Please....

Originally posted by @torunn
It can be very difficult, sometimes impossible - and frustrating to all those involved in cases like this - to find the final evidence or proof connecting the man or men suspected of the rape. We have recently had a very upsetting case in Stockholm which had to to be dropped because it couldn't be proved 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the men (in this case ...[text shortened]... in court.

This was a long legal procedure and unfortunately insufficient initial police-work.

I grant your point where evidence is not conclusive. But where it is conclusive, I'm with dive on this one. Some criminals, especially child murderers, don't deserve a second chance. Not primarily because they might do it again, but primarily because they shouldn't have done it the first time. 20 or 30 years in prison may pay one's debt to society, but they don't pay the debt to the murdered child. Ask any parent of a murdered child: the anguish never stops.

Anyone who takes away the rest of a child's life should not have the rest of his own life to enjoy either.

While I agree that some murderers can reform, I don't think that is any reason to release them from prison. Let them be reformed and stay in prison and help other prisoners to reform. It would make them less difficult to manage while they stay in prison, and that is a social benefit. Let them do so useful work while in prison, if they want to and are so inclined. But keep them locked up.

Releasing reformed murderers from prison sends the wrong message: it says, in effect, 'it's ok to murder people just so long as you reform later.' Pfui. They should reform before they kill people, and if they can't then they should get themselves into counselling before they kill people.

Perhaps you've heard of the Tucker case. Ms Tucker committed a particularly gruesome murder. She was sentenced to be executed. Many years passed without the sentence being carried out (for bureaucratic reasons). During her long wait, she converted to Christianity and sincerely and genuinely repented of her crime. No one doubted her on that point. A 'movement' was started to get her sentence commuted to life in prison. Even some members of the victim's family were moved to beg for her sentence to be commuted, in the spirit of Christian forgiveness. The state governor (George W Bush at the time) refused and sentence was carried out. I submit that if anyone sentenced to death row had 'converted' to atheism and genuinely and sincerely repented of his crime, and no one doubted his reform was genuine, no one would have begged for his sentence to be commuted. Ms Tucker should have converted before the pick-axe fell. "Ain't nobody's fault but mine..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

I admit this may seem barbaric... but I believe current events and modern criminal nature demand that we re-employ some forms of Public Execution.

I believe that penalties for horrific crimes are far too lenient. They have been relaxed and hidden from view for so long that dissuasion is not happening.
Further, inmates in our nation's "corporate prisons" seem to be running amok. Convict and guardian corruption have given birth to an evil culture which has placed zero emphasis on rehabilitation. In fact, prisons are well-known criminal training grounds.

Are severe crack-downs in order? I believe so.

Originally posted by @wolfe63
I admit this may seem barbaric... but I believe current events and modern criminal nature demand that we re-employ some forms of Public Execution.

I believe that penalties for horrific crimes are far too lenient. They have been relaxed and hidden from view for so long that dissuasion is not happening.
Further, inmates in our nation's "corporate prisons ...[text shortened]... sons are well-known criminal training grounds.

Are severe crack-downs in order? I believe so.

Unfortunately, miscarriages of justice do occur.

A society can always release such a person from prison and compensate. But a society can't glue a chap's head back on.


The Ghost has spoken wisely...

Originally posted by @wolfe63
I admit this may seem barbaric... but I believe current events and modern criminal nature demand that we re-employ some forms of Public Execution.

What is the point?
If you say to save money - you have a point. But I would argue against that.

Otherwise it is just revenge isn't it?
Which is a human emotion we should rise above as a society.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
What is the point?
If you say to save money - you have a point. But I would argue against that.

Otherwise it is just revenge isn't it?
Which is a human emotion we should rise above as a society.

Not revenge - consequences.

Originally posted by @torunn
Not revenge - consequences.

What do you mean?
The rapist thinks about consequences before raping someone?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
What do you mean?
The rapist thinks about consequences before raping someone?

