Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
The Crippen name conjures up the stuff of nighmares to most of us, associated like he is with gruesome murder...but new evidence in a Channel 5 documentary the other night seems to prove otherwise. The unfortunate Crippen was hanged after the body of his wife was found buried in the back garden of his south London house. I say 'wife' losely as it is now certain that the body found in the back garden was not a woman at all, the remains were those of a male. Modern DNA methods prove this...not a science available to the police in 1910.
The 'Crippen' house was a rented house. It had been rented out many times to many people, so the body in the back garden could have had a wide source of origination.
THis was the first big media trial. After the body was discovered Crippen dashed to America by ocean liner with his mistress and was caught in a blaze of publicity..middle class sexual shenanigans made great news at the time, and the police were under huge pressure like never ever before to produce. There are now strong suggestions of planted evidence in order to get the conviction.
The police were convinced he was guilty, as they were convinced it was his wife buried in the garden..so it is now suggested, took the necessary steps to secure conviction. The jury believed them taking just 25 minutes to reach a verdict.
Crippen was hanged soon after.
Again we have a dodgy verdict in a murder trial and all laid squarely at the feet of the non-reliable legal system. Those longing for the return of the death penalty might take time to pause.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Actually PaulB - the first thing that needs to be explained is exactly what did happen to his wife?
As for capital punishment, I am all for it. Modern DNA evidence should help reduce the chances of someone innocent being convicted.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
The problem with your statement there though BarryW is that its an approximation..if we get it approximately right then we can reduce the ones we hang in error. That is accepting an element of 'hanging by mistake'..but that cannot be acceptable. I know its only fiction but anyone following Criminal Justice at the moment on BBC will see how flawed the criminal justice system is. Yes its only fiction but isnt it so true. Haphazard is the word that springs to mind.
The legal system is a disaster, actually! Anyone who has witnessed or been part of the system couldn't fail too deplore the idea of capital punishment, simply because of the errors, unfairness, and wholly disorganised way "justice" is delivered.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Barry do you really trust Gordon Brown enough to want to hand him the power of life and death over the people? You have yourself, in other postings, made mention of the possibility of there being less 'benign' governments in the future. This government is already making preperations to establish a data base on the entire population containing more personal information than can justifiably be wanted and yet you want to add the death penalty to that legacy. The killing of any person by another is morally, socially and ethically wrong wether it is done by individuals or by the courts and any civilisation that wants to be worthy of that title has to condemn it.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Chris - Gordon Brown is not the Courts, a jury or the judge....
I am not at all sure what the comment about 'a less benign Government' has in relation to this at all....Likewise the database that I am personally opposed to.
I happen to think murder is immoral and allowing that person who commited it to live a relatively comfortable life in prison. Likewise, the lack of a meaningful deterrant that might prevent further murders. Incidentally, because of the misery they cause I would also have a manditory death sentence for drug smugglers and peddlars, commutable only if they provided the evidence to convict someone further 'up the chain'. I dont think it would take too many hanging to solve the drug problem that way!!!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
an easier way to solve the drugs problen would be to legalise, thus taking the criminal element out of the scenario.
users would only be able to purchase from a respectable pharmacy, those on restricted income would get dispensation.
those able to pay would pay tax to the government, therefore paying towards the rehabilitation.
this is a view held by a lot of important people, but inevitably would mean bad headlines from the tabloids.
There is no evidence that capital punishment has any meaningful effect on violent crime - in some states in USA the reverse appears to be true in that there remain high levels of violent crimes including murder despite a high level of capital punishment. In addition - the definition of murder as the intentional termination of a life appears to preclude the state from that act given that it is, by definition, illegal. One of the indicators of a fair and just free society has to be its treatment of vulnerable, challenging or dysfunctional societal members - to murder a member of society to satsify the need for visible punishment appears to be at the least self-serving and probably cynically vote-chasing. Chris - I like your posts. Welcome to the site!!!!!
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Thanks Bern.
Barry I think you will find that one of the functions of the courts is to act on laws passed by the government of the day, so Gordon Brown has a lot to do with it. There have in the past been far too many mistakes made by the judicial system for there ever to be such a thing as a 'safe verdict' on which to enact revenge killings. Statistics show that the majority of killings are spur of the moment or 'crimes of passion' (a term I would like to see scapped along with 'honour killings' for adding a false glamour to murder) so a supposed deterent would do little to curb them. It somehow reminds me of the head teacher who was asked about corporal punishment and replied that he was 'caning the same hard core all the time'. Killers should be locked away for life, living with the consequences of their actions just as the families and friends of their victims have too. For other crimes the justice system has to look at ways of breaking patterns of behaviour rather than perpetuating a criminal network.
As a final point for Howard, legalising drugs would also starve the Taliban and others of their main source of income, no small point to consider.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
chris
a good point there, i was thinking mainly of criminal gangs, trouble is the taleban have such a wide spread of markets,
they would simply supply more to the americans.
it is such a major issue, that countries would have to put their heads together and implement a joint policy.
will not happen in practice, our european leaders are tied down with trivialities.
an american chum of mine maintains that the same problems abound in his country with the north american free trade association.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Chris, howard, Bern and all...... Liberal attitudes have left us with a situation of drug fuelled social breakdown and criminality. We need to go in the opposite direction in all aspects of life. Yes, bring back hanging and the birching of young thugs. Make prisons as nasty and uncomfortable as possible, but without brutality. Cane unruly children. Make parents responsible for the behaviour of their children.
