Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: The execution of Gary Glitter

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,795
    Rep Power
    10

    The execution of Gary Glitter

    Did you see this programme last night, another thought provoking piece of entertainment.

    It focused on the death sentence, rather than the crimes commited.
    I must say it has made me have a good think about the death sentence. I used to be a fairly cut and dried kind of bloke, ie, kill the lot of them and be damned with it, however with the Bat's cancer and my new job with Mencap I find my views and morals changing on a lot of things.

    What do you think?

    Reasoned arguments please, can we get past the knee jerk reaction that is prevelant in society.

    DTS XXX XXX

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by dave the scaffolder View Post
    Did you see this programme last night, another thought provoking piece of entertainment.

    It focused on the death sentence, rather than the crimes commited.
    I must say it has made me have a good think about the death sentence. I used to be a fairly cut and dried kind of bloke, ie, kill the lot of them and be damned with it, however with the Bat's cancer and my new job with Mencap I find my views and morals changing on a lot of things.

    What do you think?

    Reasoned arguments please, can we get past the knee jerk reaction that is prevelant in society.
    Well, every civilised society has abolished the death penalty. That says a great deal to me. The main objection one could raise to that statement is the US - but that was a deliberate omission.

    A criminal justice system has four basic things it has to do to the society:
    • Protect the citizens (prevention)
    • Make restitution when a crime is committed (where possible)
    • Rehabilitate people who commit crimes
    • Punish people who commit crimes

    Different people might frame these slightly differently, but these differences are usually trivial. What is usually far more significant is the relative weighting one puts on each of these things. For example, I put protecting society and its citizens at the top of the list and largely disregard punishment and push it to the bottom of the list: I only really consider punishment relevant to the extent it contributes to the other three. Other people will consider punishment essential.

    In terms of these dimensions, the death penalty can be evaluated. It protects society against future offending by the perpetrator. However, it's not the only way to protect society. Some suggest it acts as a deterrent to offending - unfortunately, there's no real evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent. It obviously doesn't rehabilitate the perpetrator - but some argue that certain people cannot be rehabilitated. It doesn't make any real restitution for the crime committed. There could be an argument of 'a life for a life' - but this sounds more like revenge than justice to me. I don't see how it makes any real restitution. And it can obviously be conceived as a punishment - whether it's just or appropriate is another matter.

    You also need to consider the justice system itself. While most western justice systems are reasonably fair, in most countries, you get a better deal if you're the right sort of person - affluent and white in most cases. If you're not, then there are a raft of statistics that show that you're treated differently in the justice system (for example, in the US if you murder someone and happen to be black, then you're far more likely to end up on death row than if you're white; US death rows are also heavily populated by people who are poor and have a range of mental problems).

    Finally, I flip the argument around. I consider the punishments meted out by a society to tell you far more about the society than about the crimes committed. Personally, I don't want to live in a society where it's considered acceptable to kill anyone, regardless of circumstances. Acceptance of killing as a solution to a problem is, to me, a failure of the society. I want better answers.

    Oh, and I highly recommend that everyone watch "A Short Film About Killing" by Kieślowski. He does a beautiful job of comparing and contrasting murder with the death penalty. it's brutal - and draining to watch - but well worth the effort.
    Last edited by geoff332; 10th-November-2009 at 12:50 PM. Reason: Adding the film reference.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,795
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    geoff baby I did ask for a reasoned respone and your reply was just that. Well done mate.


    DTS XXX XXX

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    In general I agree with geoff332. However I can’t really agree with this bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Well, every civilised society has abolished the death penalty. That says a great deal to me. The main objection one could raise to that statement is the US - but that was a deliberate omission.
    How many of the 52 countries listed by Amnesty International as having carried out the death penalty during year 2008 do you regard as ‘uncivilised’. All of them?

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-pena...utions-in-2008

    Obviously the list includes a lot of countries that practice sharia law, no surprises there.

    However, there are a few unexpected entries in the list which includes relatively ‘progressive’ nations that you might not have expected to appear. Japan (27 executions), Taiwan (8+ executions), Jamaica (1), India (70+), China (7003+), USA (37), Singapore (5)

    I'm sure there are other nations that still have it on their books but have shied away from using it in recent years.