Well, shouldn't he?

Originally posted by @torunn
Well, shouldn't he?

He should also think "I shouldn't be doing this".

I doubt if he is thinking "How many years behind bars is this worth?"

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
He should also think "I shouldn't be doing this".

I doubt if he is thinking "How many years behind bars is this worth?"

I agree, that would be a bit late.

But, a nation that cannot protect its citizens from so much evil, shouldn't we expect better?

Originally posted by @wolfe63
I admit this may seem barbaric... but I believe current events and modern criminal nature demand that we re-employ some forms of Public Execution.

What!?

The alternative to flakey social liberalist attitudes to heinous crime is not to propose public murder.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Unfortunately, miscarriages of justice do occur.

A society can always release such a person from prison and compensate. But a society can't glue a chap's head back on.


The Ghost has spoken wisely...

Ghost, you have put your finger on the only cogent objection to execution. I am in favor of execution only for a very few heinous criminals (child rapist-murderers, serial killers, bombers, and deposed tyrants), and only if the bar is set very high. I am well aware that the last man hanged in England was innocent of the crime for which he was hanged (which is not to say that he was innocent, but only of the crime for which he was hanged). I am well aware that a number of people imprisoned during the Troubles were later released because the verdicts would found to be unsafe and unsound, due to tampering of evidence by the police. Had the death penalty been in force during the Troubles, a number of wrongfully imprisoned Irishmen would have been wrongfully executed.

Bearing all that in mind, I would set the bar as high as this: if a person is executed and it later comes to light that someone gave false testimony, or falsified evidence, or concealed evidence which might have exonerated him, then those who gave false testimony or falsified evidence or concealed evidence shall be executed. This would not apply to a verdict of guilty, but only to the question whether the sentence would be life in prison or death, for the crimes in question.

I do not argue that execution is an effective deterrent. The sort of people who rape and murder children, or shoot up a school or a concert with (semi-)automatic weapons, do not think about consequences. These are crimes of compulsion or mania; no threat of punishment deters these people. The sort of people who set off bombs in public places do think about consequences, but what they think is twisted by ideological delusion; they think the consequences will be that they are greeted by a thousand virgins in heaven; no threat deters these people. Deposed dictators also do not reckon with their own downfall; no threat deters these people either. I am in favor of executing these sorts of people for entirely an pragmatic reason: they should not only cease to be a threat to society, but also cease to be a burden upon it. Keeping them locked up and and fed and watched over and medically cared for is horrendously expensive. It is less expensive to get rid of them sooner and be done with them.

Originally posted by @torunn
I agree, that would be a bit late.

But, a nation that cannot protect its citizens from so much evil, shouldn't we expect better?

Punishing criminals does not protect citizens.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Keeping them locked up and and fed and watched over and medically cared for is
horrendously expensive. It is less expensive to get rid of them sooner and be done with them.

Use this argument for criminals and then ...
A life no matter how worthless or vile is still a life - a one off, unique, never to be seen
again. Destroying that for the sake of saving money seems very retrograde for society.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Punishing criminals does not protect citizens.

I don't have solutions, of course - nobody seems to, and there are different sorts of crimes, we are talking about the worst here.
There is a fast growing number of other kinds of totally unacceptable conduct and crimes, not quite as severe, committed by people around us, just about anywhere you go. If we can't protect our citizens against such crimes - rapes, assault, abuse, beatings, unprovoked attacks on innocent people which happens here every day - then we will have a society that fails its responsibilities.

Originally posted by @torunn
I don't have solutions, of course - nobody seems to, and there are different sorts of crimes, we are talking about the worst here.
There is a fast growing number of other kinds of totally unacceptable conduct and crimes, not quite as severe, committed by people around us, just about anywhere you go. If we can't protect our citizens against such crimes - ra ...[text shortened]... ople which happens here every day - then we will have a society that fails its responsibilities.

We are not talking about protection here.
We are talking about sentencing.