egafd.com

"Keep happy and be positive ----- one day Labour will rule again."

No they won't, we are in for a few decades of co-alition governments, then, it's all off to Europe, we wont even have a PM, just a beurocrat sat at a desk in Brussels, who claims to represent what was the UK.

"One also has to take into account murder detection rates going up too. The science that goes into detecting if a murder/rape has been committed at all has increased dramatically over the last 40 years and so any increase in crime detection must increase the number of crimes recorded."

Agreed, I also meant to add to my last post that although the House of Commons statistics mentions that the murder rate has doubled since the 60's, I would not like to say any of that increase has been down to the lack of capital punishment. I really am not a believer in capital punishment or in the deterrent factor of same.

Having said that I would certainly prefer it if rather more murders were met with full life sentences.

Murdererers never think about the consequences of their actions before they commit an act of murder so therecore it wouldnt be a deterrent.

Theres no proof to substantiate evidence to the contrary. Otherwise you'd think life in prison itself would be an effective deterrent.

Most murders are committed spontaneously. its whether they were carrying a weapon beforehand that determines it was premeditated or not.

Better still, anyone you want killed just run them down in your car and say "oops the wheel slipped in my hand your honour. I knew I shouldnt have used vaseline for a wank this morning" and you'll get 6 months and probably banned from driving for a year.

The death sentence has never provided a 100% detterent against murder and never will, but then nor does prison, but then nor do community sentences.

That said I do believe in some cases it is justyfiable particularly in cases of pre-meditated murder or the murder of the vulverable.

Maybe I should have titled the thread as "unlawful killing" as there seems to be a certain amount of plea bargaining and people getting a lighter sentence for manslaughter or whatever.
At the end of the day it still means that somebody has lost a life.

In Scotland, homicide numbers over the last decade have been steady, if anything going slightly downwards. Round about 100 homicides per year in Scotland.

So, if your area had 2 homicides in quick succession (and your area has a population of less than 250,000) then I am afraid your area is indeed going down the pan, as it's 5% of all homicides in Scotland, for less than 5% of the population.

I do not have strong feeling over the death sentence. I doubt it works as a deterrent against murder; it does stop people from re-offending though. The death sentence as a deterrent would only work lower down the crime chain, e.g. for drug trafficking or not paying your tv license. To have a true deterrent for murder the measures have to be pretty drastic and go beyond the individual who committed the act. Like not just executing the murderer but also their nearest and dearest. I reckon that would work, but it's a cure worse than the illness.

one eyed jack wrote:

> Murderers never think about the consequences of their actions
> before they commit an act of murder so therefore it wouldn't be
> a deterrent.

No criminals ever believe they are going to get caught but if an armed bank robber, for example, knew that he would be hanged if he used that sawn-off shotgun, would he be so keen to take it with him? If you knew that you would swing from a rope if you murder someone would you think twice?

>
> There's no proof to substantiate evidence to the contrary.
> Otherwise you'd think life in prison itself would be an
> effective deterrent.

Life in prison might be a deterrent if life actually meant life and not 15 years which is about average these days. When the death penalty was abolished in 1965, we were told by the abolitionists that life would mean life - ever since then the meaning of a life sentence has been eroded.

>
> Most murders are committed spontaneously. it's whether they were
> carrying a weapon beforehand that determines it was
> premeditated or not.
>
Your second sentence doesn't agree with the first. Usually spontaneous "murders" are changed to manslaughter...