Is it time for the Death Penalty ?
 

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow and West | Missing girl police to quiz Tobin

This guy doesn't derserve to be breathing !

No it isn't.


Next.

Get back to your guardian Peter;)

someone thinks so, Peter Tobin attacked in prison - Telegraph

Why not ?

This guy is clearly a mass murdering scumbag - why should we spend money keeping him alive for the next 20 years or so ?

Yes it is.

Next.

I'd be happier having him rot in prison being miserable than killing him. Killing him would be a get-out. You want to do to the chap what he himself doesn't want, that's punishment.

But he killed a Polish immigrant. I thought SN didn't like Polish immigrants?

I'm confused :freak3:

No it isn't - as long as cases like Barry George / Dando exists and with the severe doubts over the quality of the evidence used to convict him, you can't seriously consider the death penalty.

Yeah he was in prison for rape - then they let him out to Kill - as it turns out to Kill again !!

How can any sane person want the death penalty, when the police, CPS the judges, and the whole government are as incompetent, and untrustworthy as they are now?

If you're inside, and it turns out they fitted you up, you get out with an apology and compo.

If you're hanged.............:(

Alcazar

A good example of why not: Stefan Kiszko

So your quite happy for your taxes to pay for him to be kept in there? Whilst hes taking up space for rapists and paedophiles so they get released early or get no time at all?

Kill those who are 100% guilty.

(i)Death row prisoners cost the tax payer considerably more than regualr prisoners. In the US, the average stay on Death Row is 7 years at $76,000 per year, compared to $36,000 per year for regular prisoners.

(ii)100% guilt? What, like Barry George?

:lol:

It would be good to let the relatives of the dead to take possession of him and have their will but then that only makes the innocent as bad as the perpetrator in some respects.

I think Churchill said something like

'when we act let us not become the evil we deplore'

I think he was referring to defeating the Nazis.

In a way the death penalty is just that.

Maybe Tobin ought to be put to death but isn't that state sanctioned murder?

Or perhaps I just don't have a clue

No, that was obviously never 100% certain if he killed her or not, just "beyond reasonable doubt"

100% guilt is people like Huntley, Shipman, West, Tobin. None of them could have ever been found not to be guilty.

"Is it time for the Death Penalty ?"

Yes

A good example : Steve McClaren

Tobin hasn't even had his trial yet. He hasn't been found anything. I agree with the first three you mention tho.

Death penalty VS Life in prison (25 years min)

7 years at $76,000 = $532,000 / 25 years at $36,000 = $900,000

Death penalty wins.

Shall i do a google search also on prisoners released only to re-offend? I think you will find the numbers will be in my favour.

SetoN

it should be life for life he killed no he should be killed

And a bill for bed and board. I loved that thread! :)

I think the death penalty should be available under certain conditions. None of this lock them up for life. Get shot of the them and move on.

However, I agree the system is completely incompetent to allow such a harsh penalty to be used.

Just to show how fubar'd the system is - this is completely true.

My mothers next door neighbour killed a man quite a while ago. I understand that there were 3 people in the kitchen next door. The victim, the murderer and the murderers girlfriend. The victim got as far as my mothers front lawn and bled to death on her doorstep.

Nearly a year later, the police rang my mother to say we thought you should know we let him go. Not enough evidence!

What the f*ck!? :eek:

So you're saying for those that we're absolutely 100% sure about we should kill, but the rest, while we think they did it, but we're not so sure, we'll still find them guilty of murder and bang them up for life?

Our legal system may not be perfect, but it is meant to be guilty or not guilty. If there is any doubt, they should not be convicted. Therefore are you prepared to have the miscarriages of justice (of which there have been plenty) on your conscience? Of course not and there in lies the arguement for not having the death penalty.

Basically, yes.

After all, "beyond all reasonable doubt" that somebody has murdered somebody is different to somebody like Huntley or West, whose guilt could never be in doubt.

In cases like these where there is no doubt whatsoever I think the death penalty should be applied. That also saves them having wait around for 7 odd years on death row too - because their guilt is so obvious any appeals etc are quickly thrown out.

Like it or not, there is a difference between these sort of convictions and the beyond reasonable doubt ones.

"So, foreman of the jury, have you reached your verdict? Do you find the defendant not guilty, guilty, or very guilty?"

He's had a least two.

Convicted Rapist.

Convicted Murderer.

Two bodies found buried in his former house.

Yeah - let's give him another trial and give him another sentance on top of the 21 years he's currently serving for killing a girl and burying her under a church !

I think by 100% guilty he ment that the accused pleaded guilty or was basically caught red handed.

If it was that easy to say guilty or not guilty, why have a trial in the first place?

You'll never convince me that the death penalty is anything other than wrong.

If killing is wrong then it wrong in all instances.

Our society would be the worse off for having the DP

God forbid if anyone acually thought twice about killing someone if they new they might to have to face death if caught!

The country would be chaos! :wonder:

I think it is time to return to the ultimate penalty for the sorts of crimes we are seeing these days. Taking a life in a premeditated crime should carry the death penalty mainly for its deterrent features.

Since the death penalty was abolished, crimes of extreme violence incorporating murder have increased year on year such that a killing these days hardly carries a few column inches in the media. Life seems to have become very cheap among the criminal classes even among the very young now.

This can only get worse unless there is a true deterrent in the way of punishment and as in the past, the thought of the long drop would certainly concentrate the criminal's way of thinking when it came to taking another person's life.

A return to corporal punishment for louts and yobs committing acts of vandalism etc, maybe even in public, would do a lot to reduce this sort of crime too and would I believe encourage better behaviour than the sort of thing we hear about so often these days. We need real punishment that is actually unpleasant to encounter for these people who know they are doing wrong but just don't care about the consequences.

Les