• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute?

Things that make you SAD thread.

WolfMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2021
Messages
742
Reaction score
581
From a purely pragmatic perspective, what's the difference? It seems like society would be better off without having to incur those costs?
I'd have the death penalty if it was up to me.

The arguments against it are what if you execute an innocent person. This is small possibility, but on average at least one person a year is murdered by a murderer that has previously been convicted and then released from prison. The rate at which false convictions happened would likely be far less than this.

The way to prevent this would be never to release murderers. I've spoken to prison officers who've said this would cause chaos in prisons as the most violent prisoners would have no incentive to behave well, as alot of murderers are released after 15 years. Then there is the cost to society you mention, think it's around £45k per year per prisoner.

It's a really difficult subject and I'm instinctively inclined to be against it but on balance I'm in favour of it, but I can understand why someone might feel differently.
 

Elephant Pyjamas

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
4,477
Reaction score
1,521
Last edited:

Elephant Pyjamas

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
4,477
Reaction score
1,521
That's America, and you'd like to think that we could be more streamlined in our approach here. But i think we'd see something similar, appeal after appeal and people on Death Row for decades.
 

Paddingtonwolf

Profanisaurus Rex
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
73,314
Reaction score
2,039
His remaining existence will be grim. He will never be in general population as he wouldn’t last a night. So solitary for the rest of his days.
 

Newbridge Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
5,047
Reaction score
409
Indeed, hardly a miserable existence (although not one I'd choose) he will live the rest of his life in moderate comfort albeit with restrictions on his liberty, whilst the victims will suffer for the rest of their lives.

He will be on a protected wing with other sex offenders and ex police. Who knows he may well be seen as low risk in a few years and be at an open prison. He will almost certainly have greater freedoms than many envisage he shoukd have or deserve.

It's the old argument of is the justice system there to punish or rehabilitate. I believe there is too much on the rehabilitation and not enough on the punishment, but I'm no expert.
 

Paul

I am Kenneth from Wolverhampton
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
10,309
Reaction score
1,347
i think i heard the same interview lincs heard. the stat applied to the met police. some of the crimes were against fellow officers, but equally some of the crimes were against vulnerable women who the police were supposed to be supporting. the worrying thing about those cases, is that it's an abuse of power given their role.

given this, and the responsibility they have, it is worrying.
I'm not disagreeing and I find the thought of it happening abhorrent but to blanket the entire force as criminals is utter rubbish, for example in 2016/17 a third of teachers struck off was for sexual misconduct, are all teachers pedophiles of course they're bloody not
 

Newbridge Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
5,047
Reaction score
409
Across a broad section of society you will of course find a certain percentage who are happy to break the law. Having worked on building sites that percentage rises a hell of a lot!

The police are a large employer and whilst they do background checks, these of course are fallable as any other system.

In terms of a % who are convicted of sexual misconduct who kept their job, I'm no expert but sexual misconduct covers a broad range of misdemeanours, some more serious than others.

It could be more suitable for behaviour or training to understand what is and isn't acceptable in a workplace environment rather than instant dismissal.

Whilst it may look alarming as a stat on its own, perhaps there is more to it and it is a zero tolerance of any behaviour that may cause offence being taken seriously.

It most certainly is not as straight forward as the figures indicate.
 

Paddingtonwolf

Profanisaurus Rex
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
73,314
Reaction score
2,039
Indeed, hardly a miserable existence (although not one I'd choose) he will live the rest of his life in moderate comfort albeit with restrictions on his liberty, whilst the victims will suffer for the rest of their lives.

He will be on a protected wing with other sex offenders and ex police. Who knows he may well be seen as low risk in a few years and be at an open prison. He will almost certainly have greater freedoms than many envisage he shoukd have or deserve.

It's the old argument of is the justice system there to punish or rehabilitate. I believe there is too much on the rehabilitation and not enough on the punishment, but I'm no expert.
Interesting. I would argue there is not a jot of rehabilitation in the handing down of a whole life order as there is no prospect of parole.

The only whole life order prisoner that I can recall being released is Reggie Kray because he had days to live with terminal cancer.

Myra Hindley tried for years to get her order overturned. Jeremy Bamber is still trying now after 36 years in prison.
 

Lupo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
391
I don't think Reggie Kray was under a whole life tariff was he? Were they even a thing 20 years ago when Reg died?

