[Closed] Should Levi Bellfield face capital punishment?

because we're better than him?

so if i give you a hammer will you cave his head in?

Do we have to do this again?

1) where do you draw the line for those who are hanged?

2) what happens with miscarriages of justice? Stephen Downing Stefan Kisko, guildford four?

answer those two questions and you can start hanging people.

In a country of liberal tolerance, people like this can continue to totally run roughshod over the law.

I am fairly sure he would do it in an autocracy or any other system.

While I can see some very big pros for CP, I can also see some very big negatives. Plenty of people have been released with a pardon after mistakes were found, can't dig peolpe up and revive them.

Should Levi Bellfield face capital punishment?

NO

No, but "life" should mean "life".

Oh another capital punishment thread? I'll save my breath...whatever TJ says +1

[i]Help me out here because I can see no reason why this monster shouldn't suffer the fate he's doled out to some of his victims.[/i]

What you have to do is separate out what you'd like to personally do (and personally I'm with you, some people are a waste of oxygen) and what is practical within a legal framework. So in the case of the death penalty you then also have to accept that some innocent people will also be executed. Now clearly some people are absolutely guilty of their crimes, but if you were to try and frame this in law you'd then need laws for the innocent, the guilty and the really guilty. Of course if you did that, anyone found guilty would immediately appeal, that there wasn't convincing evidence against them, so it's a bit of a non starter.

As Carrot says "Revenge isnt the same as justice" or is it Vimes.

Capital punishment? No.

He has, however, foregone claim to any rights as a human being in my eyes. Stick him in a 8' x 8' padded room with no clothes (so he can't fashion some kind of suicide device, not because I'm a perv) and feed him the absolute minimum required to stay alive and healthy, for the rest of his life. Surely that wouldn't be a burden on the public purse.

thought it was "personal isnt the same as important"

people like this can continue to totally run roughshod over the law

Look up the words Revenge and Justice in the OED

HTH

+1 The Flying Ox.
Minimal cost to the taxpayer, and he is out of the public environment where he is onviously a menace.

yes

A big "no" for CP. Shame they don't seem to have said whether he'll get charged or not (I am guessing the OP will see no need for a fair trial of course!)

What was the Torygraph's position on Ronnie Biggs? (just wondering how consistent it is on crims)

No-one should kill anyone else, ergo CP is wrong. In fact, it's more than wrong, it's one of the blackest most utterly inhuman thing anyone could ever do.

To look into someone's eyes, slip the needle into their arm and press the plunger, then watch as the life fades away. Psychopaths do this kind of thing yes but they have the excuse of a screwed up brain. Capital punishment is dished out by mainstream society who should bloody well know better.

I really do have nightmares about this. One of the worst things in the sphere of human endeavour I think.

*shudder*

As soon as you return to capital punishment, you make a murderer out of the person that delivers the lethal injection; the judges that make those decisions; accomplices of those 12 good men and true that convicted him.

Although my political views might often be described as slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan, I would not feel comfortable if society made murderers out of many in the pursuit of "justice" for the few.

Human life is the most precious thing we possess, and nobody has the right to end that. I think that anyone who takes life should be prevented from ever doing it again, but for society to take an eye for an eye makes us all murderers.

Lock him up and throw away the key. As a tax payer, I have no qualms about funding a prison system if it works, and I'd be more than happy for my taxes to pay for him to be held - without privelege or luxury - for the rest of his life. It's just a shame that he probably won't.

beat him, hang him, then burn the ba5tard. 😀

and to all you soft lefty pc lot........... 🙄

pass me the hammer.

So ton - will you answer the two questions?

1) where do you draw the line for those who are hanged?

2) what happens with miscarriages of justice? Stephen Downing Stefan Kisko, guildford four?

teej, there is always gonna be a few mistakes..........but with the law of averages...it will equal it's self out.... 8)

You say it is wrong to kill. But to punish people, you believe it is right to kill.

I have always failed to understand the logic of capital punishment. If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill.

ton, your trolling is so obvious now it's worrying even me. You need to take a break and hone your skills again 🙂

I've often wondered what a lot of trolls in one place looks like. It is either this sort of thread or something like this -
[img] [/img]

Erudite and well reasoned argument of the highest order there ton 🙄

Don't feed the troll 😉

Open arguement...

but the public should be protected 1st by kee ping him away from the society he does not fit with his values and super ego differences.

ok then, put him in a nice cell, with sky tv, porn on demand, and let rose west come to see him once a week for a hours fun....... 🙄

Yes ton, that really is the only alternative and is exactly what prisons are like. Don't tell me, it was in the Daily Fail what you read it? 🙄

al, only paper i ever read is a local sports one.

seriously...what would you do with him.

Use drugs to extract the truth if he did it give him to the parents to decide.

That's revenge which is nothing to do with justice

Lock him up in humane but very spartan conditions for life. Eg prison without the Daily Mail stereotype luxuries that I very much doubt are the norm for people convicted of murder.

To some people, punishment and deterrent is completely meaningless, and is therefore useless.

