PC Andrew Harper.

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
But they, the politicians who told other people are all dead. They, the politicians who told other people were not lying, it was later politicians who changed things.

I see your point.
I wonder if it is not just a standard politicians ploy like eg the stages gone through to create the EU ?
It took a lifetimes work - and more - but Heath amongst others knew from day 1 what the final desired outcome would be.
Same with Capital punishment. The plebs wont vote us back in next time if we replace hanging for child murderers with 20 years ( out in 10 ) TV , 3 good meals, central heating etc with no enforced work in return.
So do it in stages and we can pretend it wasn't the intention - in the first place.
 
They told us it meant Life ..... as a recompense for no longer hanging the murderers.

They lied ...
No they didn't, we've covered that already, read the thread. ONE MP suggested this in a Parliamentary debate, It was never policy, the fact that prisoners who had had death penalties changed to life and been released after 8 to 10 years should have been a clue that that was never going to be true.
 
But they, the politicians who told other people are all dead. They, the politicians who told other people were not lying, it was later politicians who changed things.
Nobody told them any such thing, they heard what they wanted to hear instead of listening.
 
They told us it meant Life ..... as a recompense for no longer hanging the murderers.

They lied ...
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965

An Act to abolish capital punishment in the case of persons convicted in Great Britain of murder or convicted of murder or a corresponding offence by court-martial and, in connection therewith, to make further provision for the punishment of persons so convicted.

Abolition of death penalty for murder.
(1)No person shall suffer death for murder, and a person convicted of murder shall, subject to subsection (5) below, be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(2)On sentencing any person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life the Court may at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence under section 27 of the [1952 c. 52.] Prison Act 1952 or section 21 of the [1952 c. 61.] Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952."


and from the 1952 Prison act (ie 12 years before the abolition)

Release on licence of persons serving imprisonment for life
(1)The Secretary of State may at any time if he thinks fit release on licence a person serving a term of imprisonment for life subject to compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.

 
Nobody told them any such thing, they heard what they wanted to hear instead of listening.

Not heard what they wanted - read it, words.
The 1965 Abolition Act clearly states ' replacing death penalty with mandatory life imprisonment '

Now - if words are to mean anything - that is pretty unequivocal.

If - in following paragraphs - it goes on to say maximum 20 for this, 30 for that, let out half way for good behaviour etc .... It changes the meaning of the first bit. Makes it wrong or misleading at least.
 
Not heard what they wanted - read it, words.
The 1965 Abolition Act clearly states ' replacing death penalty with mandatory life imprisonment '

Now - if words are to mean anything - that is pretty unequivocal.

If - in following paragraphs - it goes on to say maximum 20 for this, 30 for that, let out half way for good behaviour etc .... It changes the meaning of the first bit. Makes it wrong or misleading at least.
Nope not at all, the following paragraphs define what was meant by imprisonment for life, and just like death penalties were often changed to life imprisonment, and subsequent release, life did not mean an inevitable whole life term.

It's not really any different from reading the headline of a story, and choosing to either read the whole story, or make up a wee story in your head to fit the headline, because reading is a chore. Nothing ambiguous for those who are capable and willing to read the detail. Remember all lifers are released on license, and are not free and can be recalled as seen fit by the courts or government agency responsible.
 
Wrong, if you had watched it you'd know they are kept on death row for decades while all the appeals go through.

Or you speed up the process but then you run the risk of killing innocent people wrongly convicted and that doesn't do a lot for support.

Again.



Maybe in the USA BUT this is the UK, totally different lgal structures!!
 
Maybe in the USA BUT this is the UK, totally different lgal structures!!
We HAD the death penalty.

The video even uses the UK as an example where we killed an innocent man rapidly BECAUSE he had confessed.

At 19.45.

Given the guy narrating is a Liverpudlian you'd understand it is from a UK angle.

Or you just didn't bother watching it.

