Manchester Arena - May 2017
With prisons full and mass murderers running amok, isn't high time we brought back the death penalty ?
There's a time when clemency and a "fair" justice system cross the line into practically aiding and abetting the criminal element, adding further insult to their victims
There was a time when prison, even for the petty criminal, was a hellish place to be. I think we can agree that the gaols of the 19th Century were barbaric, even by the standards of the day, and in the eyes of the Government, they were supposed to be, perhaps to serve as some kind of deterrent for people to not re-offend. The difference in those days is that most of the hardline criminals, who'd committed murder, and many much more petty offenders, were already hanged and never made the prison long term. Whilst it was right to cease giving the death penalty for forgery, livestock theft and stealing from a rabbit warren (I kid you not) the decision to do away with the death penalty for all murders was, in my opinion, very wrong.
Whilst we have become a more humane society over the last 2 centuries particularly, giving any kind of clemency, empathy or leniency towards cold blooded murderers is just wrong wrong wrong ! Why on earth do they deserve any kind of slack from society or, more importantly, a judge ? In the case of Manchester bomber Hashem Abedi, not only have we let him live in our increasingly soft approach to heinous crime, but we've afforded him liberties in prison that would not have been dreamt of 100 years ago and look what happens.... Not only is it an insult to the families of the victims, but now Abedi has managed to notch up even MORE victims, although they will live. Now those prison officers and families are going to have to suffer the consequences of the physical and psychological injuries that he has perpetrated upon them, for the rest of their lives.
On top of all that, it is costing the taxpayer £30,000 a year to keep this monster in prison. What an incredible waste of money, given the enormous problems we have in the UK today which are largely caused by a lack of funding. Why on earth we would invest £ 1.5 million in keeping such inhumane savages in our jails ? It doesn't make any sense. All this after he had already attached prison guards in Belmarsh and now, we are moving him to a third prison rather than putting him in solitary and throwing away the key , or better still, hanging him from the nearest lamp-post. For those that feel that we are "above that" then talk to the families of the 22 brutally blown to bits by him and his brother in May 20217. As people not directly related to the incident, we cannot possibly judge what is deemed to be be acceptable behaviour by a modern society of Government... He and his sibling showed no mercy so why should they get any back ? If you continually give people like this leniency they will simply take advantage as he has clearly just done. Some people were just meant to be eradicated and he is definitely one.
Until we are able to toughen up a sa nation and as a society, to draw a hard line in the sand which, when crossed, will result in swift retribution / justice, then we will forever have these issues. The real problem is who is going to become a prison guard in future ? Prison officers are already woefully protected from the weapons that prisoners seem to be able to make at will from materials they should be getting access to, and when they do react (god forbid they met force with force) then they end up the subject of an investigation into prison brutality.
Perhaps we should adopt the SONA mentality with prisons only occupied with inmates and let them destroy each other. Either way, we need to get tough on the worst criminals and if the death penalty is really too unpalatable for this softest of nations, then at least keep the worst offenders locked in a cell. It's supposed to be a punishment after all !
G.Hoff - Editor
Don't be surprised when people get away with murder
Whilst the desire, in most democratic and free societies, to have fair justice for all is commendable, as with everything, there is a line. I think we can mostly agree that really heavy handed punishment for minor crimes is often unhelpful and the chances of re-offending are very high if you don't offer rehabilitation, on top of the punishment, be that community service or a short stay in prison.
However, when we cross over into the. territory of serious offences such as murder, child abuse, people trafficking and rape, this is a whole different ballgame, particularly when it comes to sentencing, which is very important in order to safeguard everyone from suffering at the hands of these convicted criminals in future, as so often happens.
The issue we have in our free societies is that we feel we have to be empathetic to certain criminals because they had a tough upbringing or other circumstance that made them the way they are or lead them to commit the crime. I think it's an admirable notion to try to understand why someone is a certain way and try to learn from it for future generations, but for the person who has committed the crime, I am afraid it's too late for leniency based on circumstance.
The reasons for this are many but the most important one is that it is a complete insult to the victim and their family. Secondly, anything other than life in prison for murder is too short because of the risk that murderer could pose to other innocent members of society if he/she were to be released. In short, why should the rest of us be put at risk in the name of clemency ?
The irony is that sometimes the people who have a liberal view on sentencing and issues like reducing the power to section people who are deemed a threat, are the same citizens who are up in arms when people like Valdo Calocane, where there were numerous warning signs, was allowed to roam free and kill. You cannot have it both ways. So whilst the "justice" system continues to be lenient and also lacks the mandate to pre-arrest potentially dangerous persons, we should not be surprised when people get away with murder. The whole defence case for Calocane was based on his supposed insanity but he clearly was, or is, not. That he has paranoid schizophrenia and perhaps there should be some understanding of that condition, the controversy here is that he should have been off the streets 3 years earlier. however, had he been detained indefinitely under the mental health act, would that have been accepted by everyone ? Unlikely.
we all know the reason it happened and its very simply the reason that many state departments are performing well under par, and that's because of lack of funds. Until we sort that out, these incidents will occur again.
Or, if we really want to protect the public from completely random killings, we need direct action for people like Calocane and inevitably, some people will be unfairly treated. That, I'm afraid, will be the cost of random murder prevention which certain members of parliament and the public seem so desperate to achieve.. That said, these incidents are few and far between so perhaps we have to accept them as part of living in a liberal society. There is a risk to life everyday from a hundred different sources from crossing the road, to driving a car and the likely-hood of being randomly murdered in the UK is far lower than being killed or injured in a car accident, yet we don't give that a second thought. So maybe that IS the answer. We have to accept that there is a minuscule chance we will get murdered tomorrow....
More pressing, as far as I am concerned, is the need to detain and shackle those terrorists who are on the watch list but still manage to commit their atrocities. What is the point in the secret service, when they obtain solid intelligence, when the pathetic laws of this country say "it's a violation of their civil rights to detain them before a crime has actually been committed." We may as well not bother.
Either way, if we want more law and order, on all levels of crime, we need to get much tougher on criminals, ensure people serve their sentences for very serious crime and also educate our children and teenagers better about the probable results of them committing crime.
G. Hoff - Editor
