I heard of this way of dealing with perpetrators which might provide an alternative to vengeance in our historically retributive system?: "In this African tribe, when someone does something wrong, they take the person to the centre of the village where the community surrounds the individual and for two days say all the good that they have done. The tribe believes each person is inherently good but sometimes people make mistakes, big and small, which are really cries for help. They unite to reconnect the person with his good nature."
I think we should give that a try.
Instead of prison, let's throw a party for them and tell them how great they are and what a decent chap they are.
When the party finishes, send them on a luxury holiday and buy a nice big house for them to live in, when they get back.
I heard of this way of dealing with perpetrators which might provide an alternative to vengeance in our historically retributive system?: "In this African tribe, when someone does something wrong, they take the person to the centre of the village where the community surrounds the individual and for two days say all the good that they have done. The tribe believes each person is inherently good but sometimes people make mistakes, big and small, which are really cries for help. They unite to reconnect the person with his good nature."
i thought you was being serious there for a moment.
I heard of this way of dealing with perpetrators which might provide an alternative to vengeance in our historically retributive system?: "In this African tribe, when someone does something wrong, they take the person to the centre of the village where the community surrounds the individual and for two days say all the good that they have done. The tribe believes each person is inherently good but sometimes people make mistakes, big and small, which are really cries for help. They unite to reconnect the person with his good nature."
TBH this would work in a tribe where everyone knows each other and can talk about what that person has done that is good. It's not really possible where you can't know everyone. Like here.
I heard of this way of dealing with perpetrators which might provide an alternative to vengeance in our historically retributive system?: "In this African tribe, when someone does something wrong, they take the person to the centre of the village where the community surrounds the individual and for two days say all the good that they have done. The tribe believes each person is inherently good but sometimes people make mistakes, big and small, which are really cries for help. They unite to reconnect the person with his good nature."
TBH this would work in a tribe where everyone knows each other and can talk about what that person has done that is good. It's not really possible where you can't know everyone. Like here.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
It won't happen of course, but me personally, I'd like to see him (and similar cases) used as guinea pig for tests to find cures for cancer etc etc etc. Much rather they use scum like this than animals and they'd be more effective, hopefully painful and completely dabilitating.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
Executing him won't bring back any of the people who were killed, neither will it cure those that lost limbs. Executing him *will* keep him in the media, demonstrate to terrorists that their causes can receive wide media coverage.
I am very glad that the death penalty cannot be invoked in the UK and, while we're in the EU it is very unlikely ever to be reintroduced.
I totally understand the arguments that some countries believe that execution is an effective deterrent. But the list of countries that execute the most people doesn't seem to be a list of uniformly safe places: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, USA, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
Executing him won't bring back any of the people who were killed, neither will it cure those that lost limbs. Executing him *will* keep him in the media, demonstrate to terrorists that their causes can receive wide media coverage.
I am very glad that the death penalty cannot be invoked in the UK and, while we're in the EU it is very unlikely ever to be reintroduced.
I totally understand the arguments that some countries believe that execution is an effective deterrent. But the list of countries that execute the most people doesn't seem to be a list of uniformly safe places: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, USA, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya.
So if you'd been at a sporting event, and this had happened to YOUR family, you'd feel the same?
The execution won't be a deterrent, nor will it be justice, it will be (partial) retribution, and a certain way of ensuring the prisoner can't physically harm others in the future. That's about it.
The execution won't be a deterrent, nor will it be justice, it will be (partial) retribution, and a certain way of ensuring the prisoner can't physically harm others in the future. That's about it.
I'm convinced that if this particular person wanted to go and meet the virgins etc he woulda gone out in a blaze of glory. I also therefore think that some of these western bred terrorists would be comfortable living out their days banged up as heroes to other like minded people, both inside prison and outside prison. If executing him, stops even one other young extremist detonating a bomb and killing more innocent folk, let's get to it, chop Chop
I heard of this way of dealing with perpetrators which might provide an alternative to vengeance in our historically retributive system?: "In this African tribe, when someone does something wrong, they take the person to the centre of the village where the community surrounds the individual and for two days say all the good that they have done. The tribe believes each person is inherently good but sometimes people make mistakes, big and small, which are really cries for help. They unite to reconnect the person with his good nature."
I'm not sure they would do that with a child killing mass murderer. I like the concept though, maybe we could have a building where we could place criminals and surround them with people who keep them in this building until the criminals come to terms with the fact they are not good people. Then after a period of time they are set free from this building with the threat that they will return to this building if they dont become good, well behaved members of society.
