uses for community. Death sentence is cheap and better for the community.

There isn't one part of that statement that can be backed up by any concrete evidence. Also, this not about the capital punishment, this is about life sentances.

Concrete evidence ? Well, it is so simple, instead of feeding terrorists and psychotic sadist murderers until they die ( which may take a hundred year depends on their body) ; you make good use of this money for public services, why this should need a concrete evidence to explain ? It is simple as this.

Life sentences are ok for rest of the killings, like a normal man goes angry and kills a few people but feel guilty for it, but for psychos ? hell no.

There are actual figures that suggest the death sentance is more costly than life sentances.

What I really meant, however, was that you stated that the death sentance was "very good". Despite the fact that I suggested all of it was nonsense. If the death sentanced work there would be no need to carry out capital punishment as everyone would be too afraid of it to commit a crime that warranted said sentance. Capital punishment is plainly not a deterant and therefore "not very good".

Anyway, this is not the point of the topic.... carry on.....

[TheDR]

I think, as a deterrent, a life sentence is one of the worst. Okay, 30 years in the jail may be a lot, but there is hope, there is an end. Life in jail takes anyway any life you had and forces you to be nothing more than a statistic, you have no way of making a mark on the world (unless you write a book, which these criminals should be banned from doing in my opinion).

Of course this life sentence alternative for some is capital punishment, which I think is less of a deterrent. Dieing is an easy thing to do when you are a reckless criminal, the thought of spending the rest of your life in jail has plenty of time to fester over the course of their sentence.

The case you brought up in the first post is ridiculous, I hope they don't manage to get out earlier, they don't deserve to.