Detaining suck a person indefinitely would be highly beneficial to the public, but justice as such isn't really possible in a situation where someone's dead and the culprit doens't understand punishment.

It's not been mentioned, but I suspect its the career as a wheelclamper bit that's really upset most of the foaming types on here.

Life for murder - we're not Texans, after all - but death to all wheelclampers.

first two posters sum this up yes we are better than him, murder is bad even if we do it to him.
Ton are you baiting the lefties ❓

seriously...what would you do with him.

I don't know enough about what works best (I doubt you've researched it either) but it would probably be some combo of rehabilitation, work, deterrence, punishment & restorative justice.

Cynic-al - that might never work with a true [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath ]psychopath[/url]

Should Levi Bellfield face capital punishment?

I think so. His reggae reggae sauce was shit

I know, I know - don't think we should give up trying though.

LOL at KT1973

In answer to the question no I would not vote for the death penalty. How do you deal with a) the miscarriages of justice discovered late? b) the morality of teaching that killing another is wrong then using killing as the ultimate punishment? c) the impact on juries and convictions? many would be unwilling to convict where they new that their verdict would place the life of the accused in the judges hands.

Bellfield is serving a whole life tariff and no doubt in a high category non cosy jail . I can't think of any thing more fitting than that.

If some one harmed my family I'd want them tortured to death which is exactly why i should be the last person to have a say in their fair and just punishment.

I'm pretty sure there is absolutely no evidence that killing people convicted of attrocious crimes is in any way a deterrent. The only plus I can see is that these criminals cost alot more alive then they do dea. So here is my proposal. If they have repeat offended twice ie three crimes then it the death sentence, if they have been found guilty of murder/rape/any other serous crime then kill them. If they have any dissability without commiting a crime then kill them, if they are a minority group in any way then kill them.

crankboy - Member

If some one harmed my family I'd want them tortured to death which is exactly why i should be the last person to have a say in their fair and just punishment.

Well put.

Actually I have read, as part of my research into a university essay years ago, that in some parts of the world where they introduced the death penalty, the murder rate actually went up. Now it is probably impossible to say if the two are related but it does confirm that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

"it does confirm that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent" There is some argument to suggest that a criminal who commits a crime that carries the death penalty is more likely to kill potential witnesses to avoid detection and therefor execution.
In addition how many people are really deterred by the consequences of conviction, i would suggest most who commit crime, from speeding through burglary to rape or murder do so in the belief they won't get caught or never even consider the consequences, not because they don't fear the punishment.
Of the three purposes of sentencing retribution and rehabilitation make most sense, reductivisim ( the reduction of crime by deterence of the offender or the wider public) Seems a little blunt as a tool. The only really effective use of a reductivist sentence is the whole life or the Indeffinate Sentence for Public Protection . I'm in favour of the whole life sentence for criminals such as this but very sceptical of the Indeffinate Sentence for Public Protection.

Should bellfield face the death penalty?

I firmly believe that he should not face the death penalty. As a civilized country we have no place for the death penalty within our judicial process. As a civilized country I believe that we do not have the right to judge whether we take another persons life because we are then putting ourselves on the same level as the person we are condemning. Take away their privileges and take away the comfort we afford to them. Life should mean life, especially in bellfields case.

However, if the victim was a member of my family or a close friend I think that I would not rest until I had confronted and dealt with the person that had committed the crime against my loved one. Hypocritical, maybe but I have thought long and hard about this and I would accept the repercussions of my actions. Maybe if I find myself in that situation I may not think this way as I have never been in that situation. Even more so, hopefully I will never ever be in that kind of situation.

More police officers has more effect on crime than the death penalty (can't be bothered to look up the references, but you just know it's true).

Plus, rather depressingly, the legalization of abortion. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics ]Apparently[/url].

Luke - strictly speaking I believe its the odds on being caught but to a great extent its the same thing.

in a word, no.

Capital Punishment is not legal in the UK, nor should it be in any society, civilised or otherwise.

"an eye for an eye makes us all blind"

However, that does not mean that he should not be incarcerated for life - and I mean life - in barely humane conditions, even if [i] only to protect the public [/i] from this monster; I doubt very much whether any sentence that is passed will contain much of a "rehabilitation" portion...

wwaswas - Member

because we're better than him?

+1
I guess that's easy to say if you havent had a close relative murdered. I also can see the point made by PIHA, if someone killed my nearest and dearest then it would be hard not to seek them out and deal with them in nasty way..

KT1973 - Member
Should Levi Bellfield face capital punishment?
I think so. His reggae reggae sauce was shit

LOL!

KT1973, you really are Not Very Well, are you?? 😆

Well done KT1973, the only worthwhile post on the entire thread.

From a cost saving point of view, almost certainly. I'd imagine there's buggar all chance of rehabilitating that scumbag so why waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on him? The money could be far better spent elsewhere.

I'd hang him - I'd make a gameshow out of it and put it on after the lottery on Saturday night. Viewers could vote on method of execution, and bet on time of death, another chance to win on a Saturday if your numbers don't come up 😉

I'm personally in favour of Capital Punishment but the beyond reasonable doubt bit gets me every time. The death penalty is very fitting indeed to some crimes. However, proving it beyond reasonable doubt is the problem. Once hanged, shot or whatever miscarriages of justice cannot be rectified. The penal system is meant to rehabilitate offenders so they don't re-offend. The efficacy and cost effectiveness of that policy remains in question and rightly so.