    China has also faced accusations of organ-harvesting from those executed.

    Although the last person executed was in 1964 it is worth noting that the UK only abolished the death penalty for treason in 1998. Presumably Blair and Brown had realised that signing the EU constitution could be construed as an act of treason.
    Last edited by Bubble; 10th-November-2009 at 02:43 PM. Reason: fix Amnesty International link

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    How many of the 52 countries listed by Amnesty International as having carried out the death penalty during year 2008 do you regard as ‘uncivilised’. All of them?
    In short, yes. For the reason I outlined at the end of my original post.

    Yes, that's a fairly harsh judgement. But I'm quite OK with that.

  6. #6
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    In short, yes. For the reason I outlined at the end of my original post.

    Yes, that's a fairly harsh judgement. But I'm quite OK with that.
    To be 100% clear: are you saying that you don't regard any country that carries out the death penalty as civilised?

    Although I have a lot of sympathy with that position, it does make your comment "Well, every civilised society has abolished the death penalty" more than a little bit circular.

  7. #7
    Registered User The Little 'un's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Elgin, Moray, Unit
    Posts
    72
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Before watching....My opinion was:

    Bring it back, they all deserve it!!!

    After watching it...My opinion has slightly changed in the respect of having never thought about the things like...Eating your last meal...Recording your apology/last words...(No words can really express the way you would feel...)...writing your last song, etc.

    But the other half of me is still screaamming:

    You shouldn't be touching the kiddies in the first place!!!

    Pretty hard hitting programme though, and what a gem of an actor Hilton McRae is...Slightly proud to be Scottish...I suppose so...

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,795
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    There has been some very thought provoking tv on as of late.

    This death penalty one, the girl who lost her face, heartbreaking was that one and the one about racism with the American teacher, yes yes I know I have a capital A, I don't usually.

    Blah blah blah point is there is a change in the wind in my thinking and these programmes are contributing quite a lot. I am still a miserable fat bast*rd but now a thinking miserable fat bast*rd.

    Is it me or are other pips changing?

    DTS XXX XXX

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    An eye for an eye, IMO. The punishment should fit the crime.

    If you take someone’s life you should have your life taken from you.

    If you rape kiddies, you should at the very least have your genitals removed and be put in prison for life.

    I can't stand all this mamby pamby "Oh but you can't do that, it's an infringement of their human rights" bollox. What about the human rights of the victim?

    That w@anker Ian Huntly has his own private cell (for his own safety) the latest games consoles, Sky telly, the works. All at your expense!! Jeez, what is the world coming to?


    Sorry...rant over.

  10. #10
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,756
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    in the cases of people like Peter Sutcliffe, Robert Black, Harold Shipman, Fred West, Peter Tobin to name but a few, there is unlikely to be any rehabilitation, and none of them are likely to be released ( Shipman & West are already dead ) . Why waste thousand of pounds of taxpayers money to keep vermin like this in comparitive comfort for the rest of their lives.......Time to reinstate the death penalty for people like this

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by Dance Demon View Post
    in the cases of people like Peter Sutcliffe, Robert Black, Harold Shipman, Fred West, Peter Tobin to name but a few, there is unlikely to be any rehabilitation, and none of them are likely to be released ( Shipman & West are already dead ) . Why waste thousand of pounds of taxpayers money to keep vermin like this in comparitive comfort for the rest of their lives.......Time to reinstate the death penalty for people like this
    In the US, there is no evidence that it costs less to prosecute and imprison someone for their entire life than it does to prosecute and enact a death penalty. Most of the anecdotal evidence suggests it costs more to prosecute a death penalty case, but this evidence is not definitive.

