If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
To be clear, I am not proposing euthanasia, particularly if involuntary!
I am merely pointing out the absurdity of @Pagan2 position, which seems to be that the state should be allowed to bump off people it finds inconveniently expensive.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
"Social Democrats: Turn all of southern Stockholm into one big stop-and-search zone
The centre-left Social Democrat opposition wants all of southern Stockholm to be turned into a record-large stop-and-search zone in response to an unprecedented wave of explosions."
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
I just see no pressing need for capital punishment, outside of wartime.
Outside fiction*, the number of murderers in the U.K. is tiny. The cost of warehousing them is minuscule next to national budgets.
*In one episode of Morse, there were more murders than had actually occurred in Oxfordshire in 25 years.
Oxfordshire has murder rate similar to El Salvador, in Morse.
But Morse has plenty of important lessons about contemporary crime.
I learned that the three most important skills for a detective are an appreciation of real ale, crossword-solving ability, and a knowledge of opera.
So I hope the curriculum at Hendon concentrates on these, rather than irrelevant rubbish like interrogation techniques or riot control.
When faced with a tricky problem I often do think “what would Morse do?” and get myself a beer.
In a case of neat narrative convenience the last time I had a beer in an Oxfordshire pub I was on the table next to erstwhile Lewis actor and latter day anti-woke warrior Laurence Fox.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
You already do....someone has a treatment greater than the NICE qaly figure they dont get treated even if if would give them a longer life.....don't get on your high horse your profession makes these cost vs life decisions now. You just object to me pointing it out
No, I am fully aware of how NICE assesses QALY's.
There is a difference though between active killing by the state, and assessing cost effectiveness of various treatments.
Really wow thats your argument.....allowing people to die that we could keep alive longer due to cost is different to actively killing them?
Tell me if I happen to have someone in my dungeon and just fail to give them food and water because its too expensive then I should have an excuse as I didn't actively killed them they were just to costly to feed...I should only be done for abduction not murder?
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Internationally recognisable enough? That’s always the tricky thing. Brits are better known than most abroad but it’s always hard to work which are and aren’t.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
Do the US States with the death penalty have fewer murders per capita than those without?
Are we so Anglocentric that the US is the only comparator we can think of? We don't have to copy the way the US does it.
Because murder is a state rather than a federal crime in the US it's a particularly good laboratory as there are many fewer cross-cultural differences than there are between American states.
But it's far from perfect. You also need to be very vary of mixing cause and effect. For example, US states with the death penalty may do so because they have more murders, which could make the death penalty look ineffective or even counter-productive. Also there are many other factors to consider. As blacks in the US tend to murder at about 3-4 times the rate of communities of Hispanics with similar income and demographic profiles, and as the states with the death penalty have most of the highest black populations, you'd expect higher homicide rates in the death penalty states however strong the punishment.
Another good set of comparators is Singapore and Hong Kong. Singapore uses the death penalty enthusiastically, while Hong Kong does not have it. Both have very low murder rates, though at 0.07/100k people compared to 0.4 in HK (or 0.97 here, or 20.7 in Mississippi), Singapore's is rather lower.
As so often in these multi-causal debates, you can get the answer you want depending on the variables you use and the studies you cite.
This is a good analysis, but it bears mentioning that some states first banned the death penalty (creating a change event we can see), and then reintroduced it (ditto), so we do have some analysis of places that changed, and what impact that had on occurrence.
So, Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011, and murder rates basically didn't change. New York eliminated it in 2004, and their murder rate continued to drift down. But - of course - murder rates in those places had both been trending down anyway.
Kansas abolished the death penalty in 1972 and reinstated it in 1994 - it doesn't seem to have any meaningful effect on homicide rates. It was middle of the pack before abolition, middle of the pack after abolition, and middle of the pack again after reinstatement.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
To be clear, I am not proposing euthanasia, particularly if involuntary!
I am merely pointing out the absurdity of @Pagan2 position, which seems to be that the state should be allowed to bump off people it finds inconveniently expensive.
Why not the medical profession does it all the time via NICE
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
I just see no pressing need for capital punishment, outside of wartime.
Outside fiction*, the number of murderers in the U.K. is tiny. The cost of warehousing them is minuscule next to national budgets.
*In one episode of Morse, there were more murders than had actually occurred in Oxfordshire in 25 years.
There are about 5 300 murderers in prison in the UK prison. I have met a few dozen as Gartree Prison in Leics is nearly all murderers, and I get a fair number in my clinic. They are an interesting bunch, and apart from being chained to two guards as escorts would not be noticed otherwise. They are surprisingly normal people when you meet them, though the occasional one gives me the creeps.
My father used to teach literacy to prisoners at the local jail near him in Rugby. Most of the people he got were quiet, polite middle aged types from the protected wing. Ie, in most cases, paedophiles. He said it was always an odd experience. These men were clearly not cut out for prison life, yet they were in for some of the worst offences on the books.
I don't know if you have encountered Circles, the charity that supports child sex offenders after release.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Internationally recognisable enough? That’s always the tricky thing. Brits are better known than most abroad but it’s always hard to work which are and aren’t.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
Would you make assisted dying available on a voluntary basis to them?
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
To be clear, I am not proposing euthanasia, particularly if involuntary!
I am merely pointing out the absurdity of @Pagan2 position, which seems to be that the state should be allowed to bump off people it finds inconveniently expensive.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Well, if you're going to do that, I have done over 150 talks to audiences around the world on financial scandals and I am both knowledgeable and entertaining. Website and details of talks + references also available on request.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Well, if you're going to do that, I have done over 150 talks to audiences around the world on financial scandals and I am both knowledgeable and entertaining. Website and details of talks + references also available on request.
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
No, that’s state sanctioned neglect. Whatever the morality, it’s different.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
No, that’s state sanctioned neglect. Whatever the morality, it’s different.
Neglect a child and they die guess what you get charged with....its murder
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
I just see no pressing need for capital punishment, outside of wartime.
Outside fiction*, the number of murderers in the U.K. is tiny. The cost of warehousing them is minuscule next to national budgets.
*In one episode of Morse, there were more murders than had actually occurred in Oxfordshire in 25 years.
Oxfordshire has murder rate similar to El Salvador, in Morse.
But Morse has plenty of important lessons about contemporary crime.
I learned that the three most important skills for a detective are an appreciation of real ale, crossword-solving ability, and a knowledge of opera.
So I hope the curriculum at Hendon concentrates on these, rather than irrelevant rubbish like interrogation techniques or riot control.
When faced with a tricky problem I often do think “what would Morse do?” and get myself a beer.
In a case of neat narrative convenience the last time I had a beer in an Oxfordshire pub I was on the table next to erstwhile Lewis actor and latter day anti-woke warrior Laurence Fox.
In recent years he has ruined Lewis for me (though it was never really as good as Morse) as well as other things of his I used to enjoy. The challenge of how much you can divorce the performance from the man.
What the basic argument here is somepeople think keeping a murderer alive is worth more than keeping an innocent person alive.....thats the crux of the argument.
Now either expand Qaly to be the same value of keeping letby imprisoned or accept when the sentence is long that they don't meet qualy. Thats the point
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
30 years of anal rape, slime food, and watching Desperate Housewives.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
"Social Democrats: Turn all of southern Stockholm into one big stop-and-search zone
The centre-left Social Democrat opposition wants all of southern Stockholm to be turned into a record-large stop-and-search zone in response to an unprecedented wave of explosions."
There was a poster on here once who extolled the virtues of his adopted Sweden but never seemed to mention the bizarre prevalence of hand grenade related violence there
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
30 years of anal rape, slime food, and watching Desperate Housewives.
Surely desperate house wives is classed as cruel and unusual punishment
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Well, if you're going to do that, I have done over 150 talks to audiences around the world on financial scandals and I am both knowledgeable and entertaining. Website and details of talks + references also available on request.
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
I'll do it just for travel expenses and free food & drinks!
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.” Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
On the death penalty: I always admired the late Nat Hentoff for his consistency: He opposed the death penalty -- and abortion -- for the same reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff
And, yes, there are a few abortions done in some American states past viability, and others done for sex selection.
(For the record: I disagree with Hentoff on both, thinking the death penalty does have some deterrent value, and that it is impossible to prevent or even detect early abortions without an enormous police state.
Speaking of abortions, the notorious RBG once said something like this: "We only kill the bad ones." So, for her, abortion was a preemptive death penalty or, perhaps, eugenics in action.)
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
Regarding our conversation earlier on infrastructure, I don't think that windmills can really be considered infrastructure. They are more a cause of infrastructure. When you build a wind power station you must build significant infrastructure in terms of grid capacity to cope with the power that the windmills will (at times) produce. In a way that would not be necessary for other types of power. So I don't think "speeding offshore wind through planning" os necessarily a good thing. Because it will probably cause infrastructure issues rather than resolve them.
But neither can, say, nukes be considered infrastructure. They are more a cause of infrastructure. When you build a nuke you must build significant infrastructure in terms of heavy duty transmission routes and grid capacity to cope with the power that the plants will (at times) produce. And disposal sites, which is not necessary for other types of power. So I don't think "speeding nukes through planning" os necessarily a good thing. Because it will probably cause infrastructure issues rather than resolve them.
Yes, I agree with that. And that's not me saying windmills (or nuclear power stations) are bad, but they could be equated to a town - a centre of economic activity that needs infrastructure to make it work.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should have the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
But if we are not to execute murderers and prison is too expensive, what are we to do with them?
I understand releasing them would be quite cheap, but I do spy a teensy problem with that.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.” Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.” Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
Anyway - drop me a message if you’re interested.
Well apart from porthcall isnt a place in cornwall so -1 for research. Also why does looking like a seal earn him the name of the kraken? It is similar to saying his resemblance to a lobster earned him the nickname of the octopus.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
30 years of anal rape, slime food, and watching Desperate Housewives.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
I'm still feeling dazed by the idea that a 3rd runway at Heathrow would be good because it would enable regular flights to Liverpool.
To put that in perspective, HS2 would have provided the equivalent of a flight every 5 minutes, in a time of 1 hour and 50 minutes. Alternatively, the distance is only about 70 times the length of a runway. You could taxi a jet to Liverpool in less than 5 hours.
rcs1000: "This is a good analysis, but it bears mentioning that some states first banned the death penalty (creating a change event we can see), and then reintroduced it (ditto), so we do have some analysis of places that changed, and what impact that had on occurrence."
One common methodological error in such studies is to use changes in laws, rather than changes in executions.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.” Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.” Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
Anyway - drop me a message if you’re interested.
Well apart from porthcall isnt a place in cornwall so -1 for research. Also why does looking like a seal earn him the name of the kraken? It is similar to saying his resemblance to a lobster earned him the nickname of the octopus.
Rumbled. I really thought everyone would believe every word. I never reckoned with the intellect of Pagan2. 10/10 for your detective work there, Sherlock.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
But if we are not to execute murderers and prison is too expensive, what are we to do with them?
I understand releasing them would be quite cheap, but I do spy a teensy problem with that.
I don't want to execute prisoners of the letby type, I also don't want to spend more on them than we are willing to spend keeping the innocent alive.
Its an economic argument purely is the point I have been trying to make and arguing we should only spend 25k a year max keeping joe bloggs alive but 50k a year keeping letby alive just seems imbalanced
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Exceedingly few people are killed by asylum seekers. It’s possibly smaller than the number of people killed by cows.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.” Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
Anyway - drop me a message if you’re interested.
Well apart from porthcall isnt a place in cornwall so -1 for research. Also why does looking like a seal earn him the name of the kraken? It is similar to saying his resemblance to a lobster earned him the nickname of the octopus.
Rumbled. I really thought everyone would believe every word. I never reckoned with the intellect of Pagan2. 10/10 for your detective work there, Sherlock.
You asked for comments those two things seemed unbelievable
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
On topic
Kemi. She'll have a bit of time on her hands then.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
I accept, the British State will prioritise some lives over others.
The life of a violent criminal, who can establish that he is entitled to a family life in the UK, is prioritised over and above those who are in danger from him.
I'm still feeling dazed by the idea that a 3rd runway at Heathrow would be good because it would enable regular flights to Liverpool.
To put that in perspective, HS2 would have provided the equivalent of a flight every 5 minutes, in a time of 1 hour and 50 minutes. Alternatively, the distance is only about 70 times the length of a runway. You could taxi a jet to Liverpool in less than 5 hours.
Good God man - it's no use introducing reality into a political debate! What are you thinking!?
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Exceedingly few people are killed by asylum seekers. It’s possibly smaller than the number of people killed by cows.
Certainly cows kill more people than are shot dead by the police in the UK.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
And when asylum seekers are murdered by people WilliamGlenn is complicit
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
And when asylum seekers are murdered by people WilliamGlenn is complicit
I didn't bring asylum seekers in anywhere....williams comments are his own. My point stands alone that letby costs more a year to keep by the state than would be spent keeping joe or jo bloggs alive and sorry don't see that as right and neither do joe or jo bloggs
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Exceedingly few people are killed by asylum seekers. It’s possibly smaller than the number of people killed by cows.
Certainly cows kill more people than are shot dead by the police in the UK.
To be fair to cows, they probably feel more than justified in the odd human death, given the reciprocal.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
And when asylum seekers are murdered by people WilliamGlenn is complicit
I didn't bring asylum seekers in anywhere....williams comments are his own. My point stands alone that letby costs more a year to keep by the state than would be spent keeping joe or jo bloggs alive and sorry don't see that as right and neither do joe or jo bloggs
Your point is that keeping people in prison is expensive. If you have offered any solution to this then I missed it.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
Asylum seekers much more often have backgrounds in which violence was done to them.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Burn-Murdoch?
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.” Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
Anyway - drop me a message if you’re interested.
Well apart from porthcall isnt a place in cornwall so -1 for research. Also why does looking like a seal earn him the name of the kraken? It is similar to saying his resemblance to a lobster earned him the nickname of the octopus.
Not fair. I once had to write an essay on convergence in evolution between vertebrates and cephalopods. Now, lobsters and octopodes, that's different ...
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
A lot are however american a race with a predisposition to extreme violence. Does any other country for example feel it necessary to teach active shooter drills to its children in school?
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
Asylum seekers much more often have backgrounds in which violence was done to them.
Sadly that often makes people more likely to be violent themselves rather than less. Compassion doesn’t override the risk to the rest of the population.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
30 years of anal rape, slime food, and watching Desperate Housewives.
The American system seems to be 25 years of the regime you describe followed by a botched execution.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
A lot are however american a race with a predisposition to extreme violence. Does any other country for example feel it necessary to teach active shooter drills to its children in school?
"Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway because it's sterile and I like the taste!"
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
30 years of anal rape, slime food, and watching Desperate Housewives.
The American system seems to be 25 years of the regime you describe followed by a botched execution.
Best of both worlds, some would say.
If you are going to execute its best to do it quickly. No more than a few months
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
A lot are however american a race with a predisposition to extreme violence. Does any other country for example feel it necessary to teach active shooter drills to its children in school?
The UK state: especially for the upper echelons of society.
"Of all of the exciting training available through the CCF, marksmanship training and shooting are always popular, and provide some of the most interest opportunities for cadets.
Cadets across the Services will have the opportunity to learn about a range of different weapons, and how to handle and fire them safely."
Traditional speech day demonstration of skills here:
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
A lot are however american a race with a predisposition to extreme violence. Does any other country for example feel it necessary to teach active shooter drills to its children in school?
The UK state: especially for the upper echelons of society.
"Of all of the exciting training available through the CCF, marksmanship training and shooting are always popular, and provide some of the most interest opportunities for cadets.
Cadets across the Services will have the opportunity to learn about a range of different weapons, and how to handle and fire them safely."
Traditional speech day demonstration of skills here:
That is training how to shoot, an active shooter drill is what to do if the alarm goes off because there is an active shooter in the school and is about locking doors and hiding under desks
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
Why? Are you saying that there’s something wrong with letting in asylum seekers as opposed to, say, tourists? Tourist related violence doesn’t get much mention and at least asylum seekers have a necessity to be here - if genuine.
Tourists aren’t disproportionately young men with violent backgrounds and they are usually here for shorter periods of time.
Asylum seekers much more often have backgrounds in which violence was done to them.
Sadly that often makes people more likely to be violent themselves rather than less. Compassion doesn’t override the risk to the rest of the population.
