He's one of the people who I would never allow to leave prison, unless it's for medical treatment or in a pine box. As for he might be released ? If he is, do you think he'd last all that long out amongst the public ? It's safer for the Public to keep him locked up. You are bringing up pretty filmsly what if's to try and justify the death penalty coming back. It was ditched for good reason back in the 60's.
Or he would have done it anyway as he may have a compulsion to rape and murder children.
As with Serial Killers they always think they are smarter than the police and won't get caught, thus they do not fear consequences. You have to be abnormal to commit the kind of crimes Huntley committed. He lacks remorse for his actions and empathy for others.
Nobody ever said Justice was cheap. Besides given that people would appeal a death sentence as they do in the US, it would probably cost just as much i.e. appeals could take years either before a death sentence is commuted to life in Prison or carried out.
Nothing, but that is no reason to say "Might as well hang them to save a bob or two". By that logic you could start down the road of why should we pay to keep disabled people alive if they are not contributing to society and need round the clock care. You wouldn't make that leap, but there are plenty of others around who would.
'Perhaps if there was capital punishment he might have been dissuaded' - If anyone sincerely believes that, then good luck to them, I just hope they never get asked to make any decisions beyond the level of whether to have a sandwich with or without mayonaise.
However, I suspect it was a lot more to do with:
- the police not pressing charges or moving forwards on numerous allegations of sex with minors on four separate incidents with the space of 8 months.
- the police not charging Huntley on a rape offence, then arresting, charging and later dropping charges against him on a second rape case 1 month later.
- accused of assaulting an 11 yr old girl(which he confessed to 9 years later) in the 1yr period between the four allegations of sex with minors and the two rape allegations.
That all happened within the space of three years, never mind the burglary conviction.
Then he managed to get a job working at a school ....
One would assume that someone with a sick and twisted mind capable of doing those acts, who had repeatedly been investigated but 'gotten away with it' would be emboldened to believe they can carry on and not get caught.
It doesn't really matter what the sentence is if you a not morally against taking a particular action and your fear of getting caught is low to none.
The benefit is this:
In our society we can clearly, unambiguously and catergorically state that
"We do not allow the killing of anyone that is not direct and immediate threat to the lives of ourselves or others".
No if's, no but's, no exceptions.
When you have the death penalty - you have ambiguity. It's wrong to kill when your life is not imediately and seriously threatened ...... except when they deserve it.
Now many people may assert that those `deserving` are only established by a court of law.
Knowing however that courts make mistakes, let the guilty go free and punish the innocent which also means that those 'deserving' is not a scientific or universal absolute fact.
Someone may strongly believe that another person is 'deserving' and is getting away with it.
It is far easier for someone to then come to the conclusion that since the state and society justify killing someone who is not a direct threat, that they can justify killing them ..... than if the State unequivocally says NO.
That is the benefit - and it is an incredibly powerful and definitive statement( ) even though many may not realise or appreciate it.
Note: I do realise there are actually some exceptions or special cases ie in the case of assisted suicide. However, I believe most reasonable and rational people can separate those as Ethical Health care issues making them distinct from the crime and crimes of murders.
If you can't prove the present system is a deterrent then it's no better. Or are you admitting you can't defend it?
This isn't a murder case. It's nothing like a murder case. But if you want I could find links to back up the assertion. And so can you. That prove it for you?
This seems to be what you are resorting to. "I can't prove not having a death penalty is better, but I did some googling and found a few people who agree with me."
Note also, it's not just about "deterrence." If the public want something you need to actively convince them it's a bad idea.
"We want capital punishment."
"It doesn't work."
"Fine. We want it anyway."
You do have to prove not having Capital Punishment is far better than having it and in all cases. Otherwise there will always be calls for it.
For the UK you probably could make that case. Generally in the UK, crime is manageable without it, though interesting how countries like Japan choose to have it.
Globally, it's a different matter. Which comes back to what I said previously, some US states have it, some won't. A lot of it is a reflection on crime levels. If crime is running out of control it's a lot harder to argue against.
Yes. The country is full of criminals and murderers who are currently walking free. The Bulger killers, for instance. Well one is back inside again.
A child murderer isn't a good reason? Seriously?
Which was?
Except he hadn't done it up to that point. Yes presumably he thought he could get away with it, all criminals do, so that's irrelevant.
Which is an admission such people exist.
I have said multiple times, I'd be happy if life meant life.
You then said we haven't got it due to cost. Keeping Peter Sutcliffe in prison, handling appeals, £10 million. Cost of a bullet, less than a £1. I'd do it for nothing. There you go, justice is cheap.
Also works the other way, in that some states believe a long appeals process is also cruel, in that you are keeping people on death row for years, as a result, the sentence ends up being fast tracked.
If you like, long prison sentences or just prison in general is also cruel. Hence the prison suicide rate. It's part of the reason why I like it.
We have a good system, we don't have capital punishment but often they save us the job anyway.
Opinions are a bitch.
Nope, lots of disabled people contribute and potentially everyone of us could end up disabled. I'm not sure everyone of us would choose to be a child murderer. Not a good example.
I tend to ultimately respect the opinions of others even if I don't agree with them.
That is a generic reference to our society. It's not what I asked. What benefit is he making to our society.
Helping keep some warders in work?
His value to society is irrelevant. It is fundamental to our legal system and culture that under the law, everyone is equal.
A surgeon who has saved countless lives and paid a fortune in taxes but who commits a cold blooded murder is equal to a homeless man that hasn't paid any taxes or done anything useful that commits a cold blooded murder.
We do not and can not start valuing someones contribution or worth to society as a calculation in the worthiness of the costs of a fair, just and humane legal system.
My instincts and emotional response to the likes of Huntley was to want to beat him physically until I was unable to swing anymore.
It's the same way I feel about the perpetrators of all abhorrent and sickening crimes.
Even as going so far as to not restricting such acts to human victims - it would be extremely dangerous and very stupid to put me in a room with someone who tortured and killed a dog; I am pretty sure that I would not be able to suppress and control my anger and emotions enough to not end up committing a significant crime myself.
However, no matter how much things stick in our throats and go against our instinctive sense of justice, we must be better than that - especially as a society.
It was the question. Seems you can't come up with a good answer to that either.
"Should we really allow anyone to vote even if they don't have even a basic understanding of the implications of what they are voting for ?"
Equality before the law and rights like being able to vote, drive a car etc are mutually independent principles/systems.
A person who hasn't earned the right to drive a car by merit of not passing a test or receiving a driving ban is still treated equally before the law.
A person who is under the voting age, not registered to vote or eligible because of nationality or residence is still treated equally before the law.
A persons worth, gender, sexuality or any other characteristic is irrelevant before the law.
It's time to call quits on this particular discussion point as it's going nowhere fast and we can't see eye to eye on on even the fundamental basics.
It wasn't so long ago that only those who owned land/property over a certain value could vote. It took the better part of a century (or longer depending on how you view things) to get universal suffrage. As for the point above ? If you are sectioned under the Mental Health Act, then you lose most of your rights, including the right to vote.
----
An interesting read on the death penalty in Texas - The woman who watched 300 executions