Small text iconNormal text iconLarge text icon

INTERACTION

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MembersMembers   GroupsGroups   RegisterRegister 
 User Control PanelUser Control Panel      LoginLogin 


All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
On C4 tonight, 9.00 to 10.35. Future Britain where the death penalty has been reintroduced, and the first name in the frame is GG.

Does using actual people in this way make the drama somehow more real/cutting, or is it just a gimmick, a cheap 'look at us' stunt?

I'm veering toward the latter opinion, but what do other people think?

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:00 am
Posts: 632
Location: Swansea
Smacks of sensationalism but who knows?

I wonder what they'll hang him by?

_________________
My Blog: http://bob-lock.blogspot.com/

Debut novel site: http://www.flamesofherakleitos.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
A rope, Bob.

I watched it. The Radio Times described it as "a strange, often repellent film ... and you might just feel a bit grubby afterwards," and that's pretty much how I felt.

The use of Glitter was both a distraction and a way of focusing the drama. I have no time whatever for Gary Glitter, but all the way through I couldn't get past the idea that somewhere out there in the world there was a real human being who knew there was a programme being broadcast in which he met a terrible end, and that seemed rather cruel, barbaric even, a pandering to the very mentality the programme seemed to be criticising elsewhere.

Besides which, anything that puts a smile on the faces of people like Ann Widdecombe and Gary Bushell just has to be wrong :lol:

And I also wondered if, with talk of celebrities no longer being able to get away with crimes and Glitter's plea that he only slept in the same bed as the girl, they were taking a swipe at Michael Jackson.

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:09 pm
Posts: 185
Location: London
isn't using GG just the same as that docu the other year about the assassination of GW Bush?

I only saw a couple of minutes as the missus was flicking about while i was trying to finish up a story and what i didn't like was a comment, also said by someone on the web in a discussion the other day, that most of the British want a return to the death penalty - i don't actually believe that that's true. again it's a vocal minority (whether fleet street or pro death penalty fans) who seem to try and lord it over the silent majority.

i'm a firm believer in stiff punishments and actual punishment (30 years meaning 30 years not 12...) but i'm not a fan of the death penalty (mainly due to there being no margin for error - if someone serves 10 years on a miscarriage of justice it's bad BUT at least you can release them once the truth comes out...)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:29 am
Posts: 549
Location: wakefield
It does sound like car crash telly. Can't be worse than this, though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/ ... el-jackson

Sick, sick and double sick.
:shock:

_________________
http://www.alisonlittlewood.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
I remember reading about the Acorah/Jackson seance, and thinking it was somebody's idea of a sick joke, but guess not.

Ben, I don't recall the assassination of GWB programme, but yeah, it is the same sort of thing and I'd probably have the same or similar objections.

At the end of the programme last night, they stated that in a recent poll 54% of the UK population were in favour of reintroducing capital punishment.

Like you I'm in the 46% minority. There is scope for miscarriages of justice, the kind that can't be put right after the event, and I also think use of the death sentence sends out a message that killing is an acceptable way to resolve problems, and that's not a good thing. There's also precious little evidence that it works as a deterrent, so all we're really talking about is society taking revenge.

I do think though, that a lot of the sentencing we see nowadays is risible, and this plays into the hands of the pro-capital punishment lobby.

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:00 am
Posts: 632
Location: Swansea
I didn't watch it after all, and by the sound of things I'm glad I didn't.

Regarding capital punishment, I'm one of the minority that think in certain cases it should be re-introduced. However, there should not be the slightest doubt of the offenders culpability and by that I mean people like Fred West - Michael Ryan - Ian Brady where their guilt has been proven emphatically. If there is even the slightest doubt, then life imprisonment should mean just that, not just 12 years after parole.

_________________
My Blog: http://bob-lock.blogspot.com/

Debut novel site: http://www.flamesofherakleitos.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
Actually, according to the programme last night, you're in the majority Bob. I can't agree though.

Even allowing for the fact that we can be absolutely sure of somebody's guilt, I don't see the point to capital punishment. If it's to stop people reoffending, then a 'life means life' sentence does the trick. If it's to set an example and deter others, then it's probably wasted effort, as most offenders either a) don't think they'll get caught and/or b) can't help themselves anyway (not sure on this, but I believe statistics show that the introduction of a death penalty doesn't reduce serious crime at all).

The only convincing argument I can see, is that it's more cost effective to execute criminals than keep them banged up for forty odd years, but if we're going to argue that human life is precious and taking it away is such a terrible crime then I don't think arguments like that need be taken into consideration.

