This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Kiaran Stapleton: Is 30 Years too Leniant?

Explain?

Added fees across the board for the initial trial and for future cost of retrials, generally spend more time collecting evidence and such, thus more money, any case that is then not.. after all this spending.. convicted in a death penalty will have to be paid for to have another trial or guy sent to prison anyway.. etc.

Multiple studies show it.

Reply 61

Harmonic Minor

1

Original post by sugar-n-spice

In the united states of america, prisoners get to appeal about 12 times before getting fried, paying the lawyers for each court case ends up costing more than a life sentence, which they don't get as many appeals for.

If one was seeking to economize the system by implementing the death penalty this could be avoided by reducing the number of appeals and reducing the length of time spent on death row.

Simple.

In other words, the death penalty doesn't have to be more expensive at all.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 62

Zyyz

9

Original post by moonkatt

You do know castration is the removal of the testes and not the penis right?

Yeah... you piss out of your balls right? Right?

Reply 63

moonkatt

19

Original post by Zyyz

Yeah... you piss out of your balls right? Right?

Castration is the act of removing the testicles. You said:

Original post by Zyyz

and you can pee over yourself, in fact you'd be castrated so you didn't have a penis

You still have a penis when castrated.

Castration (also referred to as gelding, spaying, neutering, fixing, orchiectomy, oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testicles or a female loses the functions of the ovaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration

Reply 64

Zyyz

9

Original post by moonkatt

Castration is the act of removing the testicles. You said:

You still have a penis when castrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration

Yes... **** me I made a mistake people knew I was obviously talking about your penis being cut off.

When I said you piss out of your balls, it was a joke. (As I knew I made the mistake so I covered it and pretended that I pissed out of my balls, like that was perfectly normal) P.s( if you pissed out of your balls that would mean that the piss could be remapped to the anus) (because you wouldn't use your penis to pee out of)

Reply 65

cl_steele

2

Original post by wwelol

if we had [B]SHARIA LAW

this pathetic human being would havebeen publically hanged

The ignorance and offensiveness of this statement is beyond words...

Reply 66

wwelol

15

Original post by cl_steele

The ignorance and offensiveness of this statement is beyond words...

ok tell me y sharia law is wrong?
u get brainwashed of the media

Reply 67

Ice Constricter

19

On the one hand, this guy is an absolute waste of space. Hell, he should be grateful that he's allowed to even breathe the same air as us. And keeping him alive only makes him a burden on society, so why should he be kept alive?

But the death penalty would never bring the victim back. And considering how utterly messed up this guy is, I wouldn't be surprised if the piece of scum was still smiling his ass off as he was being put to death. So in my opinion, the death penalty would be an easy escape for him.

So to sum up, I'm going to state in my opinion what the aims of punishment should be for this guy.

Rehabilitation: No. He showed no remorse after he killed his victim, throughout interviews and during court proceedings. He's beyond repair.

Deterrent: Yes. This would prevent others from also committing crimes like this when they see others punished in this way.

Retribution:Yes. He has to pay for what he did obviously. Hope he rots in an empty prison cell for the rest of his pathetic, oxygen stealing life. Hope he wishes everyday that the next day would be the last in his life. That should wipe that dirty smirk off his ugly face.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 68

Kibalchich

He has been diagnosed with a personality disorder hasn't he?

Reply 69

Ham22

15

Original post by Kibalchich

He has been diagnosed with a personality disorder hasn't he?

Anti-social personality disorder. He is not a psychopath, but ASPD is related to psychopathy.

Reply 70

cl_steele

2

Original post by wwelol

ok tell me y sharia law is wrong?
u get brainwashed of the media

Seriously?
Well lets start with the fact this is not an Islamic nation so why should the citizens of the UK be subjected to this rather archaic form of 'law' which in no conceivable way applies to them or their beliefs?
Also its; *You*, *Why* and *off*
And no, i am not brainwashed by the media.

Reply 71

SpicyStrawberry

18

I can't see him lasting very long in prison once his inmates find out what he did. Without that gun he is nothing.

As for the sentence being lenient, I don't think so since he pleaded diminished responsibility for mental health issues; if he is detained in a secure mental hospital I doubt he will ever get out. It's much harder to get out of a hospital than it is a prison if you haven't been deemed fit to go back into society.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 72

dj1015

13

Consider this.

With todays medical advances it is not unheard of for people to live to 100.

