Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Should a murderer get a whole-life sentence?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

saltireblue
saltireblue Site Moderator 43917 forum postssaltireblue vcard Norway25 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jul 2013 - 9:55 AM


Quote: Quite so, in retrospect I don't think it was a good idea to raise this subject on a photographic forum. Admin should have edited this.

There is absolutely nothing in this thread (so farWink) to justify any action by the Mod Team.
The thread is exactly what this forum section is for, and the thread has been civil and kept to the point (for a changeGrin)

MODERATOR POST
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
10 Jul 2013 - 9:55 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Big Bri
Big Bri  1315586 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 9:56 AM

Is a prison sentence for
a) keeping the public safe, or
b) punishing the perpetrator?

IMHO it is both, so even for crimes where there may be no further risk to the public (and I find that hard to believe - if someone has murdered one spouse in the heat of passion, they're perfectly capable of doing it again - more so, I would say, than any other person) you need a prison sentence.
In the case of serial murderers, I think whole life term is justified. I find it sickening someone could deliberately take the life of others, then moan about their human rights.

cathal
cathal  10492 forum posts Ireland4 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jul 2013 - 9:56 AM


Quote: Quite so, in retrospect I don't think it was a good idea to raise this subject on a photographic forum. Admin should have edited this.

The subject is in a section of the forum intended for such "not relevant to photography" topics, and everybody is playing nicely, so rock on guys!

Evertonian
10 Jul 2013 - 9:58 AM

It is all very easy. Rather than state that a convicted murderer must remain behind bars for life in order to protect the public forever, I believe we should do as in the USA. The judge awards a sentence of 150 years. Allowing for a reduction of 33.3% for good behaviour, he/she should be out in 100 years. Sorted. - 'job's a goodden'.

Evertonian
10 Jul 2013 - 10:04 AM


Quote: How many times does it need to be said: it is not the EU Human rights, it is the European Court of Human rights which is absolutely sod all to do with the EU. Leaving one institution will not result in departure from the other.


You keep saying that but you surely do know what is meant by the comment. They are all part and parcel of the same corrupt organisation as others have said many times too.

mikehit
mikehit  56474 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jul 2013 - 10:07 AM


Quote: They are all part and parcel of the same corrupt organisation as others have said many times too

No, they are different corrupt organisations Tongue

llareggub
llareggub  4698 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 10:08 AM


Quote: How many times does it need to be said: it is not the EU Human rights, it is the European Court of Human rights which is absolutely sod all to do with the EU. Leaving one institution will not result in departure from the other.


You keep saying that but you surely do know what is meant by the comment. They are all part and parcel of the same corrupt organisation as others have said many times too.

They are not linked in any way shape or form, whether or not they are corrupt is a different question all together... The judgement by the ECHR simply means that a judge cannot hand out a whole life sentence without due process being carried out throughout the incarceration of a prisoner, I don't see what the problem is.

cathal
cathal  10492 forum posts Ireland4 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jul 2013 - 10:11 AM

I'm with Big Bri on this.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with the issue of a spouse killer getting a lesser sentence. It shows capability, and who is to say in the future circumstances couldn't arise to cause a repeat offence?

While I am in favour of rehabilitation, I think it is a cop out to a degree. The penal element has all but gone from the judicial system. Offenders who are locked up are generally locked up to protect society. In order of priority it should be Protect, punish, rehabilitate. Once the authorities can be satisfied that the offender no longer represents a risk to society, and an appropriate loss of liberty has been imposed suitable to the crime, then, and only then should the road towards parole begin.

Life sentences have become very diluted. The average is fifteen years, but it can be as low as nine years.

thewilliam
10 Jul 2013 - 10:28 AM


Quote: in retrospect I don't think it was a good idea to raise this subject on a photographic forum. Admin should have edited this.