I dont agree with an eye for an eye and hope I never will. But if you lock a 21 year old up for the rest of his life, without the hope of anything other than being fed, you have effectively killed him. It will just take about 40 years plus for him to draw his last breath. I prefer this than the quick act of vengeance that is the death penalty.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
Executing him won't bring back any of the people who were killed, neither will it cure those that lost limbs. Executing him *will* keep him in the media, demonstrate to terrorists that their causes can receive wide media coverage.
I am very glad that the death penalty cannot be invoked in the UK and, while we're in the EU it is very unlikely ever to be reintroduced.
I totally understand the arguments that some countries believe that execution is an effective deterrent. But the list of countries that execute the most people doesn't seem to be a list of uniformly safe places: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, USA, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya.
So if you'd been at a sporting event, and this had happened to YOUR family, you'd feel the same?
Personally I'd want to kill him with my own hands but the family of the young boy who was murdered have asked for him to not be executed. Are they wrong?
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
Executing him won't bring back any of the people who were killed, neither will it cure those that lost limbs. Executing him *will* keep him in the media, demonstrate to terrorists that their causes can receive wide media coverage.
I am very glad that the death penalty cannot be invoked in the UK and, while we're in the EU it is very unlikely ever to be reintroduced.
I totally understand the arguments that some countries believe that execution is an effective deterrent. But the list of countries that execute the most people doesn't seem to be a list of uniformly safe places: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, USA, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya.
So if you'd been at a sporting event, and this had happened to YOUR family, you'd feel the same?
(I'll assume @limeygent, you intended to add something like "I sincerely hope nothing like this happens to anyone you know and love", but just ran out of space/time).
Let me answer by making this very clear: I would not want the state to exacerbate a crime by committing another killing.
I can't, honestly, say that I would not want to take the law into my own hands. But I do not want to live in a country that deals with crime by killing people. It's demonstrably counter-productive; it's medieval; and, thankfully, it's unlawful.
I don't believe that whatever someone does, we have the right to take their life. Lock them up in solitary for the rest of their natural yes, but kill them, no.
The execution won't be a deterrent, nor will it be justice, it will be (partial) retribution, and a certain way of ensuring the prisoner can't physically harm others in the future. That's about it.
(I'll assume @limeygent, you intended to add something like "I sincerely hope nothing like this happens to anyone you know and love", but just ran out of space/time).
Shame on you Chizz for suggesting (hinting) that I might wish harm to your family.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
Executing him won't bring back any of the people who were killed, neither will it cure those that lost limbs. Executing him *will* keep him in the media, demonstrate to terrorists that their causes can receive wide media coverage.
I am very glad that the death penalty cannot be invoked in the UK and, while we're in the EU it is very unlikely ever to be reintroduced.
I totally understand the arguments that some countries believe that execution is an effective deterrent. But the list of countries that execute the most people doesn't seem to be a list of uniformly safe places: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, USA, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya.
So if you'd been at a sporting event, and this had happened to YOUR family, you'd feel the same?
But shouldn't the law be more objective than that ?
If someone punched my mum I'd want them to die, however - objectively speaking - the death penalty is not an appropriate sentence for assult.
I don't agree with the death penalty, although on the list if people I have sympathy for this monster isn't very high up, however if the compelling case for imposing capital punishment is "what if it was your family" then there seems to be no case at all.
I think that as radical Islam escalates it's war on innocents, and it appears they will, many will change their minds on what is appropriate punishment.
I think that as radical Islam escalates it's war on innocents, and it appears they will, many will change their minds on what is appropriate punishment.
I don't intend to lower my standards or change my understanding of civilisation due to "radical Islam" - I suggest you don't either.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
I would prefer to see a life sentence and a daily dose of mental and physical torture in my opinion.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
Executing him won't bring back any of the people who were killed, neither will it cure those that lost limbs. Executing him *will* keep him in the media, demonstrate to terrorists that their causes can receive wide media coverage.
I am very glad that the death penalty cannot be invoked in the UK and, while we're in the EU it is very unlikely ever to be reintroduced.
I totally understand the arguments that some countries believe that execution is an effective deterrent. But the list of countries that execute the most people doesn't seem to be a list of uniformly safe places: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, USA, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya.
So if you'd been at a sporting event, and this had happened to YOUR family, you'd feel the same?
Personally I'd want to kill him with my own hands but the family of the young boy who was murdered have asked for him to not be executed. Are they wrong?
I was listening to a report about this on the radio, and what you have not put in your post is that the reason that they dont want him to be given the death penalty is due to the number of appeals that they will undoubtebly have to go through. If he was given a life sentence there would be no avenue for appeal, however he can and will appeal his death sentence, this will be a long and drawn-out process and for each appeal the family will have to go through the pain of their loss again, reopenning the wound. In essence, if he was given a life sentence the family could have some element of closure, a death sentence for him would be a life sentence for them.