Regarding Sarah Everard, I feel desperately sad for the tragedy that befell this beautiful young lady with her life ahead of her, also her family who's lives have been ruined by this loss and the harrowing thoughts of their loved ones final hours will haunt them.

As for that disgusting lowlife Couzens, I wouldn't give a hit if they put a bullet through his head but equally, I wouldn't mind if he lived another 40-50 years in absolute terror of possible repercussions and haunted by Sarah's sweet smile every time he closes his eyes. Absolute filth
 

Paddingtonwolf

Profanisaurus Rex
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
73,314
Reaction score
2,039
He had been in prison for well over his tariff and hadn’t asked for parole so it has always been assumed that the Home Secretary had decreed life meant life as it was in their remit then. Same with Hindley. Whole life orders handed down by judges are more recent as it being solely in the hands of the Home Secretary was seen to be politically sensitive.

Same with Jeremy Bamber as he was convicted in 1986 with a 25 year tariff and then Douglas Hurd upgraded it to a whole life sentence. And in my opinion there is a fairly substantial body of evidence in that case which suggests the conviction might well be unsafe, hence why he keeps trying to get the legal wheels rolling again and again.
 

Lupo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
391
Oh both of them (Krays) certainly seemed to serve over their time, I felt at the time that the authorities wanted to make an example of the pair of them. They were far from angels, they were evil thugs really but their sentences did seem a little out of kilter with other criminals.

I've always felt that Bamber is guilty as hell personally and White House Farm last year didn't do him many favours. It is true that he has constantly appealed but then he has nothing to lose by doing so. Mate of mine on Facebook who is an author and also behind the TV documentary about Hubert Spencer/Carl Bridgewater works with Bamber on his case but then seems to think that most people in prison are wrongly convicted
 

Paddingtonwolf

Profanisaurus Rex
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
73,314
Reaction score
2,039
Oh both of them (Krays) certainly seemed to serve over their time, I felt at the time that the authorities wanted to make an example of the pair of them. They were far from angels, they were evil thugs really but their sentences did seem a little out of kilter with other criminals.

I've always felt that Bamber is guilty as hell personally and White House Farm last year didn't do him many favours. It is true that he has constantly appealed but then he has nothing to lose by doing so. Mate of mine on Facebook who is an author and also behind the TV documentary about Hubert Spencer/Carl Bridgewater works with Bamber on his case but then seems to think that most people in prison are wrongly convicted
There are some things that don’t sit right.

Firstly, his sister couldn’t have used the gun on herself with the silencer attached as her arms were too short so the silencer was crucial. Police searched the gun shed on the day of the killings and the silencer wasn’t there. But it was several days later, when it was found by Bambers cousins, who inherited the whole estate.

The marks on the mantelpiece that are allegedly from the silencer striking it in a scrap in the kitchen over the gun weren’t there in the original crime scene photos, but then had appeared three days later when the silencer was found.

A lot of Bambers story seems far fetched, especially the phone calls, but there is poor policing as well and more than a few things just don’t add up.
 

Lincs_Wolf

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
4,232
Reaction score
1,124
The state doesn't have and shouldn't have the right to murder anybody. It's barbaric, is proven to not work as a deterrent and we only need to go back a couple of decades to see what would have happened to the innocent convicted killers of Rachel Nickell and Jill Dando.

The initial trial judge of the Guildford 4 bemoaned he wasn't able to give them the death penalty in his sentencing remarks too.
 

WolfMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2021
Messages
742
Reaction score
581
The state doesn't have and shouldn't have the right to murder anybody. It's barbaric, is proven to not work as a deterrent and we only need to go back a couple of decades to see what would have happened to the innocent convicted killers of Rachel Nickell and Jill Dando.
This is what I used to think as well, but when murderers are released some of them kill again.

There were 30 murders commited by convicted murderers who'd been released between 2000/2010.


Without mandatory life terms for all murderers you could make the case it's not state murder but a preventative execution. There are legitimate reasons why the state kills people that isn't murder, such as terrorist incidents. There'd be a risk of miscarriages of justice and some people may be executed wrongly, but it's very unlikely it would average 3 per year, which is currently the price we pay for not executing murderers and releasing them.
 

Tony Towner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
25,508
Reaction score
5,309
So, we just have collateral damage then? Presumably, not all murderers would be executed, presumably not all murderers wouldn't be given total life sentences? If that is what you are saying then what about those who were convicted as kids or young adults? What about those who have subsequently been released, turned their lives around and contributed to society? What about Dirty Den 😉
 
Top