Kiaran Stapleton was 21 when he commited his crime, and will be 51 when he is back out in society. Thats 30 years as we already know.

So Stapleton has lost 30 years of his life, for taking the life of another.

Compare this to stealing £10 of someone and getting caught and convicted for it. The judge at the trial for the threft of the £10 now tells you that you only have to pay back £3. This is why 30 years for murder is not enough.

If life meant life, and prison meant prison. Then most people wouldnt think of the death penalty, me included. But because of soft sentances like this and many others the death penalty is necessary.

Reply 73

wwelol

15

Original post by cl_steele

Seriously?
Well lets start with the fact this is not an Islamic nation so why should the citizens of the UK be subjected to this rather archaic form of 'law' which in no conceivable way applies to them or their beliefs?
Also its; *You*, *Why* and *off*
And no, i am not brainwashed by the media.

come on u really think kieran stapleton given 30 years
or the baby p mureders given 10 years
and they are out in half is fair - look how cosy and nice jail is. i really think sharia law is needed for these criminals that embarass britain

Reply 74

rmpr97

10

A life sentence should be for ... here's a kicker ... life!

Murderers being allowed to roam free is not justice, if their victim can't see daylight again and go down to the pub or what not, their aggressor never should either.

Reply 75

Zangoose

12

Original post by rmpr97

A life sentence should be for ... here's a kicker ... life!

Murderers being allowed to roam free is not justice, if their victim can't see daylight again and go down to the pub or what not, their aggressor never should either.

30 years is a very long time to be locked up! People overlook the fact that this guy's prison sentence is longer than his life span so far, so he is essentially doing another lifetime (plus another decade) in prison. Surely thats enough of a punishment?

He will have plenty of years to reflect on his actions and when he comes out after such a long time, he will be a completely changed man. What will a true life sentence achieve other than senseless gratification on your part?

Reply 76

Tesphena

12

Original post by Zangoose

30 years is a very long time to be locked up! People overlook the fact that this guy's prison sentence is longer than his life span so far, so he is essentially doing another lifetime (plus another decade) in prison. Surely thats enough of a punishment?

He will have plenty of years to reflect on his actions and when he comes out after such a long time, he will be a completely changed man. What will a true life sentence achieve other than senseless gratification on your part?

I agree with this. The guy needs to be punished, and 30 years is a huge amount of time I really feel that if he does that and then a tribunal judges his behaviour in prison is good enough to warrant him being released then I can understand that. What he did is a terrible, terrible thing, but we have to remember that a part of our justice system is rehabilitation and if after 30 years he shows remorse and is able to function as a contributing member of society then I see no reason to keep him in prison.

Reply 77

cl_steele

2

Original post by wwelol

come on u really think kieran stapleton given 30 years
or the baby p mureders given 10 years
and they are out in half is fair - look how cosy and nice jail is. i really think sharia law is needed for these criminals that embarass britain

I never said I agr with them getting those sentances? I personally quite like what us and the French used to do by dumping them on far flung spits of rock and leaving them, pitcairn seems a good idea.. No cost to the tax payer and we never have to see them again.

I really don't see how Sharia law can be applied in any way here though as its a religious set of laws and no one concerned is a muslim? Why not just propose the death penalty outright rather than this obscure and highly questionable 'legal' route?

Reply 78

L i b

19

These threads always descend into stupid people failing to understand the life sentence. Not to mention completely failing to engage in any discussion about the purposes of punishment in a civilised society.

Reply 79

rmpr97

10

Original post by Zangoose

30 years is a very long time to be locked up! People overlook the fact that this guy's prison sentence is longer than his life span so far, so he is essentially doing another lifetime (plus another decade) in prison. Surely thats enough of a punishment?

He will have plenty of years to reflect on his actions and when he comes out after such a long time, he will be a completely changed man. What will a true life sentence achieve other than senseless gratification on your part?

It doesn't matter that he has time to reflect on his actions. How morally unfair is it, to the victim, their family and friends etc, if he's allowed to roam free, something he's made his victim unable to.

And how do you know he will be a changed man? Or are you simply making this up for arguments sake. Even still should a murder be able to become a changed man? Do they have the right? They've certainly refused that right to their victim.

So, no. It's not enough of a punishment.

Imagine had it been someone in your family - I'd hope that you'd be horribly offended had the criminal somewhere down the line be let free when the person they've murdered cant.

Kiaran Stapleton: Is 30 Years too Leniant?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you