Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Ah, so taking away someone's life is not *sufficient* punishment, and a bit extra "on the side" such as whipping is acceptable, but they shouldn't go as far as drawing and quartering?
|
yes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
So we have, from you, two limits whipping being ok, drawing and quartering being not ok. But if the whipping fails as a deterrant, how much further would you suggest they go? Branding? Pulling out fingernails? Torture on the rack? Where do you draw the line between a bit of extra punishment "on the side" being "fine" and it being "unacceptable"?
|
i have my limits, i believe in a fair but strict system, if its diffarent you your train of 'conventional' thoughts then obviously you wont accept this will you?
so we will keep them locked up rehab them, deny them net access, computer access........
how do you keep them from going near children after all we let them out pretty quicly almost instantly ?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fawkes
With all the legal appeals before its carried out (and that normally means a good ten years on death row) it ends up costing just as much as keeping them in prison for life. And I any case, are you really arguing for the death penalty on the grounds of cost? That the state should sanction murder (and what message does this send out anyway?) just to save a few quid?
|
i dont know how the legal system works over there, but in the US they dont take 10 years in some cases a fast track system to do it within a few years will save the system money long term