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:00 am
Posts: 632
Location: Swansea
When I dwell upon my reasoning, Pete, I think there a couple of things which motivate me. The most fundamental is how I would feel if the life of someone dear to me was taken by somebody who had no regard whatsoever for the sanctity of human life. In my opinion anyone who can cold-bloodedly deprive someone of their life forfeits the privilege of being called a human being and the rights accorded them. The victim has no chance of parole or redemption, their rights have been taken from them, the perpetrator of the crime deserves the same outcome that his/her actions have provoked. I suppose there is a big element of revenge in my motives but also just as big an element of safety.

Just doing a quick Google shows how many murderers have been set free and have murdered again. How could anyone possibly say to the family of someone who was killed by a murderer who had been released early from prison that statistics show that the introduction of the death penalty wouldn’t have reduced serious crime at all?
At least it would have saved their loved one and saved a second family’s grief, a grief that had already been inflicted on the loved ones of the murderer’s first victim.

Apart from the above reason I also think that keeping someone like Brady in prison for over forty years is a waste of my money as a tax payer. He has stated he wants to die, he should have been hung a long, long time ago. He gave up any claim to being human when he and Hindley took the lives of those five poor children.

_________________
My Blog: http://bob-lock.blogspot.com/

Debut novel site: http://www.flamesofherakleitos.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
I agree with you about the desire for revenge Bob - if someone murdered one of my loved ones I would certainly want to see them dead - but that's why relatives of the victims don't get to decide the fate of their killers. Legislators have to take a dispassionate look at how the rights of all sectors of society can be protected, even the accused, and I just don't see that a death penalty is the way forward. It sends a very mixed message, not just that murder is so terrible it can only be punished with its equal, but also that life is not precious, something which shouldn't be taken away in any circumstances, that death can be used to resolve problems. It's an easy option.

And you're right about the re-offenders, but surely that's an argument for stiffer sentences, for 'life means life', just as much as it is for the death sentence. If those killers got out to kill again, then odds are their first crimes wouldn't have been considered sufficiently serious to merit the death penalty originally anyway.

I think all people are human beings, just that some are less civilised than others. Human beings do terrible things, always have done and probably always will, and a cynic might argue that this is how we are naturally, with civilisation only a veneer.

I see where you're coming from when you refer to the likes of Brady as monsters, really I do, and I can't argue with total conviction that you're wrong. It's just that I prefer to bolster the veneer, to go with our better nature, even if it's the less pragmatic decision, to err on the side of caution.

Anyway, if they do bring back the death penalty and I ever end up accused of murder I'll hope to hell that you're not on the jury, and if you're the one accused you should pray that I am :lol:

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:09 pm
Posts: 185
Location: London
aye 'life meaning life' solves the reoffending problem! i'm not someone who thinks that people should get six months for littering but there are certain crimes that, i believe, are wrong no matter what the law says (i'm talking the basics here - murder, rape, paedophilia) but we seemed to have reached a point where desire to rehabilitate etc. has clouded the bigger issue. i reckon if sentances were served then actually we would realsie the death penalty just isn't right.
but seriously how can have someone recieve two life sentances and be eligible for parole in 20 years??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:00 am
Posts: 632
Location: Swansea
This just out:

Quote:
The Justice Secretary has raised the minimum tariff for murderers who use a knife or other weapon such as baseball bat from 15 to 25 years in the wake of the outrage following the killing of Ben Kinsella.

However, Mr Straw stopped short of putting knife murders on a par with those who use guns, who face at least 30 years in jail.
Daily Telegraph

Ahh... I feel so relieved now, if, God forbid, one of my family get's murdered I know that as long as they get a bullet in the brain their murderer will get put away for 30 years (perhaps)
Let's hope they don't get butchered with a machete though, eh? Dying that way isn't as bad...

Farcical, if it wasn't so ridiculous I think I'd weep.

_________________
My Blog: http://bob-lock.blogspot.com/

Debut novel site: http://www.flamesofherakleitos.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:09 pm
Posts: 185
Location: London
^r could encorouge the use of strange and exotic weapons... how long for using a Trident?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
Quote:
benedictjones wrote:-
how long for using a Trident?


Depends Ben, if you mean the overgrown salad fork or the guided missile. If you have enough of the latter you can pretty much do whatever you want without any fear of comeback.

Bob, nobody here is arguing that tougher sentencing isn't necessary and basing time served on which weapon is used seems bloody ridiculous.

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:00 am
Posts: 632
Location: Swansea
Quote:
Bob, nobody here is arguing that tougher sentencing isn't necessary and basing time served on which weapon is used seems bloody ridiculous.


Yeah, sorry Pete if I've come across a tad fanatical, it's a subject that pushes my Victor Meldrew curmudgeon button I'm afraid :)

_________________
My Blog: http://bob-lock.blogspot.com/

Debut novel site: http://www.flamesofherakleitos.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group