    Some of the numbers are here:
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
    http://deathpenalty.procon.org/viewa...stionID=001000


    Personally, I'd consider making the decision on taking someone's life on the grounds of cost a pretty hard position to defend - regardless of the conclusion. Either the death penalty is right or it's wrong. Making the case on the basis of the cost involved sounds like nothing more than a way to avoid the moral argument. In my view, a civilised and just society would take decisions regarding life and death on moral grounds rather than economic grounds.
    Last edited by geoff332; 10th-November-2009 at 06:02 PM. Reason: added another link

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Making the case on the basis of the cost involved sounds like nothing more than a way to avoid the moral argument. In my view, a civilised and just society would take decisions regarding life and death on moral grounds rather than economic grounds.
    Surely "cost" is a moral issue when it's Joe Average paying for it. In simple terms I'd rather the thousands of pounds (hundreds of thousaands?) it costs to keep Ian Huntly and the like alive, warm, comfortable and fed was spent finding a cure for cancer. Ian and his like are human debris oxygen thieves and as such should be snuffed out.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Trouble View Post
    Surely "cost" is a moral issue when it's Joe Average paying for it. In simple terms I'd rather the thousands of pounds (hundreds of thousaands?) it costs to keep Ian Huntly and the like alive, warm, comfortable and fed was spent finding a cure for cancer. Ian and his like are human debris oxygen thieves and as such should be snuffed out.
    Fine - but I don't agree. I'd prefer never to kill anyone just because it's cheaper than keeping them alive.

    However, given the evidence isn't clear, but suggests that it is actually cheaper to leave Ian Huntly in prison for life than to execute him, does this mean you'll change your mind and say we shouldn't consider executing him?

  14. #14
    Registered User NickC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    In the US, there is no evidence that it costs less to prosecute and imprison someone for their entire life than it does to prosecute and enact a death penalty. Most of the anecdotal evidence suggests it costs more to prosecute a death penalty case, but this evidence is not definitive.

    Some of the numbers are here:
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
    http://deathpenalty.procon.org/viewa...stionID=001000

    I doubt if it costs that much for death penalty legal costs to the state in China.
    If you bradcast an execution, put it on pay per view and had lots of adverts(Mac D's The Sun, you know) and put it on after X factor, imagine the amount of money the state could make here, you could even text what kind of death they should have, £1 a text.
    Seriously though, "knowing" what Ian Huntly did to those girls, does make me think it should be an option for judges in the most sickening cases, like child murder.
    Nick

  15. #15
    Commercial Operator Swinging bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Deal Kent (Overlooking the sea)
    Posts
    1,241
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by dave the scaffolder View Post
    Did you see this programme last night, another thought provoking piece of entertainment.

    It focused on the death sentence, rather than the crimes commited.
    I must say it has made me have a good think about the death sentence. I used to be a fairly cut and dried kind of bloke, ie, kill the lot of them and be damned with it, however with the Bat's cancer and my new job with Mencap I find my views and morals changing on a lot of things.

    What do you think?

    Reasoned arguments please, can we get past the knee jerk reaction that is prevelant in society.

    DTS XXX XXX



    After 26 years in the Constabulary, all at the sharp end, dealing first hand with victims of some horrendous crimes, my sympathies lean somwhat away from the perpetrators...What I really think is best kept to myself for the time being....
    My only thought is just how many rights the guilty should actually have? there have been times when it has seemed as though they have more than their victims.....Maybe this is a subject which would come under the banner of the 'civilised society'....
    Just how civilised have the actions of the guilty been?...are we punishing them for transgressing these rules or for the crimes they have comitted?

  16. #16
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,756
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Fine - but I don't agree. I'd prefer never to kill anyone just because it's cheaper than keeping them alive.

    However, given the evidence isn't clear, but suggests that it is actually cheaper to leave Ian Huntly in prison for life than to execute him, does this mean you'll change your mind and say we shouldn't consider executing him?
    Nobody has said that they would execute them for purely financial reasons. They should be executed because of the heinous crimes that they committed, because they are never likely to be rehabilitated, because if they were ever released they would be a serious threat to the public. The cost inplications of having the taxpayer pay for their lengthy incarceration just adds insult to injury. These people are a waste of a good skin and should be executed.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by NickC View Post
    Seriously though, "knowing" what Ian Huntly did to those girls, does make me think it should be an option for judges in the most sickening cases, like child murder.
    When you use a criteria like "sickening", then you are basing the decision on emotive criteria - how sickened you are by the crime. That has a number of problems.