 
The plebs wont vote us back in next time if we replace hanging for child murderers with 20 years ( out in 10 ) TV , 3 good meals, central heating etc with no enforced work in return.
So do it in stages and we can pretend it wasn't the intention - in the first place.
This is another reason against a death penalty. If you are going to have capital punishment mandatory then criminals may escalate their crime level.

Killing others leaves no witnesses and they might think they are going to be killed anyway, so so what.

This is why we don't simply kill enemy troops. We offer the option of surrendering, being a PW and getting humane treatment which encourages them to come quietly.
 
This is another reason against a death penalty. If you are going to have capital punishment mandatory then criminals may escalate their crime level.

Killing others leaves no witnesses and they might think they are going to be killed anyway, so so what.

This is why we don't simply kill enemy troops. We offer the option of surrendering, being a PW and getting humane treatment which encourages them to come quietly.

No disagree .
1) The vast majority of people who commit murder do not consider ( at the time ) the implications of getting caught.
2) Nowadays - more than ever - witnesses ( and cameras ) abound.

3)) Fighting for ones country is admirable - not dishonourable.
Surrendering when you have nothing left to fight with , makes perfect sense to me .
Slaughtering those same people is when ideology overtakes reason.
 
No disagree .
1) The vast majority of people who commit murder do not consider ( at the time ) the implications of getting caught.
2) Nowadays - more than ever - witnesses ( and cameras ) abound.

3)) Fighting for ones country is admirable - not dishonourable.
Surrendering when you have nothing left to fight with , makes perfect sense to me .
Slaughtering those same people is when ideology overtakes reason.
No disagree (and all covered in the video...)
1. So if we should have capital punishment to deter people from committing crime, and they don't believe they will get caught anyway, where's the deterrent?

2. The video covers how police framed a guy as there was desperation to get a confession. In the case of false imprisonment there is always the chance of releasing the guy. It also covers how advancements in camera technology have lead to deep fake video.

3. No one said fighting was dishonourable. The point is that once someone thinks they will die anyway then all bets are off from their perspective.

 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
No disagree (and all covered in the video...)
1. So if we should have capital punishment to deter people from committing crime, and they don't believe they will get caught anyway, where's the deterrent?

2. The video covers how police framed a guy as there was desperation to get a confession. In the case of false imprisonment there is always the chance of releasing the guy. It also covers how advancements in camera technology have lead to deep fake video.

3. No one said fighting was dishonourable. The point is that once someone thinks they will die anyway then all bets are off from their perspective.

Is that vid part of your signature now ?
 
We HAD the death penalty.

The video even uses the UK as an example where we killed an innocent man rapidly BECAUSE he had confessed.

At 19.45.

Given the guy narrating is a Liverpudlian you'd understand it is from a UK angle.

Or you just didn't bother watching it.



Perhaps YOU should have watched his pathetic whining monologue @ c 19' he mentions the cost of executions in the USA not UK @ c 37' he mentions studies in Texas & Minnesota so hardly the UK.
He uses one case from 1947 as his reaon forhis lame argument.
 
Why should the sentence for this crime be increased from 1 year to a life sentence just because it had been a copper unlucky enough to be walking past the building when the window frames fell down?

"Amanda Telfer, 43, died when three frames fell on her as she walked past a building site in London in August 2012.
The frames had been left unprotected and unrestrained against a wall in Hanover Square, Mayfair.
Site supervisor Kelvin Adsett, who was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, was jailed for a year."

Amanda Telfer death: Construction boss jailed (From 2017)

There is a difference between manslaughter and murder.
 
Perhaps YOU should have watched his pathetic whining monologue @ c 19' he mentions the cost of executions in the USA not UK @ c 37' he mentions studies in Texas & Minnesota so hardly the UK.
He uses one case from 1947 as his reaon forhis lame argument.
Perhaps YOU should watch it. The US is used as an example as some states still use capital punishment, hence it's a current example.

Of note is that crime rates in those states are no different, so hardly a deterrent.
 

Latest Threads

Top