Fit for the rope
Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 03:35AM ATW's latest online poll asks the reader if he/she supports the death penalty for certain heinous crimes such as mass murder. I have cast my vote by checking the "yes" option. The penalty for crimes involving terrorist acts, multiple murder (indeed, the murder of one single person in many cases), violent sexual assault including rape, or any kind of prolonged brutality against the person, ought to be the gallows. Let them swing!
When it comes to violent crime against children, however (such as this or this, from today's online news), I support the rope, but not for the purpose of hanging the evil scum - that would be far too quick a punishment. Such perpetrators must indeed die by the rope, but I want that rope to be used in order to make them scream for hours on end, before their eventual prolonged deaths. It's the only way.
Why so bloodthirsty? Well, perhaps it's because I know something which the dirty, vile socialists who run this country refuse to understand. With his pre-election mantra "Tough on crime; tough on the CAUSES of crime", Tony Blair (as the mouthpiece of the Labour Party) revealed his (and his party's, and indeed socialism's) utter ignorance of the very heart of human nature. They think that basically all people are "good" at heart, and that crime is only a "desperate" reaction to "social inequality" or "deprivation" or "marginalisation", and that with the right "social justice" policies, crime can be eliminated and prevented at source.
What utterly naive nonsense! The cause of crime is criminals. There is real evil in this world, and there are people who commit evil acts without any "social" reasons to excuse them. And the only way to prevent and deter SOME of them (I'm not saying we can ever deter ALL of them, only some) is to make the consequences so utterly horrifying, so bad, so torturous and painful, that at least some of these evil people who have a few still-rational brain cells within them, will think twice before they act - not out of any sense of altruism or morality, but purely from a sense of raw fear of what will happen to them if they are apprehended. Peter Seaton, this sick piece of chav-scum, battered an innocent child to death in a rage because he had "run out of skunk". Any appeal to his so-called "human rights" (I cringe at the sheer abhorrence of the term) should be measured against the same level of regard he showed towards the "rights" of his victim - ie, none whatsoever. Violence against fully grown adults, who are able to attempt to defend themselves, is one thing - violence against defenceless children is entirely something else. The likes of Seaton should taste the rope - and not as a noose, but as a whip.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (18)
Tom you said that perfectly...
The problem is not in the abstract - certain heinous crimes (and criminals) certainly do deserve death. The problem is that the Criminal Justice System is a government bureaucracy, and as such is as screwed up (or more screwed up) as any other bureaucracy.
In the US there are plenty of instances where people were placed on death row via corrupt police, or eye-witness testimony who were later exonerated by improved DNA evidence. And there is reasonable evidence that some innocent men were executed.
I don't have problems with the death penalty in the abstract. I just don't trust government enough to want them to have this much power.
Zendo Deb,
"I just don't trust government enough to want them to have this much power."
Excellent point.
>>the only way to prevent and deter SOME of them ..is to make the consequences so utterly horrifying, so bad, so torturous and painful, that at least some of these evil people who have a few still-rational brain cells within them, will think twice before they act<<
In fact, what would be even more effective is raping and torturing their children, spouses, parents, etc. to death in front of the criminal's mean eyes and having all of this televised nationwide at peak viewing time for the edification of others.
Tom,
Assuming that you are actually serious, can you imagine the kind of people who would apply to work in a state torture chamber? Most advocates of torture claim it is necessary to extract information as part of the interrogation process but you are going beyond even that.
You want it as part of the punishment. Are you a leftist troll hoping to make the right look moronic? Either that or you genuinely need help.
Tom
I was fuming too. What these people did was barbaric and evil but you want the state to replicate their behaviour? Better to have a real life sentence, no remission or reviews, no perks (no Sky and certainly no skunk) and forced labour.
Oh and it would be nice if social services would finally learn their lessons and do their jobs properly
Every time I utter "bring back hanging" I think of poor Stefan Kiszko. He endured misery in prison though and died around a year of his release.
One of the saddest cases of misjustice in criminal history.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/227/227400_a_terrible_crime_with_two_victims.html
There are so many miscarriage of justice cases in Britain that only someone completely irresponsible could argue for execution.
Yet those who do are often the same people who also support a lower standard of proof for conviction in the first place and who in many cases refuse to accept miscarriages of justice actually happened even when the courts do (proving by the way that they don't trust the courts themselves)
So my challenge is this. Will anyone on this site accept that the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four were innocent and still advocate the death penalty.
Tom Tyler -
Well said. The commie ruling class still believes, in the face of common sense and experience, that criminals are made by society. This belief is at the heart of the ongoing war against the notion of punishment. They're so confident and entrenched, they're now even beginning to tell the truth about what they believe (once they no longer have to face voters, of course):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6935370.stm
Tome Tyler said; (my emphasis)
I have cast my vote by checking the "yes" option.
any kind of prolonged brutality against the person
I want that rope to be used in order to make them scream for hours on end, before their eventual prolonged deaths. It's the only way.
should taste the rope - and not as a noose, but as a whip.
i take it you would include state torturers AND yourself on the list?
Tom is expressing the gut human emotion most of us feel when reading such stories about adults torturing and killing small children, deep down I think he would realise state sanctioned torture isn;t really the response we should have to such crimes. However I certainly am in favour of genuine life imprisonment not just for these crimes but for all murders.
colm,
i was thinking specifically of those that would torture people such as terror suspects. which would be very much an example of prolonged brutality.
and i dont think you can excuse the level of detail as mere gut emotion. but lets here it from the horses mouth.
Tom Tyler's understandable reaction to 'dish it out, like for like' to willful, sadistic murderers is, as Sara said, just replicating the behavior.
In any case, for it to be a DETERRENT, such action would have to be graphically publicized! and that would make Britain look a tad like some middle eastern states.
The clarity of justice; prospect of the gallows and one's imminent demise, is sufficient enough.
Some people seem unable to differentiate between the torture of an innocent (let me repeat that word; "innocent" [not guilty of anything; undeserving of such punishment]) child, and the just punishment of a guilty [having done something to deserve such punishment] criminal.
Tom
That is irrelevent if you are opposed to state sanctioned torture or violent punishment.
Fine, Colm. I'm not opposed to violent punishment of violent criminals, so for me it's not irrelevant. And as for "state sanctioned torture", what that usually means (as seen in countries such as Zimbabwe at present, and mark my words, in Venezuela in the not too distant future) has nothing to do with punishing criminals, but with oppressing political opponents. That, I am opposed to. But you'll find, the sort of countries which use torture on political opponents are the very same Marxist hell-holes that wouldn't dream of punishing real criminals.
What utter puerile nonsense about "replicating their behaviour". To use the tired old Godwin cliché, Do you think we were unjustified in "replicating" Hitler's behaviour by declaring war on Germany? How the hell else were we supposed to fight back except by replicating the very same tactics of war? It's not the actions themselves, it's the reasons you use them that are good or bad. Evil must be fought with force, and crime must be punished and deterred with bad things.
Re replicating their behaviour, you suggested the law should get as sadistic as the perverts did - long drawn out torture such as the children suffered. How then does that give us any sort of moral authority to judge and sentence them? Punish them severely by all means - they deserve it - but replicating their actions IS an absurd idea.
Tom,
"It's not the actions themselves, it's the reasons you use them that are good or bad."
The end justifies the means.
And of course every despot that's ever decided to kill people by the truckload thought they had excellent reasons to do so.
"Do you think we were unjustified in "replicating" Hitler's behaviour by declaring war on Germany?"
False analogy. Whatever the morality of the likes of Dresden, Hitler was a clear and present danger, not locked up impotent in some prison or another.