    Firstly, it leads to, "where do you draw the line?" This may sound like a specious argument, but in some cultures crimes like blasphemy are considered particularly sickening and therefore warrant the death penalty. Personally, I consider this to be a particularly unjust punishment (in fact, I find the whole notion of blasphemy as a crime quick sickening). But if that's the criteria by which we decide life and death, then how can we suggest that someone else is wrong?

    Secondly, would I, as an individual, be warranted in killing someone whose behaviour sickened me? Clearly not. However, a society's level of sickening in response to a crime is really some complex, interactive mix of individual reactions. Thus is is likely to change over time; if we use that as an overriding criteria, can you say where it will end up?

    Thirdly, it also creates space for the individual's responses to be manipulated. The media does a wonderful job of creating monsters out of people who commit horrendous crimes. The media is more than capable of increasing the level of "sickness" people feel in response to a particular crime.

    The basic argument I'd make for the death penalty is that it serves the best interests of society (mostly by preventing the person from re-offending). However, the "best interests of society" is a similarly ambiguous criteria. Again, in the blasphemy example, this could be reframed as a "best interests" argument. Everyone has a different view on best interests. And it can be manipulated.

  18. #18
    Commercial Operator Swinging bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Deal Kent (Overlooking the sea)
    Posts
    1,241
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by Dance Demon View Post
    Nobody has said that they would execute them for purely financial reasons. They should be executed because of the heinous crimes that they committed, because they are never likely to be rehabilitated, because if they were ever released they would be a serious threat to the public. The cost inplications of having the taxpayer pay for their lengthy incarceration just adds insult to injury. These people are a waste of a good skin and should be executed.
    I agree with what you say ...But in the event that someone has committed a particularly evil deed, such as murder and is a respected ,useful member of society and the crime was one of a domestic nature ( as are the majority) and the likelyhood of reoffending is nil, what then? do you let him out after 10 years or so? the victim is just as dead as if it were commited under different circumstances ,ie revenge etc etc . As far as i am aware the law has only two offences where death is involved, and that is of murder and manslaughter.... The difference being, in essence. the state of mind at the time.....
    Saying that ,the law has a duty to protect it's citizens...So what then, give them all a fair trial then hang them?
    Or carry on much as we have been doing, muddling along firm in the knowlege that the law is an ass!
    But what else have we?

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,795
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Guys don't turn this personal, this is an emotive isssue that people have strong views on, however a mature discussion is something that we can all have.

    Some are for it, some are against it, some are undecided. Then there is the debate as to what crime does capital punishment apply.

    DTS XXX XXX

  20. #20
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,756
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The execution of Gary Glitter

    Quote Originally Posted by Swinging bee View Post
    I agree with what you say ...But in the event that someone has committed a particularly evil deed, such as murder and is a respected ,useful member of society and the crime was one of a domestic nature ( as are the majority) and the likelyhood of reoffending is nil, what then? do you let him out after 10 years or so? the victim is just as dead as if it were commited under different circumstances ,ie revenge etc etc .
    You are partly correct in what you say, but murders of a domestic nature are a totally different ball game from someone who continually murders for gratification of a basic need, be it sexual or otherwise. People like Peter sutcliffe, Robert Black, Fred West, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, etc etc...could hardly be described as "domestic murderers" someone who continually murder helpless people, then dimembers and conceals their bodies, can't really be compared to someone who kills someone in a spontaneous street fight. OK the victim is still dead, but the degree of pre meditation and motive are worlds apart. This is where we need a modicum of common sense from our judiciary. Unfortunately, too many of our High Court Judges are old fogies whodon't really have a clue about the sick society that we now live in.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gary Glitter - does he deserve it
    By Trouble in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 133
    Last Post: 2nd-September-2008, 06:13 PM
  2. Gary Gygax fails his saving throw :(
    By Beowulf in forum Ceroc Scotland Book Club
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 9th-March-2008, 04:20 PM
  3. Replies: 79
    Last Post: 9th-January-2007, 10:58 AM
  4. Leading and execution of moves - is there a difference ?
    By johnthehappyguy in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29th-March-2005, 02:25 PM
  5. Power
    By Bigger Andy in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 23rd-December-2004, 12:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •