egafd.com

*Vengeance and justice are not the same thing.

They can be the same thing, someone doing a very bad thing deserves to have the book thrown at them and get a a Court ruling that is in line with the extremity of what they have done. Taking vengeance on the person will mean a heavy ruling - life in prison, 'the chair' or whatever. Justice for an extreme act would mean the same.

Do you think Saudi Arabia would suit you better, Max?

*Tell me Max, do you actually think through your messages before posting?*

Usually.

*Well we could always bump people off for manslaughter, Max. Why hold back? Besides in the British legal system typically a decision is made pre-trial as to whether the charge is murder or manslaughter and as far as I am aware, manslaughter tends not to get a life sentence.*

What I was saying about it being commuted to manslaughter was to point out that people like Norman Tebbit requesting the death penalty for murderers of Police officers would probably not get what they wanted anyway because, like I said, it would often be commuted down. What Tebbit wants is the death penalty for anyone killing a Police officer, what we would get is the death penalty only for those who murder a Police officer and often is would be, as I say, manslaughter instead. Therefore not all cop killers would be put to the chair, so there is little chance that if we brought in the death penalty for murderers of Police officers people like Tebbit would be satisfied. I said what I said in my OP to point out that Tebbit's desire would not satisfy his want. I was saying that the introduction of the death penalty would not be of much use, it would make lots of lawyers rich, and people would be on Death Row for ages at a cost to the taxpayer of millions.

*Though I suppose if you knew you were going to be hung for committing murder then you may as well kill half a dozen, a couple of hundred etc.*

David, if someone is going to have key thrown away for what they've already done then doing additional things will make no difference to their sentence because they are going down for life anyway. If I killed some people, was then on the run and knew if (or rather when) they caught me I am going away forever, then if I was an evil person I could just kill more people because I can not get 'life in prison plus 30 years' - can I? The punishment for the additional killings would have to run concurrently with the punishment for the first two so I effectively get no punishment for the extra killings. I said in my OP (quote) "I think it would be good to introduce it though, so long as the chances of the person eventually dying is very high, as it could work as a deterrent". The key thing there is '...so long as the chances of the person eventually dying is very high...'

*Of course what you could do is hang them until they are nearly dead then throw a bucket of water over them and revive them. Then you could go through this procedure as many times as murders have been committed until you get to the last one and you finish the job, perhaps with a garrotting and throat slitting.*

I know you are always sarcastic in your posts but I think even you would agree David that your comment there is a bit silly.

I expect this guy in Manchester will get something life "life with a minimum recommendation of 40 years" or something. He will be about 70 when he comes out, in fact he will likely never come out. If the media ensure that he remains a well known criminal and is infamous in TV and print media for ever more (like Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, Rose West, etc) then he will probably never be released and die in jail. The guy we've heard about in recent days who killed three coppers in the 1960's in still in prison and will no doubt die there, just like the others I've mentioned. I really think this guy in Manchester felt they was little to lose by murdering additional people as he was looking at life for two murders already, he is of an evil mind, so he lured Police to the place he was staying and killed them. Evil bastard.

I agree. Why was he out on bail? I would like to see the system hugely sped up, there is often a long gap between the charge and the Court case and it is not just about getting the case together. They is often such a backlog of cases that long time passes - someone like this guy should have been held on remand.

I agree with what you say.

I seem to recall an incident in Croydon in the 1960's that was a big contributor to the decision to abolish the death penalty for murder. Two teenagers were robbing a warehouse and were approached by a Police officer - one was a month too young to be sentenced to death if he murdered, the other was a month over the age. One murdered the Police officer and one issued a command to his friend to "let him have it". The Police officer was shot dead. The one issuing the command was old enough to be hanged, and was - even though he had committed the minor offence of just issuing the command to do it. The one who pulled the trigger wasn't executed as he was too young - even though he killed the Policeman. This case was a big factor in the decision to abolish the death penalty in Britain. A film was made about it called "Let him have it", and apparently it was argued in Court that the kid who yelled to his friend "let him have it" actually meant "let him have the gun (ie surrender the weapon and give it to the Poilceman as the Policeman was apparently demanding), not "let him have it" as in "shoot him".

Lots of interesting facts there but I think whatever punishments given to people will involve, from time to time, the authorities getting it wrong. You can obviously release someone years after they've been wrongly jailed but not res-erect someone after they've been wrongly sentenced to death. Ensuring there are not occasional miscarriages of justice however seems to mean that the public are in greater danger all the time though. It would also be naive to think miscarriages of justice are always put right, we hear about high profile cases of it, but I am sure there are some people wrongly sent down who never get their cases re-heard, do their whole sentence, possibly even die in jail when they were innocent.

What I said in my OP, and have talked about again in further comments here, is that if some evil person has killed two people and will go down for life then he will get no additional punishment if he kills more people. He is to be tried for four murders. The punishment will be no greater than if they sentenced him for just two murders (life in the nick). Therefore these extra two carry no extra tariff. If he was looking at life already for the first two murders, but knew he would be hanged for murders three and four, I doubt he would have done three and four.

*Do you think Saudi Arabia would suit you better, Max?*

I would like the punishments they dish out for serious criminals there to be dished out here, yes. I would not want anything else about their society here though.

Hopefully he will contract cancer in Prison, and save the public some cash Max.