[edited by SamH to try to fix the quote]
[edited by SamH to try to fix the quote]
I'm not talking about the death penalty. I am talking about punishing people by killing them. That is what the military does, isn't it?
Except for MoD employees who leak info from dossiers relating to other countries' possession (or lack thereof) of weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, and the British Killing Squads routinely commit Murder as a Punishment...? They commit murder yes, but to call it a "punisment" is twisting the facts.
England iirc still has the Death Penalty for Acts of Treason, but thanks to the EU the sentance would be immdediately commuted to life.
EDIT - To say that the Millitary "punish" people isn't strictly correct - take WW2, were we "Punishing" the Germans? No, we were trying to save our own skin.
England iirc still has the Death Penalty for Acts of Treason, but thanks to the EU the sentance would be immdediately commuted to life.
EDIT - To say that the Millitary "punish" people isn't strictly correct - take WW2, were we "Punishing" the Germans? No, we were trying to save our own skin.
this made me laugh.
Ireland!
And no, we don't have a military
well we kinda do... i wouldn't call it a military though... they're more... boy scoutsSwitzerland then? Country sworn to Neutrality. What about Japan?
Except Ireland.
Actually the Human Rights Act of 1998 removed all possibility of the UK ever using the death penalty for anything, including desertion or mutiny in wartime. But the government has been toying with the idea of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights for a few years now, in order to put pointlessly invasive "security" measures into effect.
Coincidentally the last person to be executed in the UK was Peter Anthony Allen, who was hung on the 13th of August 1964. There were a few more death sentence passed after this, but they were all commuted to life by the Home Secretary.
It was in November '65 that a bill was passed effectively abolishing the death penalty in the UK, although as some have mentioned it was still possible, although extremely unlikely, for someone to be committed to death for certain crimes until the Human Rights Act of '98.
I think it's fair to say that these days anyone suggesting reinstating the death penalty would get pretty seriously pointed and laughed at.
It was in November '65 that a bill was passed effectively abolishing the death penalty in the UK, although as some have mentioned it was still possible, although extremely unlikely, for someone to be committed to death for certain crimes until the Human Rights Act of '98.
I think it's fair to say that these days anyone suggesting reinstating the death penalty would get pretty seriously pointed and laughed at.
You could still be hanged in England for commiting treason until 1998. Sadly, they replaced it with Enforced Watching of Big Brother.
Switzerland banned the death penalty in military in 1992 and the civil death penalty in 1942 (last execution was in 1940).
No. Should I explain what the Geneva Convention is, or what an army is and what are its purposes according to textbooks? I don't think so. Let's just accept your sentence is utterly wrong.
More ontopic, there's a public campaign to save Foster in Italy. La7, a major TV broadcaster, continually runs ads about him. He speaks and reads letters to his wife.
Death penalty is mentioned in two cases here: when talking about the proposed international moratory and when something horrible strikes the entire nation emotionally. Victims' relatives are generally excused for wanting to have a ruthless murderer dead, but politicians asking for it are reviled, so they have understood that asking for death penalty is only bad publicity. Death penalty doesn't sell here, and I'm happy about it.
WHY are you not talking about the death penalty? Everyone else here is doing. Trying to pollute the discussion by steering it into utter irrelevence is not endearing.
If anyone took a look through the free Kenneth website, you will see that he was ruled innocent in a previous court case, but the Texas government suddeny decides to put him to death? Wow, after I get out of high school, im moving to the UK, because where I live isn't far enough from Texas for my comfort.
Out of the frying pan, etc. Do yourself a favour and pick another country, this one is going down the tubes faster than most.
I propose a mass LFS Forum emigration to New Zealand. They seem to want us, out there, and the NZ LFSers would probably appreciate the influx of racers with decent pings too. Win:Win!
im in
looks like a lovely country too ... trouble is i just cant get excited about rugby or cricket
They have Dwarves, Elves, Orks, Wizards, Hobbits, Ents and Nazgull too! 
(and sheep)
(and sheep)Doesn't NZ have a very strict emigration policy? I thought it was really hard get in there, or have they changed it for the need of some extra labour?
Anyway. To not to slip completely off-topic. It's sad that the country which is still looked upwards in many parts of the world, gives an example of human rights by allowing death penalty. Like said, it's something from the dark ages. Not to mention that its completely bizarre to execute a man that has been ruled innocent on court?
Someone said the death penalty's not worth it because it doesn't work as a deterant. Nothing's a deterant for the creme of the criminal crop.
Capital punishment is in good company, on the scale of humaneness of punishment: emprisonment is just a less economical, more temporary solution to those criminals that will never live within lawfulness.
In the mean time lawful people will bear the economic burden of the inmates' upkeep... We've already had threads about this, and the righteous indignation of "more advanced countries" never fails to rear its head. As most people know, no country is irreproachable.. it's just a matter of choosing the right topics for any given country to earn an outright "more advanced" pedigree.
Not all of the USA is for the death penalty (so much for blanket statements!), and make no mistake, it is in the same intent for a healthier society as 'more advanced' nations tax lawful citizens to bear the cost of keeping criminals well-fed that the pro-capital punishment portion of Americans support the death penalty.
Now, the practical execution of the idea is another story..
Capital punishment is in good company, on the scale of humaneness of punishment: emprisonment is just a less economical, more temporary solution to those criminals that will never live within lawfulness.
In the mean time lawful people will bear the economic burden of the inmates' upkeep... We've already had threads about this, and the righteous indignation of "more advanced countries" never fails to rear its head. As most people know, no country is irreproachable.. it's just a matter of choosing the right topics for any given country to earn an outright "more advanced" pedigree.
Not all of the USA is for the death penalty (so much for blanket statements!), and make no mistake, it is in the same intent for a healthier society as 'more advanced' nations tax lawful citizens to bear the cost of keeping criminals well-fed that the pro-capital punishment portion of Americans support the death penalty.
Now, the practical execution of the idea is another story..
i always thought that it was cheaper to exicute someone rather than pay 3 guard to watch him/her for 25 years or more. than taking into account the cost of the food to feed the prisoner. it's meant to cost something like £80 per day to keep somone behind bars (over here anyway). just my 2p worth
Oh well if that's true then let's just execute everybody. I thought that granny who refused to pay her council tax was a bit shifty-looking anyway.
Besides the fact that I find economical reasons a rather poor excuse for taking someones life (no matter if done by governmont or robbers), most people who are sentenced to death in the US are usually imprisoned for several years and sometimes decades before they are actually executed. So, they do cost money. Maybe even more than regular inmates because they keep the legal system quite busy up to minutes before execution.
Apart from that, the American constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment". Why death penalty should not be cruel and unusual, especially the way it's practiced, is beyond me. It's unjust, too, of course.
Apart from that, the American constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment". Why death penalty should not be cruel and unusual, especially the way it's practiced, is beyond me. It's unjust, too, of course.
Innocent man sentenced to death in Texas.
(273 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG