Topic: Soham Killer Ian Huntley's Throat Slashed in Durham Prison

[Gash?]

Could swear I didn't say half that s***. Huntley deserves bad things to happen to him, it doesn't matter who does it as long as it gets done.

So Huntley deserves bad things to happen to him because he's done bad things?

pretty much, yeah

he murdered 2 little girls man

and raped them, don't forget the rape.

[mrmojorisin75]

Could swear I didn't say half that s***. Huntley deserves bad things to happen to him, it doesn't matter who does it as long as it gets done.

So Huntley deserves bad things to happen to him because he's done bad things?

pretty much, yeah

he murdered 2 little girls man

and raped them, don't forget the rape.

you sure?

i thought he didn't rape them?  stripped them to make it look like it and hide himself but didn't actually do it?

[Gash?]

Two naked girls in front of him and as sick as him? He raped them.

[Aphrodite]

He was never convincted for rape (not that it really matters). Understand your points, but I don't want life prisoners to think they have any sort of moral superiority over anyone, let alone to be dishing out vigilante justice to other prisoners. When we allow tit-for-that vengeance, we cease to be a civilised society in my eyes.

[mrmojorisin75]

Two naked girls in front of him and as sick as him? He raped them.

quick Wiki search suggests he didn't molest/rape them but did others...so the point stands

[mrmojorisin75]

He was never convincted for rape (not that it really matters). Understand your points, but I don't want life prisoners to think they have any sort of moral superiority over anyone, let alone to be dishing out vigilante justice to other prisoners. When we allow tit-for-that vengeance, we cease to be a civilised society in my eyes.

barely that now tbh

[BlufPurdi]

With Aphro' on this.  I know that's not cool, though.  Prisoners need protected, if only due to the large amounts of wrong convictions in the past.  Much the same reason why the death penalty should never be brought back despite however disgusting some crimes can be.

[Rob W]

He was never convincted for rape (not that it really matters). Understand your points, but I don't want life prisoners to think they have any sort of moral superiority over anyone, let alone to be dishing out vigilante justice to other prisoners. When we allow tit-for-that vengeance, we cease to be a civilised society in my eyes.

exactly - top post

[JH]

With Aphro' on this.  I know that's not cool, though.  Prisoners need protected, if only due to the large amounts of wrong convictions in the past.  Much the same reason why the death penalty should never be brought back despite however disgusting some crimes can be.

The death penalty is the worst punishment a legal system can have. Wrong in so many ways

[wacko]

He was never convincted for rape (not that it really matters). Understand your points, but I don't want life prisoners to think they have any sort of moral superiority over anyone, let alone to be dishing out vigilante justice to other prisoners. When we allow tit-for-that vengeance, we cease to be a civilised society in my eyes.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. IMO, people should be held to their own standards.

Huntley set the marker by killing two little girls, and I see no reason why he can reasonably expect better treatment for himself.

With Aphro' on this.  I know that's not cool, though.  Prisoners need protected, if only due to the large amounts of wrong convictions in the past.  Much the same reason why the death penalty should never be brought back despite however disgusting some crimes can be.

The death penalty is the worst punishment a legal system can have. Wrong in so many ways

Only 'cos they keep executing the wrong people (well, the Americans do). It can cost millions to keep a serial killer who'll never leave prison locked up for the rest of his days. I say better to gas the b****** and spend the money on schools or something worthwhile.

[BlueStar]

Only 'cos they keep executing the wrong people (well, the Americans do). It can cost millions to keep a serial killer who'll never leave prison locked up for the rest of his days. I say better to gas the b****** and spend the money on schools or something worthwhile.

I thought that carrying out a death sentence in the US ends up costing the tax payer much more than life without parole because of the long appeals process and enormous amount of legal work that needs to be done before putting someone to death?

[Haris Vuckic]

Correct bluestar.

[wacko]

Only 'cos they keep executing the wrong people (well, the Americans do). It can cost millions to keep a serial killer who'll never leave prison locked up for the rest of his days. I say better to gas the b****** and spend the money on schools or something worthwhile.

