Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says…
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”
Muslim Led Military-Style Free School Needed | Toby Young
How ITV Crashed Out Online Last Night | MediaGuido
Green Leader Blames Terror Attacks on Britain | Asa Bennett
ABC Online Figures for Newspaper Websites | MediaGuido
Why Won’t Obama Acknowledge Islamist Reality? | Nile Gardiner
£1.3 Billion Extra Raised Since Top Tax Rate Cut | Telegraph
In Search of Swivel-Eyed Loons | Speccie
EU Tries to Ban Conker Trading | Telegraph
Coked-Up Celebs and Vengeful Politicians | Press Gazette
What We Don’t Know About the Woolwich Attack | Dan Hodges
Woolwich Terrorists Were Al-Qaeda’s Children | Jeremy Havardi
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Nigel Farage hits the nail on the head:
“This olive oil ban was virgin on the ridiculous.”
Ned Flanders – Clegg
Lisa Simpson – Natalie Bennett
Milhouse – Hilary Benn
Martin Prince – Andy Burnham
Edna Krabappel – Luciana Berger
Crazy Cat Lady – Glenda jackson
Comic book guy – John Prescott
Carl – Chucka
Lenny – Philip Hammond
Willie – Eric joyce
Poochie – Gordon Brown
Reverend Lovejoy – Tony Blair
Killing is wrong for the individual, and it is wrong for the state. We cannot sink to the level of the lowest 3rd world dictatorships simply for revenge. And that’s all capital punishment is. Revenge. Law is reason free from passion. Capital punishment is passion free from reason.
Wake up Guido.
Read this and say that again: inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/dawn-will-break-eventually/
Read it. Doesn’t help. Unless you’re advocating ‘cleansing’ without a conviction to back it up.
Doesn’t stop killing being imorral and wrong now does it? Remember the free from passion part of my post. A murder is a murder is a murder.
If capital punishment has any merit at all it as a deterrent.
People who suggest it is just about vengeance are evading the real argument.
Tonys conscience , Iraq , state sanctioned murder , guilty as charged , public stoning ,
I very rarely disagree with you Guido, but on this subject/cause, I cannot agree with you one bit. Eye for an eye would leave us all blind.
You must already be blind inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/dawn-will-break-eventually/
Haven’t read protocol 6 then.
Eh no, Guido. Read Protocol 13.
Whoops, that’s the one. Either way, death penalty not exactly endorsed.
Protocol 13 to the ECHR provides for the complete abolition of the death penalty.
Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights gets round Protocol 13 of ECHR. It sanctions the death penalty provided it has not been imposed by a court of law. Read all 3 paragraphs carefully – you will see that this article, near the end of the charter, makes it one for the elimination of rights.
So why is the killing of babies legal in law?
It’s a lefty Liberal thing. A child murderer can not be sentenced to death but the state is allowed to kill children.
“So why is the killing of babies legal in law?”
It’s not. Kill a bay, and you will get sent to jail.
Wrong, it is quite legal to Kill a baby under abortion laws.
It is quite illegal to murder a baby.
There is in law a complete distinction between killing and murdering
Murder is defined as deliberate taking of human life. Now murder is legal in this country. It is simply that the law of the united kingdom seeks not to define certain types of murder as a crime. Abortion is legalised murder.
You’re wilfully mixing up murder and manslaughter /lesser homicide offences. You’re also mixing up a baby with a foetus. Try further absurd argument in relation to sperm / unfertilised egg.
Mr Weiner it is just a convenience fo pro-abortionists to make a distinction between unborn babies and born babies. As if the former has no life and the later does. In this country it is legal to kill perfectly formed babies, who if they were not still inside the womb would look exactly like…babies.
It is so hypocritical for a politician on one hand to sanction the killing of an unborn child while on the other hand to feint in horror at the very thought of the death penalty for a child murderer.
Mr Weiner- Dr Bernard Nathanson, one of the leading pro-abortion doctors took one look at the ultra sound of an unborn baby and decided he could no longer do it anymore. He became one of leaders of the pro-life movement. The only thing that is abrurd is you equating an unfertilised egg or sperm with a baby in the womb.
It is not the killing which is wrong, but the deprivation of those future years of life. Nothing more tragic than terminating the life of a child which has not even seen sunlight.
Yet the same apologists of abortion will defend the life of some child raping scum because it is the ‘civilised’ thing to do.
Civilisation only exists because people are prepared to defend it not weaken it.
A human embryo doesn’t look like a baby. It’s also just as ‘alive’ as a sperm. My point is your initial argument using abortion as justification for capital punishment is bullshit posturing.
I also advise you to research why there is a cut off point for terminations. Then go away and remember this is a capital punishment debate not an abortion one.
Say what you like about the death penalty, but the recidivism rates are very low indeed.
In Ancient Roman plays, if a character had to die, actors were replaced by convicted rapists or murderers who were then killed on stage.
People enjoyed watching executions then. Unfortunately I don’t think human nature has changed that much, bloodlust is still there and obviously governments don’t want to encourage it.
And you think the Cyberspace Billy Bowden is for real?
so if you want “an eye for a eye”, then i suppose you would rape someone who commits rape?
Stab someone that stabs someone?
Steal a car thiefs car?
No need to lock anyone up then?
apart from kidnapping then just send em to gitmo.
Grow up Billy, go out into the big world and get a life.
Says the anonymous poster
We should’t be arguing about protocols or articles in the echr. Public policy,decisions should be decided either by the people or the people’s representatives in parliament. The echr was the product of elite negotiation in the 1950s and the council of Europe is not a democratic organisation.
Supranational organisations like the Council of Europe and the EU stand in opposition to democracy.
Supranational treaties like Utrecgt and Versailles included?
Those treaties didn’t lead to permeant international institutions. It is also worth noting that Versailles created conditions that made a second war very likely.
The thing about the death penalty is that if its brought back for these crimes, why not for serial murder, or just for murder, or for the killing of a paramedic, or arson leading to the death of a firefighter. These things have a habit of slowly being extended. Some may approve of that!
Fundamentally I am against the death penalty because I believe in the right to life, but I do believe that the subject needs to be debated on a free vote. This is, after all, the ultimate conscience issue!
Good on you Guido for stimulating a debate that will never go away – not least because life doesn’t yet mean life in so many cases.
It’s an attractive solution until the State gets it wrong – just once! That being said, we know Blair, Bad Al, Straw,Hoon and others are guilty as fuxk, so I’d happily ‘drop’ the lot of ‘em.
Why is this quote of the day?
If you want to kill people so much, join the army and leave the rest of us out of it.
Yes pal, you stick your head back in the sand.
I’m not personally in favour of the death penalty, but if there’s a strong general view that it should be applied in some circumstances then the law should reflect that. Otherwise we’re not much of a democracy, are we?
It’s a ridiculous, retrograde and unnecessary step. Support for the reintroduction of capital punishment has fallen a long way from its peak, according to UK Polling Report. The real issue is confidence in the criminal justice system. If ‘Life meant Life’ then most people would be content. Child murderers and sexual murderers in particular should never be released.
The law treats violent crime far too leniently as it is … there should be a ‘violent offenders’ category of the sex offenders register, perhaps renamed the ‘sexual and violent offenders register’ to track and deter the persistently violent and sociopathic who are responsible for so much crime.
People seem to have forgotten why capital punishment was abolished in the first place. Executing women like Ruth Ellis left a bad taste in the mouth. The attempt to restrict it to child killers and cop killers is a vague and naive bid for more votes. Mothers and fathers murder their children. Children occasionally murder children. Would you execute a 15 year-old boy? People only call for hanging because they don’t have to take responsibility for it. I doubt Denise Fergus would have been happy to personally hang two ten year-old boys.
Where’s the evidence for the efficacy of the death penalty as deterrent? The United States – one of the highest crime rates in the industrialised world? 5.4 homicides per 100,000 persons compared to 1.4 in Britain. 54 per 100K in New Orleans (Louisiana) where the death penalty is in place. The legal costs of appeal in the US make it more expensive to execute someone than to jail them.
There might just be other factors influencing those stats. Like the availability of guns. What would the US figures be without the death penalty and what would ours be with?
But you can’t compare theirs with ours.
guido, why are you going along with this prole sun-esq string em up crap?
Denise Fergus would have happily strung both her childs’ killers out to dry. It is a natural reaction for a parent who has lost a child to such horrific nature.
Re murdering / killing a foetus…its called CHOICE. If a woman is raped, why would she want a child which reminded her every day of what she went through? A disabled child is a lifes work, they (mostly) don’t leave home to go to uni / get married. A disabled child is for life, not just for childhood. Many choose abortion because the know they wouldn’t be able to care for the child, be able to support it through his life. Questions are raised regarding who will care for the child in the event the parents die? Elderly parents are eft without ANY support when they have a disabled child…both physically and financially. Many disabled children live into their 60′s…how is their parents supposed to care for them when they are in their 80′s and probably need care themselves!! Anyone who is against LEGAL and LAWFUL terminations should spend a few years in the shoes of an elderly carer!!
Convenience killing. How civillised.
Legal, lawful but immoral.
But why is it legal to kill the child while it is in the womb and murder when the child has left the womb?
You are also forgetting that most children who are killed by the medics are not mal formed or conceived by a rapist. They are just simply inconvenient children
Capital punishment is not permitted. Even debating it feels diminishing – we are better than that.
Unfortunately, Guido.. you are wotng. Protocol 13 ECHR abolishes death penalty for ALL COUNCIL OF EUROPE STATES… we are a signatory. ergo… Art 2 does not permit executions in UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Protocol_13_-_complete_abolition_of_death_penalty
Yawn, that is the original article, you are quoting later protocols, read the petition, it calls on Ministry of Justice to determine legislative escape route:
We petition the government to review all treaties and international commitments which may inhibit the ability of Parliament to restore capital punishment. Following this review, the Ministry of Justice should map out the necessary legislative steps which will be required to restore the death penalty for the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty.
The findings of the review and the necessary substantive legislation to be presented to House of Commons for debate no later than 12 months after this petition passes the acceptance threshold.
If Labour were in power they would be using/amending such a law to execute their political opponents. We all know Commies and Socialists have a history of commiting genocide.
If someone snuffs out my life, why should he get to keep his own life? That makes no sense.
So how does war fit in all this
a) revenge is not justified. Committing murder doesn’t logically or morally mean the person should be killed themselves. You need to prove that it does and you can’t.
b) how many miscarriages of justice, police mistakes, stupid lawyers or juries etc does it take before you realise the death penalty is
c) it is not a deterrant. For all the guff you recycle about the murder rate in the UK, there are states in the US where the D.P has been reintroduced, and states where it hasn’t. The story about the murder rates is exactly the opposite of what you seem to think it will be.
d) it’s the state behaving at the level of the criminal
e) so you need to come up with another reason for re-introducing it. I’m all ears..:)