Originally Posted by Guinness (Post 1014390)

*Thread wander alert*

I'm of the opinion that the ability to commit premeditated murder is innate.

People from all walks of life, social upbringing, parental role models etc... have senselessly killed another human being. So I agree with you, there can be no such thing as an effective deterrent for a person who is amoral enough to commit an act as vile as taking a life.

Should murderers be executed? No..its far too humane, after all it's what we do for our sick animals, (and it wont be too long before we can do it to our sick relatives). As evidence I'll cite Gary Gilmore and more recently Anders Brevik who both pretty much begged to be be executed. Gilmore even went to court to select the method of his own destruction.

Should murderers die behind bars? Yes..it appeases my own 'innate' sense of fair play, even though it galls me to have to pay (via taxes) for them, never to have to worry about keeping a roof over their head, never having to worry about putting food on the table, never having to wait for a doctors/specialists appointment, never having to wait in their dementia ridden old age for a carer to pop in for a few minutes to give them their medication and microwaved ready meal.

But then I think, they are never going to spend a drunken friday night with good mates, a sunday walk in the woods with someone special, a drive round the ring of Kerry, a cruise down the nile, xmas with the family etc..etc.. and I really wouldn't mind my taxes being spent on life meaning life..

without the chance of parole..

ever..

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1013970)

Former Premier League Footballer Andrew Hall, 18 has been jailed for the murder of his 15 year old girlfriend the judge said it was because he was jealous of her other friends. He knifed her around 60 times in her own home, yet the Judge sentenced him to life in prison, with a requirement that he serves at least 10 years:eek::eek::eek:Ten flaming years, if that had been my daughter I'd have been pulling my hair out at that sentence, knifing anybody 60 times tells me and most right minded people that this chap is a very dangerous person, and the thought that he could be back on the streets in 10 years is, to say the least frightening

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 1014797)

If he serves at least 10 years that means he could be out when he's 29 which means he still would have part of his youth left ( youth meaning he'll still be young) What the law should do in these cases, because he took the life of someone, then the law should take his life, if not literally, then at least take away the quality of his life, in that he be let out when he is at least 40 years old and those youthful years lost for ever. To me that is fit punishment.

Originally Posted by kestrelx (Post 1014797)

If he serves at least 10 years that means he could be out when he's 29 which means he still would have part of his youth left ( youth meaning he'll still be young) What the law should do in these cases, because he took the life of someone, then the law should take his life, if not literally, then at least take away the quality of his life, in that he be let out when he is at least 40 years old and those youthful years lost for ever. To me that is fit punishment.

Originally Posted by Balbus (Post 1014897)

Prison is a punishment. The only people who think it isn't are those who have never been inside one. I have (professionally) frequently. I hated it and was always glad to get out at the end of the day. I only saw the "nicer" parts of the prison when interviewing Defendants, and that was bad enough.
Remember, if you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals (viz. the Strangeways riots).
Prison should (but not always does) work on the basis that there is always hope of redemption. That is what Parole is all about. Not everyone can be redeemed, that is why not everyone gets parole.
Bear in mind too, that the younger you are, the longer time appears. At 20, a 10 year sentence is half your life so far, and arguably a greater punishment than it would be for an old lag.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 1014914)

It is sad that the families of the prisoner are punished......but shouldn't the prisoner have thought about them when he/she was perpetrating the act?

At least the family will get to see their relative on visiting day....the murdered persons family have been robbed of their relative and will never see them again.......I think you have to keep that perspective in mind.

Prison might feel bad to those who are only visiting, but the fact that many criminals re-offend means that it can't be that bad, or the thought of going back in would be a deterrent. It clearly isn't.

Originally Posted by susie123 (Post 1014922)

If we are talking about murder, as has been stated before on this thread, it is often if not usually a heat of the moment affair so the family is likely to be the last thing on the perpetrator's mind.