I thought that carrying out a death sentence in the US ends up costing the tax payer much more than life without parole because of the long appeals process and enormous amount of legal work that needs to be done before putting someone to death?

It does. In the US. That's only an argument against the US system, not the death penalty in general. There's no reason why someone sentenced to death should be entitled to more appeals than someone with a life-sentence.

If you want to argue against the US system, I think my previously mentioned point about the fact that they execute people (well, black men) for crimes they didn't commit is a far, far stronger argument than the cost one.

[JH]

Forget the cost, on a moral level it's just wrong. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in killing a killer?

[wacko]

Forget the cost, on a moral level it's just wrong. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in killing a killer?

Depends entirely on how you frame it.

[BlueStar]

Only 'cos they keep executing the wrong people (well, the Americans do). It can cost millions to keep a serial killer who'll never leave prison locked up for the rest of his days. I say better to gas the b****** and spend the money on schools or something worthwhile.

I thought that carrying out a death sentence in the US ends up costing the tax payer much more than life without parole because of the long appeals process and enormous amount of legal work that needs to be done before putting someone to death?

It does. In the US. That's only an argument against the US system, not the death penalty in general. There's no reason why someone sentenced to death should be entitled to more appeals than someone with a life-sentence.

If you want to argue against the US system, I think my previously mentioned point about the fact that they execute people (well, black men) for crimes they didn't commit is a far, far stronger argument than the cost one.

So the best option would be to take the US system, where you've admitted they put too many innocent people to death already, but without as many safeguards, legal tests and appeals because they cost too much?

There's no reason why someone sentenced to death should be entitled to more appeals than someone with a life-sentence.

Well yes, there is, because if a week later you find out that evidence was withheld or a confession was bogus  you can reverse the life-sentence.  That's much harder to do with a death sentence.

[wacko]

Only 'cos they keep executing the wrong people (well, the Americans do). It can cost millions to keep a serial killer who'll never leave prison locked up for the rest of his days. I say better to gas the b****** and spend the money on schools or something worthwhile.

I thought that carrying out a death sentence in the US ends up costing the tax payer much more than life without parole because of the long appeals process and enormous amount of legal work that needs to be done before putting someone to death?

It does. In the US. That's only an argument against the US system, not the death penalty in general. There's no reason why someone sentenced to death should be entitled to more appeals than someone with a life-sentence.

If you want to argue against the US system, I think my previously mentioned point about the fact that they execute people (well, black men) for crimes they didn't commit is a far, far stronger argument than the cost one.

So the best option would be to take the US system, where you've admitted they put too many innocent people to death already, but without as many safeguards, legal tests and appeals because they cost too much?

Let me get this straight: I write the US system executes innocents, and you understand that to mean I'm in favour of such a system???

Why would I be in favour of a system that puts innocents to death? As a point of fact I think the US "justice" system is entirely screwed up from top to bottom.

There's no reason why someone sentenced to death should be entitled to more appeals than someone with a life-sentence.

Well yes, there is, because if a week later you find out that evidence was withheld or a confession was bogus  you can reverse the life-sentence.  That's much harder to do with a death sentence.

That doesn't make any sense. If you want to give people sentenced to death greater scope to appeal than lifers, then logically at some point the lifer wouldn't have the opportunity to present the new evidence that the person facing execution would.

I understand you're utterly against the death penalty, and you're entitled to feel that way, but your arguments don't make sense or are against something I simply didn't say.

I'll try to be as clear as possible about my position on the death penalty:

In theory, I'm for the death penalty for murderers where there is absolutely zero doubt that they did it. In practice, I'm against it, because things do go wrong, and as you say, a death penalty cannot be reversed.

That said, if there is a death penalty in place, I don't think someone facing life in prison should be any less entitled in terms of appeals than someone charged with a capital offence. Obviously, spending 20 years in prison for something you didn't do is not as bad as being executed for it, but it's a serious enough mistake that it deserves to be handled in a similar manner.