Which is very small, and made smaller if you don’t leave people hanging around with too little money and no legal work opportunities. Process people quickly. Get those who have valid claims integrated into society and able to give back through employment rapidly.
Meanwhile, if you want to save people’s lives, reduce risk, then just about any anti-smoking measure will be far more effective.
Comments
They are arguing about it in court right now
I am merely pointing out the absurdity of @Pagan2 position, which seems to be that the state should be allowed to bump off people it finds inconveniently expensive.
If you want Capaldi's costumes, now's your chance.
https://www.johnkay.com/about/
https://x.com/timesalgebraind/status/1884509786823098640
The centre-left Social Democrat opposition wants all of southern Stockholm to be turned into a record-large stop-and-search zone in response to an unprecedented wave of explosions."
https://www.thelocal.com/20250129/social-democrats-turn-all-of-southern-stockholm-into-one-big-stop-and-search-zone
Tell me if I happen to have someone in my dungeon and just fail to give them food and water because its too expensive then I should have an excuse as I didn't actively killed them they were just to costly to feed...I should only be done for abduction not murder?
So, Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011, and murder rates basically didn't change. New York eliminated it in 2004, and their murder rate continued to drift down. But - of course - murder rates in those places had both been trending down anyway.
Kansas abolished the death penalty in 1972 and reinstated it in 1994 - it doesn't seem to have any meaningful effect on homicide rates. It was middle of the pack before abolition, middle of the pack after abolition, and middle of the pack again after reinstatement.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/19/public-understanding-paedophilia-not-improved-charity-circles-harry-nigh-boss?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
It's understandably hard to fundraise for, but has an excellent record of reducing re-offending.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
Now either expand Qaly to be the same value of keeping letby imprisoned or accept when the sentence is long that they don't meet qualy. Thats the point
(Yes I know, I know... 😎)
Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.
I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.
NEW Party Favorability poll (Net)
🔴 Republican's: -2 (+24)
🔵 Democrat's: -26
New high for Republicans
Quinnipiac
“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.
His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.
At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.
Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.
Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”
But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”
Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.”
Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”
Anyway - drop me a message if you’re interested.
And, yes, there are a few abortions done in some American states past viability, and others done for sex selection.
(For the record: I disagree with Hentoff on both, thinking the death penalty does have some deterrent value, and that it is impossible to prevent or even detect early abortions without an enormous police state.
Speaking of abortions, the notorious RBG once said something like this: "We only kill the bad ones." So, for her, abortion was a preemptive death penalty or, perhaps, eugenics in action.)
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
When voters have actually felt what giving it to them good and hard, as they apparently claim to have requested, has hit.
I understand releasing them would be quite cheap, but I do spy a teensy problem with that.
To put that in perspective, HS2 would have provided the equivalent of a flight every 5 minutes, in a time of 1 hour and 50 minutes. Alternatively, the distance is only about 70 times the length of a runway. You could taxi a jet to Liverpool in less than 5 hours.
One common methodological error in such studies is to use changes in laws, rather than changes in executions.
Oh, sorry, you meant Meloni?
Its an economic argument purely is the point I have been trying to make and arguing we should only spend 25k a year max keeping joe bloggs alive but 50k a year keeping letby alive just seems imbalanced
Kemi. She'll have a bit of time on her hands then.
After all, everything said there was already known.
The life of a violent criminal, who can establish that he is entitled to a family life in the UK, is prioritised over and above those who are in danger from him.
Also I am reassuringly expensive. Not selling myself for a few vol-au-vents and a bedroom with a view. That's for the @Leon's of this world.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
Best of both worlds, some would say.
https://combinedcadetforce.org.uk/about-the-ccf/activities/marksmanship
"Of all of the exciting training available through the CCF, marksmanship training and shooting are always popular, and provide some of the most interest opportunities for cadets.
Cadets across the Services will have the opportunity to learn about a range of different weapons, and how to handle and fire them safely."
Traditional speech day demonstration of skills here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ1LG08ssaM
Arse handed back to him on a plate. A plate he made from his own hands.
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1884635192297447870
Or a little over a third of yesterday's increase in funding for Gaza.
Meanwhile, if you want to save people’s lives, reduce risk, then just about any anti-smoking measure will be far more effective.