Thursday, March 16, 2006

Didn't mean it? Tough shit.

Twenty Major writes about the death penalty, and says some things that I wholeheatedly agree with. He draws the distinction between killings that are understandable, e.g. one drug-dealer murdering another for his turf, and one's that are, frankly, so random and unmotivated as to invite utter contempt.
If there's no motivation behind your crime and you've just killed someone for the laugh then you forego all rights. Why should taxpayers pay for you to live, to eat three meals a day, to have a DVD player in your cell, to clothe you and pay for your medicines? All you had to do to not be put to death was not fire a gun through someone's window but if you are the kind of scumbag that will do that now you're still the kind of scumbag that will do it in 12-15 years when you get out of prison. You can't be saved and frankly we're better off without you.

But if you just killed someone for the laugh, for no good reason, without adequate motivation then I'm all for public hangings in Dublin Castle or at the top of Grafton Street outside the Stephen's Green centre. Perhaps flaying them alive and dragging them along a salted pathway. You can't punish people like that. You have to kill them or they'll just kill someone else and if you do kill them you can be guaranteed they'll learn their lesson.

One can't be sure that Twenty is being serious, but I am. I have long been of the opinion that the cunt who casually kicks the head in of a guy that he has picked a fight with to complete his Saturday night's debauchery is far worse than someone who kills their wife for the insurance money.

It's not that the motive makes the crime any less, it is just that the kicker has so little respect for life that he does not deserve to keep his own. And, as Twenty says, that is the kind of bastard who will do it again when he gets out of jug in 10 years' time.

You've got motive?—you get life.

You've kicked someone to death, or fired a gun through a window, for the hell of it and someone has died?—tough shit, you fuck. You die. And none of this, "I didn't mean to kill him" crap. You didn't mean to kill him? Well, you shouldn't have started kicking his head in in the first place; it's off to Tyburn for you, you filthy, little cunt-bubble.


Neil Harding said...

So someone who kills in cold-blood just for money is better than someone who has one too many, gets into a fight and it gets out of hand.

I know you guys respect people who live for money, but respecting those who kill for money is surely taking things a bit too far?

Anonymous said...

Ah, see I'm for the death penalty either way ~ I see where you're coming from, though. I also have a tendency to support the death penalty for child rapists, how do you, DK, feel about that?

Anonymous said...

Murder is murder and should earn you the death penalty. If you've shown that you care so little about human life that you're willing to take one because you're angry or you just want the other guy's stuff, you're an utter waste of oxygen and should be put out of our misery as soon as possible.

I do agree that some kinds of murder are worse than others, however.

Anonymous said...

While people can still be convicted on flawed or misinterpreted "evidence" (Roy Meadows, anyone?) I remain implacably opposed to the death penalty. Murder of an innocent by the state is murder and no less so than any other unlawful killing. Shall we then flay and hang the jury, prosecution witnesses, barristers and judge?

No, while I may feel that the mindless killers in our midst should forfeit their lives, I realise that sooner or later an innocent person will pay the price for our flawed justice system and for me that is one too many.

Katy Newton said...

To be guilty of murder you have to intend either to kill someone or to cause them grievous bodily harm, so if you're kicking someone in the head with shod feet whilst they're on the ground it doesn't really make a difference that you didn't intend to go the whole hog and kill him. But I wouldn't draw a distinction between that person and someone who deliberately set out to kill someone for money or for anything else when it came to sentencing.

(I wouldn't go for the death penalty either. Dehumanises everyone involved in the process and if you get the wrong man it's tricky to put right.)

chris said...

Personally I wouldn't go for the death penalty for two reasons:

1. Mistakes are made. I don't trust the State to get anything right so I certainly don't trust it get right about these kind of life or death questions. The danger of an innocent person being executed is too great.

2. I'm a bastard. If somebody is a murderer then I want them punished, I want them to suffer. Execute them and they simply stop existing and all possibility for further punishment ends.

Devil's Kitchen said...

OK, can we assume that we would only contemplate executing those who we know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is guilty.

Here's my thing: a man plots to murder his wife for the insurance money. He has then set her life at a certain price; her life is worth a certain amount, and what the man wants to gain must be worth more than the life he is going to take, and the possibility of being caught.

A thug goes out, gets pissed and, just for shits and giggles because no Friday night's drinking is complete without a fight, picks on some wee student and kicks the guy to death.

One of those people values life: the other does not. Those who do not value life do not deserve to retain it. That's my point.

Although, I think that I get particularly cross about the second example because I and so many of my friends have been victims of that attitude. Luckily, I've had nothing more than a few bruises and a couple of broken teeth, but one of my friends had his jaw broken in 8 places. The kind of people who think that a Friday night is not complete unti they've duffed someone up is a danger to everybody; they routinely make everyone else's lives a misery. They should be beaten to death with rods wrapped in barbed wire. I fucking hate those cunts.


Anonymous said...

DK - we can't assume any such thing! Is there a special category of "really, truly, definitely guilty" that I don't know about? Who decides? The same people as decide guilt or innocence in the first place presumably. And since they have to be really sure to convict anyway and yet still make mistakes, well, you can see where that can lead to.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Katherine, I meant more as a hypothetical assumption. And can we really know that someone is guilty: yes, we can.


staghounds said...

Oddly enough, I just prosecuted a case where 2 troubled children (15,16) stoned, beat, and kicked a 71 year old man to death. They were seen, they admitted to it, and his blood and bits were on their clothes and shoes. They both boasted of it afterwards in jail.

That's "really, truly, definitely guilty" enough for me.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...