TBH I don't think that the death penalty fits any 'civilised' society as mentioned above - but life imprisonment should mean life though - not 7 years or so. The safety of the public means more than the human rights of a very sick individual like Levi Bellfield.

Anyway - my thoughts and sympathies are with Milly's family - that's the important thing here imho.

If you are talking from a cost point of view certainly in America it costs far more to kill prisoners than to keep them locked up for life due to the cost of the appeals system.

If it costs more then it shouldnt do. Guilty of a crime like this, injected with 5 litres of drain cleaner then incinerated. I really don't see why this is unreasonable.

m cozzy - look up the cases of Stefan Kisko and Stephen Downing if you ant to know why that is unreasonable. Then consider the Guildford 4. All would have been hung. all were innocent.

KT1973 top answer have a gold star and a scratch and sniff sticker 🙂

2) what happens with miscarriages of justice? Stephen Downing Stefan Kisko, guildford four?

I don't actually think the second argument is very convincing: mistakes and miscarriages are made with any human system. To say that there would be mistakes with a death penalty system is just to say it would operate like anything else.

I'm against the death penalty on principle, which means always, for everyone from Hitler to Fred West, not "ooh, not usually most people, but maybe if they're really naughty and horrible people". It's pointless, barbaric, ineffective and moronic.

The experience of the death penalty in the US - which is the country which operates the death penalty that is most similar to the UK - is not a happy one: there are certain types of people that received it more than others (guess who) and the death penalty actually ends up costing [b]more[/b] than life sentences: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html

Kona bunny - the mistake is a bit final if yo have hung them - the folk I mentioned have all been released so got dome life better than none.

m_cozzy - Member
If it costs more then it shouldnt do. Guilty of a crime like this, injected with 5 litres of drain cleaner then incinerated. I really don't see why this is unreasonable.

Executing someone is about as cold-blooded as killing can get. So in many ways it could be considered worse than the original crime.

In the past I'd have said yes execute him but I've mellowed a bit with age.

I do feel strongly that anyone who kills or tries to kill another person should lose their liberty for the rest of their natural life (apart from certain exceptions eg compassionate reasons, self defence).

I find it astonishing that murder is so often downgraded to manslaughter resulting in a pitifully short sentence, for example, unprovoked attacks in the street which result in the victims death. If you mindlessly take a life you have forfeit the right to live yours freely.

Rehabilitation and restorative justice are simply inappropriate for some people who will always be a risk to others or who have committed crimes serious enough to no longer deserve their liberty.

Kona bunny - the mistake is a bit final if yo have hung them - the folk I mentioned have all been released so got dome life better than none.

But that's just a cost and in a cost/benefit analysis it might be worth it - if there were any benefits whatsoever

Chuck him in a big lake if he can swim to the side without drowning then he should be burned at the stake.

Or is that a different punshment for something else?

killing someone who is innocent is a cost /beneift analysis

The government takes decisions that involve innocent people dying on a cost/benefit analysis all the time: NHS money on diabetes or cancer? Safety measures on cars or cheaper cars? Walls along railway platforms or cheaper tickets? Civilian deaths in invasion or civilian deaths under dictatorship? This is nothing new.

It's not enough to say "the death penalty is unacceptable because innocent people will die" - every human activity involves a risk. You have to go further and say "...and it doesn't achieve enough to justify that". In this case, the death penalty doesn't achieve [i]anything[/i] so it shouldn't be a tough decision, if it's being made on rational grounds...

No, he shouldn't be killed. The only arguement I could ever see for the death sentence was cost but I didn't know it actually costs more to kill someone than lock them up for life. There are far greater punishments than death, without causing physical harm to someone.

Why can't the prison system be self sufficient? If it funded itself, tax payers would harp on a lot less about how their money was being used to support crims.

Instead of sewing mail bags, why don't they produce big-ticket items, like Fabergé eggs or designer handbags? Let's face it, they've got plenty of time on their hands. And they could set up public services that utilise their unique skillset - like helping people that have locked their keys in their car...

And they could set up public services that utilise their unique skillset - like helping people that have locked their keys in their car...

Yes.

After being put in the stocks for a week, nay, a month, and then slowly tortured.

Seriously.
He's a wrong 'un.

indeed he is but tortuting the torturer as aresponse?
I assume we all still teach our kids that two wrongs dont make a right dont we?

Now it is probably impossible to say if the two are related but it does confirm that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Quite brilliant. 😀

No to CP, but life should mean life. In this extreme case in solitary and with basic provisions. CP is the kinder option in this case, and I don't see why he shouldn't suffer.

What about a real life "running man" style TV show?
Create jobs (ex-soldiers as the hunters), create advertising revenue (help the economy) and give the offenders (albeit a very slim) chance of getting off scot free! Can't be any worse than celebrity pop w@nk on jungle ice!