Thursday, August 14, 2014

Save only that you get it wrong

I tend to like Ukip candidates, because they aren't 'career' politicians they tend to speak their mind often to the horror of the political class and their chums in the libtard led media.
Mail.
To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the last execution in Britain today a newly-elected UKIP MEP has called for its reintroduction.
Louise Bours, who represents North West England in the European Parliament, said there was no ‘ethical reason’ to keep child killers and police murderers alive.
The remarks, which come as anti-death penalty activists welcomed today’s milestone, are likely to spark controversy.
Controversy amongst the political chattering classes perhaps, though I rather suspect that amongst ordinary people  not so much as they tend to see things away from the shade of the intelligentsia that believe in their divine right to tell us how to live our lives down to the smallest detail.
Personally my only objection to the death penalty is that if you do make a mistake it's impossible to put it right and I have no trust in the police or the CPS to make sure that in certain cases the evidence is properly collated and gone through. Sure the likes of Ian Huntley and the 7/7 bombers as well as the killers of Lee Rigby won't be missed, but we all know about miscarriages of justice too and the propensity of the state and their minions to throw their weight around as well as throwing the odd victim to the wolves.
Still, no doubt the idea will be quite popular amongst the real people of the UK, donations to Ukip are now bigger than those going to the Lib Dems after all. But over all, unless Ukip can deal with corruption and incompetence within the legal and policing systems, it's not something I propose they do immediately.
Should be worth a good few votes though.

8 annotations:

Kath lissenden said...

The sooner this country reinstates the death penalty the better.
I am all for rehabilitation but there are some very dangerous people who can never be rehabilitated, and there are the career criminals whose crimes start petty and grow and grow till they kill someone, they like prison,they like the security and they like the fact there are no bills to pay. As for the old "but we might hang an innocent" well with DNA and Forensic advances that seems unlikely. I am all for it Lee Rigbys killers are prime candidates for reintroduction of the death penalty they wanted to meet their rabid, evil god let's send them on their way.

Curmudgeon said...

I have read that when the death penalty applied juries became increasingly reluctant to convict in cases that might lead to a death sentence.

Lord T said...

I used to be for the death penalty until I understood more about 'justice' in this country. When Plod can set someone up, get found out and nothing happens then we can't trust the evidence in life and death situations.

Of course some cases are black and white, when the killer admits it then we can do it but if they plead innocence who can be 100% sure.

And as far as people claiming that it was them that killed someone, that problem solves itself after a while.

In the meantime I simply don't trust the system enough for a situation that can't be reversed.

Anonymous said...

If I were a member of the jury in a case that might lead to someone's hanging, unless I could be 100% certain that they were guilty -- and I consider that to be impossible, short of a plea of guilty, which would in itself suggest some degree of leniency, I would have to vote against his being found guilty, just in case.

We cannot bring people back from the dead and a 'Royal Pardon' is of little consolation to those left behind.

I can sympathise with some of the pro-hanging arguments but I could never espouse them -- nor, I think, could many of my fellow Englishmen.

john in cheshire said...

The death penalty should be reinstated for Treason and trials should be instigated against a large number of members of the last Labour government.

Anonymous said...

If you were a member of any jury and were not sure the defendant was guilty then you should not convict, no matter what the offence. That's the whole point of that "evidence" stuff, if it's not good enough then there's no conviction. But do you really mean you could not be sure that the murderers of Lee Rigby were guilty? They want to be martyred so hang them and everyone's happy. No problem.

Anonymous said...

@john in cheshire: You raise an excellent point regarding the killers of Lee Rigby, and I firmly believe they should never be freed from prison. It is often said that hard cases make bad laws, and I think this is probably the hardest case one could imagine. If they were to be executed, they would most certainly become martyrs to their twisted cause, so not allowing them to become such might be seen as a positive outcome -- or at least the most harmless option. I have always thought that, when all your choices are bad ones, you should choose the one which hurts the least, and not executing them would seem, to me, to be that option.

I am also rather old-fashioned and either blessed (some might say cursed) with an apparently unpopular belief in redemption for all sinners if they seek it; it isn't easy, but no-one said it would be. I feel they should be given the chance; your opinion is obviously the opposite.

Thank you for sharing your views clearly and without flaming -- it is not common to find such consideration these days.

Woman on a Raft said...

We wouldn't be having a controversy if Life meant Life (unless there was a damn good reason, as there can be in a very few specialized cases).

I see in the news that a convicted murderer who slaughtered his step-daughter is being told to 'expect a substantial sentence'.

I should bloody well hope so. Why is it only substantial and not for the rest of his life? The victim isn't coming back to life.