[BlueStar]

Let me get this straight: I write the US system executes innocents, and you understand that to mean I'm in favour of such a system???

No, you suggest that too much time and money is spent on appeals and legal process before executing someone in the US (including the accomodation, food, security etc during their long time on death row) when the fact that people are being wrongly put to death only for new evidence to come to light after the fact sugegsts the opposite.

Well yes, there is, because if a week later you find out that evidence was withheld or a confession was bogus  you can reverse the life-sentence.  That's much harder to do with a death sentence.

That doesn't make any sense. If you want to give people sentenced to death greater scope to appeal than lifers, then logically at some point the lifer wouldn't have the opportunity to present the new evidence that the person facing execution would.

But if new evidence does come to light during a life sentence, it's grounds for an appeal.

In theory, I'm for the death penalty for murderers where there is absolutely zero doubt that they did it.

See, I  hear this position a lot (supported both in theory, as in your case, and in practise), and I take serious issue with it because we don't have a judgement of "They definitely done it guv."  We have guilty or not guilty.  You don't give lighter sentences because you're not really sure.  If you did have this kind of system, you'd have people sentenced to life appealing on the grounds of "You're obviously not sure I did it or you would have given me the death penalty."  You might also end up with the situation where someone convicted of one murder was put to death because there were more witnesses, while someone who was convicted of 10 murders was given life because there were only two witnesses and no DNA evidence.

In practice, I'm against it, because things do go wrong, and as you say, a death penalty cannot be reversed.

That said, if there is a death penalty in place, I don't think someone facing life in prison should be any less entitled in terms of appeals than someone charged with a capital offence.

But in a situation where there is the death penalty then the person serving life will be more entitled, if they can show there is evidence that has been overlooked, irregularities in the trial, new witnesses etc.  A person who has received the death penalty doesn't have that option, sot here is an unavoidable disparity there, as grave, if not more grave than the oen you are arguign against from the opposite perspective.

Obviously, spending 20 years in prison for something you didn't do is not as bad as being executed for it, but it's a serious enough mistake that it deserves to be handled in a similar manner.

But someone realising that you've been wrongly convicted 6 months after you began your life sentence is much better than them finding out 6 months after you began your death sentence.  The point is, the more time there is for the truth to come out, the more likely it is to come out - which is partially why you don't get taken from this place and strung up straight away even in the US and why you instead go and occupy the most expensive prison cells in the country for a decade or so before they off you.

[wormy]

Forget the logistics of it. I just think life should mean life, forget death penalty completely. Jail someone, and keep them jailed. Rather than this 'good behaviour' bullshit. 9 times out of 10, what can you do in a jail other than 'behave'??  Ridiculous. I'd much rather keep someone locked up so they can let what they've done play on their mind until they day they naturally die, rather than just get rid of them with the death penalty. I'd guess some of them, in their sick heads, might find it more of a release than jail itself, at least they won't have to deal with their crimes if they're just executed. Why let them get off like that? Screw it, forget the death penalty, keep them locked up for life.

[mrmojorisin75]

Only 'cos they keep executing the wrong people (well, the Americans do). It can cost millions to keep a serial killer who'll never leave prison locked up for the rest of his days. I say better to gas the b****** and spend the money on schools or something worthwhile.

I thought that carrying out a death sentence in the US ends up costing the tax payer much more than life without parole because of the long appeals process and enormous amount of legal work that needs to be done before putting someone to death?

It does. In the US. That's only an argument against the US system, not the death penalty in general. There's no reason why someone sentenced to death should be entitled to more appeals than someone with a life-sentence.

If you want to argue against the US system, I think my previously mentioned point about the fact that they execute people (well, black men) for crimes they didn't commit is a far, far stronger argument than the cost one.

[wacko]

Let me get this straight: I write the US system executes innocents, and you understand that to mean I'm in favour of such a system???