This part of the forum is called "healthy debate" and the discussion has certainly been lively and healthy, even respectful. Now did you just want five minutes or the full half-hour?

clairewilliams
10 Jul 2013 - 11:08 AM

I may be a lone voice but I don't believe in locking someone up and throwing away the key. Prison is meant to be about reform as much as punishment the chance for a person to reflect on what they did wrong and hopefully learn from it. If the person has done significant time ( and by that I mean 20+years) and truly seems to have changed and no longer poses a threat then they should be given at least a chance for parole, they can always be recalled if they show any signs of continued danger to the public.

I saw this documentary on lifers in America and thought it was appalling how they had 150yr sentences and no hope of ever getting out regardless of change. That is at the least bordering on cruel if you ask me, let them at least have hope especially if they are protesting innocence. Innocent people do get locked up, mistakes happen.

One guy had murdered someone while he was a juvenile (I think he was 13 or 14 but tried as an adult) and had no hope of getting out ever. Now I'm not saying he shouldn't serve a significant period of time, but he did appear to have grown and shown true remorse and I wasn't sure what the point locking him up beyond that was meant to achieve. He'd did significant time he'd missed his youth, and seemed to have actually came to understand what a horrific thing he'd did.

thewilliam
10 Jul 2013 - 11:54 AM

I strongly believe that prison should be about treatment first and punishment second. A large proportion of convicts will offend again soon after release, so isn't the punishment element irrelevant to the victims of these subsequent crimes? If treatment were effective, there would be no more victims!

Some crimes are so heinous that disposal is the best response. The usual means of execution in the western world are quick and relatively painless: certainly more merciful than the death that most of us are going to suffer. Since the abolition, wouldn't most people want offenders like Ian Brady locked up for life?

By all means have a parole hearing after 20 or 30 years and review the case but let's not lose sight of the fact that a murderer took away a "whole life".

cathal
cathal  10492 forum posts Ireland4 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jul 2013 - 12:04 PM


Quote: The usual means of execution in the western world are quick and relatively painless:

Straying into a different debate here, but no, they are not! The electric chair burns you slowly and painfully from the inside until your internal organs explode, and the lethal injection takes a while to take effect and allegedly burns like hell as you wait, paralysed, for cardiac arrest to occur.

Watch a truly magnificent documentary by Michael "sad man on a train" Portillo here if you want to see an in-depth scientific studies of execution, and how to do it humanly.

Evertonian
10 Jul 2013 - 1:20 PM


Quote: The usual means of execution in the western world are quick and relatively painless:

Straying into a different debate here, but no, they are not! The electric chair burns you slowly and painfully from the inside until your internal organs explode, and the lethal injection takes a while to take effect and allegedly burns like hell as you wait, paralysed, for cardiac arrest to occur.

Watch a truly magnificent documentary by Michael "sad man on a train" Portillo here if you want to see an in-depth scientific studies of execution, and how to do it humanly.

Hanging, from the time that the hangman enters the cell of the condemned man, to him being dead averages 8 seconds. The actual death is 1 second. Read books by the old hangmen, it just couldn't be more humane.

llareggub
llareggub  4698 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 1:31 PM


Quote:

Hanging, from the time that the hangman enters the cell of the condemned man, to him being dead averages 8 seconds. The actual death is 1 second. Read books by the old hangmen, it just couldn't be more humane.

Erm.... By not doing it!

llareggub
llareggub  4698 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 1:45 PM

To put the European Court of Human rights into perspective...

In 2012 there were 955 applications from the UK, just 3% of all claims made to the ECHR.

Just 19 of those 955 were considered to be admissible by the ECHR (less than 2%).

And in only 8 of those 19 cases was Britain found to be in violation of the convention.

Britain was fundamentally involved in the creation of the of the ECHR and I believe at its core it is a welcome set of standards to live to. Of course all laws conventions have unintended consequences and lawyers, who are the true villains of the story, are experts at exploiting these consequences. However I fail to see a meddling overlord in any of the figures I posted above!

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.