The problem with racism is starting with "all baby killers are male martians" and then switching this round to "all martians are baby killers". By saying "we should focus on the martians" your are being a racist, by focusing on baby killers your are solving a problem. The way some 'logic' in this thread is exhibited leads me to suspect a very certain level of racism.

Now I understand. This is why white fat blokes go to Asia.

No, we go as members of the Barmy Army to watch England lose at cricket and drink LOADS of beer

EFA

All valid points above!

The men from different backround/culture would have seen the native girls as easier targets.

We are far to soft in this country in every regard ' bar motororing offences'

Imagine the role was reversed the accused were staying in Pakistan and done the same what would happen to them?

I am not in any way saying the nature of the nationality of the accused is the issue as see here british both male female carry out similar every other month.

In my opinion these offences should carry higher sentencing ' however I am not sure the current system locking crooks up in jail serving half the sentence given, with access to tv and other treats is the correct process anyway' ?

Caning. Birching. Hanging. Far more effective. Unfortunately no longer acceptable.

That clearly old school, but why TV, family visits bla bla bla. I havent checked the exact stats but im sure more than 65% of offenders end up back in jail.

Im sure people from here know people who have been inside and dont really want to go back, but would they be really bothered if they did?

So that makes the problem either the sentence is not efficient or the mindset of person should be attempted to be changed with more advanced methods!

Absolutely. However there were no re-offences commited by Ruth Ellis, James Hanratty (long held to be a miscarriage of justice, until modern DNA proved his guilt), Dr Crippen or John Christie following a guilty verdict and due process of law.

Just possibly where the next one or two ropes should be applied

Modern DNA techniques should make the application of the ropes just!

do you not think people like that are inbetween ill and know whay they are doing?

It really makes my blood boil how people can treat children like this as a parent myself!


If you can commit that kind of crime in my op you should loose some of your 'human rights' as you dont deserve them

Really why not section them, or non pain visual/audio sessions for hours.

It may seem harsh but does rehab >30% work for theses people?

Sorry mate I dont understand what your reference to the DNA techniques would mean?

The traditional issue against capital punishment was the risk of executing an innocent person (hence my reference on Hanratty). Modern DNA techniques mean we are more able to ensure that only people proved scientifically to have commited murder are executed. (There will be some argument on the definement/validity of proven guilt by the liberal element..).

Any doubt on guilt which doesn't result in a "not guilty" verdict would result in a life sentence, which in my mind means until death unless any contrary evidence is subsequently presented which would justify a change of sentence.

And the modern argument against capital punishment is that it doesn't work as a deterrent.

Not that the traditional argument has gone away - DNA testing isn't some magic which proves a persons intent, it's merely a useful tool for linking a person to a place (and even then it's far from infallible).

Which is easily proved by the numbers of people who commit capital crimes in countries which *do* have the death penalty.

All this talk of string 'em up after the event - let's have some discussion about how it might be possible to prevent the events in the first place (bearing in mind that the events range through petty theft, abusive behaviour, motoring offences, fraud, rape, murder and so on).

I'm firmly convinced that the prospect of punishment is *not* a deterrent in many people, but rather the prospect of getting caught.

I care not if it's an effective deterrent. It's an effective way of preventing reoffending and minimising the cost of keeping offenders.

100% agree. The punishments don't fit the crimes in this country, and it costs the tax payer to keep them. Then they sue the tax payer when they feel their rights have been violated. God awful situation.

If it's re-offending that has got your knickers in a twist then you can forget about the death penalty for murder. The vast majority of murders are committed by people with no convictions at all, normal every day people. Introducing the death penalty for re-offending would probably mostly target those who break the Road Traffic Act .... and this place would have a hell of a lot less posts.

Apparently not as cost effective as you believe:

A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)

In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
(Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)

In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
(California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)

Ah, but they waste time leaving the lags on death row for years, for appeal after appeal. It would be far better if they were led from the courthouse, down the steps and into disposal van. Bullets are very cheap.

In China I believe the family of the condemned pay for the bullet. Which makes the process even more cost effective.

I see in the very carefully constructed costings above that there was no cost for keeping the prisoner for the rest of his/her life factored into the equation.

I have no difficulty with the concept of capital punishment not having a deterent effect. If you wilfully and unlawfully take someone's life, yours should be forfeit.

Erm.. you mean like what was quoted in the very first example ?

A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

Having said that $740000 sounds suspiciously low, given the cost of keeping a prisoner in UK is, according to the Guardian and Independent in 2010, between £38-45k pa. A 20 year term would result in incarceration costs alone of £760-900k.

As life often means life in the US, it would appear that including the legal process costs, keeping a prisoner in a high security prison must be a lot more cost effective in the US than here. Maybe we should contract the State of Kansas to deal with our scum.

Unless the median is lowered by those not living long enough to serve their sentences.

So... you would use the victims of the crime as bait to draw out the criminals? Can't help feeling I'd rather not have the crime in the first place.

"The bleating of the lamb excites the tiger..."

It would appear I was correct originally. Having re-read your post, the figures quoted refer to case costs, no mention of incarceration costs.

No, you were and remain, wrong. Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration, which means the total case costs included the cost of keeping them in prison for their whole sentence. Many prisoners on death row cannot read either.

The problem is the route cause of the 45k p/a cost. The realist in me knows why but the rest of me believes it should be no more than 15k as many people in prison don't deserve any kind of humanity.
There is another way on corporal punishment - put the child fiddlers and sick nut jobs in with the hard core gang murders. That'll sort some of the problem whilst dealing with over crowding

Is that the case or are you just presuming it? I'm happy to read the full report Truffle is referring to. To me case costs are legal fees, I still think given the long sentences given to US killers that the quoted figure is low if it does include incarceration costs.





I presume this was some sort of "clever" comment? Obviously I can read and write, comprehension may be the issue here.

As I've been warned about a previous post, I won't deign to respond to the dig. That plus the lack of a stroker emoticon which would have replaced the rolling eyes.

Having just re-read this thread I have to congratulate you. A 6'5" ex-doorman who can read? Very commendable.

So, a group of people were yelling for sex-slavery to be recognised as a Pakistani crime. I challenged them to show how that would help, and rather than respond the same group of people began shouting for a return to the death penalty, even though it doesn't make the crime less likely, and doesn't even make fiscal sense.

Is this just a case of this crime being so terrible that we must do something about it, irrespective of whether that something does nothing other than make us feel better for having acted?

It's interesting to note that both this thread and another one currently running have eluded to the authorities being too hard on motorists, but 3,000 people a year die on the UK's roads. That sounds pretty terrible to me - where are the calls for a massive crack-down on motorists, birchings for those who exceed the speed limit or the death penalty for drink-drivers?

No, that would be crazy, wouldn't it? We're much better off punishing people who are, in some way, not like us.

There is no presumption required, it is right there in the original post about the report referred to by Truffle. You quoted it, I quoted it, you quoted it again and yet you still cannot see it?