Recent events that have transpired have brought the death penalty back into the spotlight once again. It's a very emotive subject, not least when the abduction of a child is involved.
I get the feeling though that many UK residents would actually support it but, given the choice between the death penalty and a "penalty that fits the crime" I think most people in reality would actually prefer the latter. Killing people with such diseased minds that allow them to carry out such atrocities is not a deterrent in itself, otherwise Texas and the like would be the safest place on earth. The truth is people will still carry out such heinous crimes regardless of the cost to themselves be it death or life imprisonment so it doesn't add up to kill just to appease the few who are baying for blood. I think most would like to see "life" meaning "life" and the more serious continuous offenders locked up for longer periods, something that has been wanted for many years.
I also think that a degree of consistency in sentencing is required where judges all sing off the same hymn sheet and make sentencing more transparent to the general public who (to be expected) get exasperated when seemingly murderous villains end up with a 5 year sentence and they will be out in 2.5, i think 5 years should be 5 years and i also think concurrent sentences should be abolished so if a villain is tried for two crimes where he gets 4 years for one and 5 years for the other then he should get 9 years, that would install confidence in our judicial system and send a clear message to so called "gangsta's".
If after all that you still demand the death sentence then let's take a look at a little game called consequences.
first of all you get yourself a hardened villain who has beaten up an old woman and fled with her jewellery and cash from the house,she dies of a heart attack 4 days later, he has just been apprehended by Pc Plod and is in a cell after the court case awaiting his sentence. Would you kill him?.
Then secondly, we have a villain who has grabbed a youngster off the pavement and ended up murdering the poor little soul for his own gratitude. Would you kill him?.
Then we have the lorry driver, he is driving backwards onto a loading bay one night when a group of lads are playing dare and one trips over as he runs behind the lorry, the truck hits him and kills him. The lorry driver is deemed responsible. Would you kill him?.
My best guess is that you all answered yes to situation number 2. Possibly some of you will have answered one and two, but doubtful many of you will have answered yes to all 3.
The fact is someone died in each of these scenarios, they are all open to different interpretation and obviously they are made up for examples but technically they all could happen. If the death sentence is in place for murder then one and two are goners, but it's three that would worry me the most when it comes to corporal punishment and that is the "what if?" question.
What if it was just an accident?... for instance what if the guy who picked the child up was actually returning him home to his parents and while at traffic lights the boy was snatched from the car and the villains never seen again..and by association the man was hanged?, what if the crook in the old ladies house was actually the man who was odd-jobbing for the old lady and disturbed a burglar who fought his way out and left the old lady for dead..?
"What if" stops us doing things we may regret. It's a human safety net and our mind uses millions of "what ifs" a day while deciding not to touch the hot kettle or stick your fingers in a mincer or poke a biro in your eye, it's all to do with self preservation and a select amount of questions we ask ourselves BEFORE we attempt something. The problem with the death sentence is the "what ifs". What if you ever get it wrong. There is no parole from the house of God, there is no early release date for good behaviour. you die, you die. End of.
I happen to think that the death penalty does belong in the past because of it's sheer brutality and complete lack of what it was designed for and that's as a deterrent. As a civilised society i think we are above such base thinking and our thirst for justice would be much better served by sentences being handed down that are relevant and truthful in their description as well as being able to fit the crime and also prison being rather less comfortable for those who are already attending the lock-ups at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Recent events stir up many emotions and it's quite understandable, but we are not judge and jury where the taking of a life is concerned and I hope we never will have to make that decision, any of us, but please let's DO see these people doing prison time that fits the crime and a tougher regime inside our jails. That would satisfy the vast majority of people i may dare to say and leave us living in a society of tolerance not vengeance.
I get the feeling though that many UK residents would actually support it but, given the choice between the death penalty and a "penalty that fits the crime" I think most people in reality would actually prefer the latter. Killing people with such diseased minds that allow them to carry out such atrocities is not a deterrent in itself, otherwise Texas and the like would be the safest place on earth. The truth is people will still carry out such heinous crimes regardless of the cost to themselves be it death or life imprisonment so it doesn't add up to kill just to appease the few who are baying for blood. I think most would like to see "life" meaning "life" and the more serious continuous offenders locked up for longer periods, something that has been wanted for many years.
I also think that a degree of consistency in sentencing is required where judges all sing off the same hymn sheet and make sentencing more transparent to the general public who (to be expected) get exasperated when seemingly murderous villains end up with a 5 year sentence and they will be out in 2.5, i think 5 years should be 5 years and i also think concurrent sentences should be abolished so if a villain is tried for two crimes where he gets 4 years for one and 5 years for the other then he should get 9 years, that would install confidence in our judicial system and send a clear message to so called "gangsta's".
If after all that you still demand the death sentence then let's take a look at a little game called consequences.
first of all you get yourself a hardened villain who has beaten up an old woman and fled with her jewellery and cash from the house,she dies of a heart attack 4 days later, he has just been apprehended by Pc Plod and is in a cell after the court case awaiting his sentence. Would you kill him?.
Then secondly, we have a villain who has grabbed a youngster off the pavement and ended up murdering the poor little soul for his own gratitude. Would you kill him?.
Then we have the lorry driver, he is driving backwards onto a loading bay one night when a group of lads are playing dare and one trips over as he runs behind the lorry, the truck hits him and kills him. The lorry driver is deemed responsible. Would you kill him?.
My best guess is that you all answered yes to situation number 2. Possibly some of you will have answered one and two, but doubtful many of you will have answered yes to all 3.
The fact is someone died in each of these scenarios, they are all open to different interpretation and obviously they are made up for examples but technically they all could happen. If the death sentence is in place for murder then one and two are goners, but it's three that would worry me the most when it comes to corporal punishment and that is the "what if?" question.
What if it was just an accident?... for instance what if the guy who picked the child up was actually returning him home to his parents and while at traffic lights the boy was snatched from the car and the villains never seen again..and by association the man was hanged?, what if the crook in the old ladies house was actually the man who was odd-jobbing for the old lady and disturbed a burglar who fought his way out and left the old lady for dead..?
"What if" stops us doing things we may regret. It's a human safety net and our mind uses millions of "what ifs" a day while deciding not to touch the hot kettle or stick your fingers in a mincer or poke a biro in your eye, it's all to do with self preservation and a select amount of questions we ask ourselves BEFORE we attempt something. The problem with the death sentence is the "what ifs". What if you ever get it wrong. There is no parole from the house of God, there is no early release date for good behaviour. you die, you die. End of.
I happen to think that the death penalty does belong in the past because of it's sheer brutality and complete lack of what it was designed for and that's as a deterrent. As a civilised society i think we are above such base thinking and our thirst for justice would be much better served by sentences being handed down that are relevant and truthful in their description as well as being able to fit the crime and also prison being rather less comfortable for those who are already attending the lock-ups at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Recent events stir up many emotions and it's quite understandable, but we are not judge and jury where the taking of a life is concerned and I hope we never will have to make that decision, any of us, but please let's DO see these people doing prison time that fits the crime and a tougher regime inside our jails. That would satisfy the vast majority of people i may dare to say and leave us living in a society of tolerance not vengeance.
No comments:
Post a Comment