Three people died, including a young boy, and more than 260 were seriously injured, many lost limbs. The maggot has shown no remorse. What shocks me now is that anybody could think that anything other than the death penalty is appropriate. It'll be a good day when he no longer breathes the same air that the rest of us do.
I would prefer to see a life sentence and a daily dose of mental and physical torture in my opinion.
I think that as radical Islam escalates it's war on innocents, and it appears they will, many will change their minds on what is appropriate punishment.
I don't intend to lower my standards or change my understanding of civilisation due to "radical Islam" - I suggest you don't either.
It's worth remembering that adjusting your view point to that of the vermin carrying out these atrocities is simply handing them an easy victory.
I'm opposed to the death penalty for three reasons: 1. It doesn't work as a deterrent (that's not me speaking, it's Albert Pierrepoint) 2. I don't think it is necessarily as bigger punishment as life imprisonment (providing that means life) - especially if your dealing with idiot wannabe martyrs. 3. I don't think you can take the moral high ground on killing, if you yourself are prepared to kill.
That said, I absolutely hate the thought that hard-working people have to pay through the nose to keep scum like Tsarnaev. I would literally set up some sort of prison island, somewhere cold and inhospitable and, most importantly thousands of miles from any civilisation. No food and no amenities at all. If these people were to survive it would be purely down to their own skills on a barren remote wasteland.
(I'll assume @limeygent, you intended to add something like "I sincerely hope nothing like this happens to anyone you know and love", but just ran out of space/time).
Shame on you Chizz for suggesting (hinting) that I might wish harm to your family.
As you can see, if you re-read the post, I assumed precisely the opposite.
Comments
Instead of prison, let's throw a party for them and tell them how great they are and what a decent chap they are.
When the party finishes, send them on a luxury holiday and buy a nice big house for them to live in, when they get back.
Then kill him.
I am very glad that the death penalty cannot be invoked in the UK and, while we're in the EU it is very unlikely ever to be reintroduced.
I totally understand the arguments that some countries believe that execution is an effective deterrent. But the list of countries that execute the most people doesn't seem to be a list of uniformly safe places: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, USA, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam and Libya.
That's about it.
Chop
I like the concept though, maybe we could have a building where we could place criminals and surround them with people who keep them in this building until the criminals come to terms with the fact they are not good people.
Then after a period of time they are set free from this building with the threat that they will return to this building if they dont become good, well behaved members of society.
I dont agree with an eye for an eye and hope I never will. But if you lock a 21 year old up for the rest of his life, without the hope of anything other than being fed, you have effectively killed him. It will just take about 40 years plus for him to draw his last breath. I prefer this than the quick act of vengeance that is the death penalty.
Let me answer by making this very clear: I would not want the state to exacerbate a crime by committing another killing.
I can't, honestly, say that I would not want to take the law into my own hands. But I do not want to live in a country that deals with crime by killing people. It's demonstrably counter-productive; it's medieval; and, thankfully, it's unlawful.
(You could look at this post for a bit of extra background: http://www.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/2162951#Comment_2162951)
Shame on you Chizz for suggesting (hinting) that I might wish harm to your family.
If someone punched my mum I'd want them to die, however - objectively speaking - the death penalty is not an appropriate sentence for assult.
I don't agree with the death penalty, although on the list if people I have sympathy for this monster isn't very high up, however if the compelling case for imposing capital punishment is "what if it was your family" then there seems to be no case at all.
I was listening to a report about this on the radio, and what you have not put in your post is that the reason that they dont want him to be given the death penalty is due to the number of appeals that they will undoubtebly have to go through. If he was given a life sentence there would be no avenue for appeal, however he can and will appeal his death sentence, this will be a long and drawn-out process and for each appeal the family will have to go through the pain of their loss again, reopenning the wound. In essence, if he was given a life sentence the family could have some element of closure, a death sentence for him would be a life sentence for them.
Force him to put something back into the Society he hates so much.
1. It doesn't work as a deterrent (that's not me speaking, it's Albert Pierrepoint)
2. I don't think it is necessarily as bigger punishment as life imprisonment (providing that means life) - especially if your dealing with idiot wannabe martyrs.
3. I don't think you can take the moral high ground on killing, if you yourself are prepared to kill.
That said, I absolutely hate the thought that hard-working people have to pay through the nose to keep scum like Tsarnaev. I would literally set up some sort of prison island, somewhere cold and inhospitable and, most importantly thousands of miles from any civilisation. No food and no amenities at all. If these people were to survive it would be purely down to their own skills on a barren remote wasteland.