No, you suggest that too much time and money is spent on appeals and legal process before executing someone in the US (including the accomodation, food, security etc during their long time on death row) when the fact that people are being wrongly put to death only for new evidence to come to light after the fact sugegsts the opposite.

No I didn't. All I said was that I agree that it does cost more to execute someone in the US than to sentence them to life. Nothing more, nothing less. You inferred that yourself, for whatever reason.

Well yes, there is, because if a week later you find out that evidence was withheld or a confession was bogus  you can reverse the life-sentence.  That's much harder to do with a death sentence.

That doesn't make any sense. If you want to give people sentenced to death greater scope to appeal than lifers, then logically at some point the lifer wouldn't have the opportunity to present the new evidence that the person facing execution would.

But if new evidence does come to light during a life sentence, it's grounds for an appeal.

As it should be. So how do you provide greater rights to an appeal than that? You said people with death sentences should have more rights of appeal than people with life sentences.

In theory, I'm for the death penalty for murderers where there is absolutely zero doubt that they did it.

See, I  hear this position a lot (supported both in theory, as in your case, and in practise), and I take serious issue with it because we don't have a judgement of "They definitely done it guv."  We have guilty or not guilty.  You don't give lighter sentences because you're not really sure.  If you did have this kind of system, you'd have people sentenced to life appealing on the grounds of "You're obviously not sure I did it or you would have given me the death penalty."  You might also end up with the situation where someone convicted of one murder was put to death because there were more witnesses, while someone who was convicted of 10 murders was given life because there were only two witnesses and no DNA evidence.

Which is why I said I'm against the death sentence in practice.

It's not feasible to have one level of justice where there are 30 eye witnesses and a video recording, and a second level where there is only a great likelihood that the accused committed the murder.

In practice, I'm against it, because things do go wrong, and as you say, a death penalty cannot be reversed.

That said, if there is a death penalty in place, I don't think someone facing life in prison should be any less entitled in terms of appeals than someone charged with a capital offence.

But in a situation where there is the death penalty then the person serving life will be more entitled, if they can show there is evidence that has been overlooked, irregularities in the trial, new witnesses etc.  A person who has received the death penalty doesn't have that option, sot here is an unavoidable disparity there, as grave, if not more grave than the oen you are arguign against from the opposite perspective.

I understand that, but what more right of appeal can you give anyone than to say that if new evidence/witnesses come up, or there is an indication that the original trial was not proper, you are entitled to an appeal/retrial?

Obviously, spending 20 years in prison for something you didn't do is not as bad as being executed for it, but it's a serious enough mistake that it deserves to be handled in a similar manner.

But someone realising that you've been wrongly convicted 6 months after you began your life sentence is much better than them finding out 6 months after you began your death sentence.  The point is, the more time there is for the truth to come out, the more likely it is to come out - which is partially why you don't get taken from this place and strung up straight away even in the US and why you instead go and occupy the most expensive prison cells in the country for a decade or so before they off you.

I understand your point, but again, that doesn't make much sense to me. Who's to say whether it will be 6 months or 20 years later when new evidence comes to light?

[Rob W]

the death sentence never deterred in the UK

it also led to a whole load of innocent people being killed

end of story -civilised countries don't kill people

[mrmojorisin75]

the death sentence never deterred in the UK

doesn't deter in the US either really does it?  there's a fundamental flaw in the argument of deterrence for me which is basically that murderers generally aren't the most balanced of types who'll sit there and mull over the pros and cons of whether to murder someone vs. the potential consequences are they?

maybe a % are cold calculated killers, say gangsters, who know what they're doing but surely the vast majority will be crimes of passion/rage/desperation or borderline fruitcakes?

dunno, there's just a missing step for me: i can't imagine many scenarios where someone would murder a person in the knowledge they're not gonna be executed themselves vs. not doing it when faced with the death penalty

if you get to that point i think it'll likely be a step too far anyways

[Liam Liam Liam O]

the death sentence never deterred in the UK

it also led to a whole load of innocent people being killed

end of story -civilised countries don't kill people

Unless they go to war, based on misguided intelligence.