Make me dictator for life......
Britain would be a much better place, make no mistake. More civilised with only the criminals having to go in fear and with plenty of justification........
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
cane unruly children!!
perahaps we could consider thumbscrews while we are at it?
it is comforting to know that the "nasty party" is still with us.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
There is a saying Howard about "being cruel to be kind" - very much applies, more so nowadays. There's another one too "spare the rod and spoil the child" ; both very apt for today's society
Roger
Cruelty and canes breed cruelty and canes. It is poverty - of spirit as well as of materials - that creates dysfunction. Punishment does not need to be brutal, and assistance towards life-changing decisions does not need to be a soft option. Many of the people I have known who have managed to turn themselves around have done so with courage and against unvelievable odds - definitely not the soft option. And it was done without beatings and deprivation.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
At my old school we had a PE master who came armed with a solid wooden bat shaped in such a way as to inflict maximum pain. Forgetting your kit meant two 'strokes' of this across the nether regions (and I guarentee they hurt) and yet six of us would bend over and take the beating every week so that we could spend the period sitting in the changing room swapping comics. This is just one example and I was not a generally disruptive pupil as I had more respect for most of my teachers. Lashing out with a cane or a noose is a gut reaction not an intelligent reaction and results show that it is not a successful one. If the death penalty worked there would not be a christian church today.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
on the subject of corporal punishment, when it was a normal case in schools and recorded.
the same names kept reoccurring.
i rest my case.
i suppose that capital punishment was more successful, never got any recidivists there.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
No one was talking abiout beatings and deprivation for goodness sake.
Getting the cane is not a beating, it is punishment for doing wrong; it certainly put me off when I was at school.
Most of the problems we have in society are caused through NOT say NO to children; they grow up thinking they can do exactly as they like - and very often they do.
Children need to know where the line is that they must not cross over, but so many parents don't know where that line is and so they do just what they want to - whoever it harms.
Discipline seems to be a very old fashioned word; it doesn't mean beatings, it doesn't mean cruelty; it does mean not doing bad things - to people or property; it means self-control and knowing the difference between right and wrong and not doing wrong.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Well said Roger.
The ills of todays society are firmly down to soft and weak liberal attitudes that breed bad behaviour.
You can track the falling standards directly to increased liberal attitudes, there is a direct correlation. Maybe the same children did get caned again and again but thats not the point, it kept a lid on things and acted as a deterrant to others. I remember when I was at school, the word went around like wildfire that such and such had got caned. Better that the worse get properly punished than the lessons of the majority get disrupted.
We need more discipline in society. Too much emphasis is placed on 'rights' with not enough on 'duties'. Youngsters as young as 10 laughing at police taunting them with 'we know our rights'...
We all need to toughen up on out attitudes and face reality.
Liberal social policies have failed as badly as socailist economics. Time to change and get tough.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I have just read the following on conservativehome.com from a speech made by David Cameron today in Glasgow. This touches directly much of what we have discussed on this thread and I believe that he has hit the nail on the head.
The liberal attitude that prevents a clear condemnation of what is whrong and our failure to be clear, good/bad, right/wrong and provide approriate punishment for what is bad or wrong is the core of our problem....
"""""""""""""""I think the time has come for me to speak out about something that has been troubling me for a long time. I have not found the words to say it sensitively. And then I realised, that is the whole point.
"We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people's feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.
"Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more"
"Of course as soon as a politician says this there is a clamour - "but what about all of you?" And let me say now, yes, we are human, flawed and frequently screw up".
"Our relationships crack up, our marriages break down, we fail as parents and as citizens just like everyone else. But if the result of this is a stultifying silence about things that really matter, we re-double the failure. Refusing to use these words - right and wrong - means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice.
"We talk about people being "at risk of obesity" instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it's as if these things - obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction - are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.
"Of course, circumstances - where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.
"There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them - including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop.
"And why would a different government be any different? Not least because we understand that the causes of our broken society lie not just in government policies but in our national culture.
"Changing our culture is not easy or quick. You cannot pull a lever. You cannot do it top-down. But you can give a lead. You can give a nudge. You can make a difference if you are clear where you stand.""""""""""""
He goes on to talk about his approach to tackling these problems saying that this will be a defining issue for his Government. Great stuff from DC.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
There is a case for discipline in much of our society and a lot of it has to start with parents. I have had children at the door looking for my son who are baffled by the idea that he is grounded for being naughty at school, as they cannot understand how it still applies out of school hours. I also dispair of children supposedly being 'home taught' when the only lessons they seem to be learning are how to shop at Tesco's. However there is a clear difference between liberal use of canes and productive discipline. If teachers cannot hold the attention of a class without threats of violence then there is a failing in the teaching and if it is home learnt behaviour causing disruption then there needs to be better communication between school and home. If the cane is your first opption it only indicates a lack of ideas on your part. We should hope that society as a whole could be beyond the, "who you looking at I'm going to thump you" attitude. The same argument goes for hanging. If you want to indicate that a civilised, law abiding society is better than chaotic anarchy then the first example you don't want to give is that you think killing people is an answer to anything.
Further to that if you put judicial killing on to the staute book, where do you stop? We have already heard from judges and clerics who think there could be a place for islamic laws in British law. Will it then be alright to kill (hang) people because you are scared that homosexuality might be catching or that your woman having an affair diminishes your masculine ego?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour