35 yrs that's the highest I have seen so far
http://news.sky.com/story/1184152/ian-watkins-gets-35-years-for-sex-offences
http://news.sky.com/story/1184152/ian-watkins-gets-35-years-for-sex-offences
Thirty-five years. Even if the latest reports, which seem to indicate only 25-or so years will actually be served in prison, with the rest out on licence, it is still 25 years of us poor taxpayers having to keep this piece of garbage in relative luxury. Due to his crimes. he will have to be in some sort of seclusion, just to ensure his "safety" and that his "human rights" are not breached. Imagine the costs! Far better, and far cheaper to say "Up Yours Brussels and the Human Rights Act" and deal with him "another way", along with career criminals who have committed serious crimes and have no regard for the human rights of their victims (and others).
I think that, logically, capital punishment would be an incentive not to kill someone!
I think that, logically, capital punishment would be an incentive not to kill someone!
I think that, logically, capital punishment would be an incentive not to kill someone!
Not if you have the same tariff for (in this context) child rape. Logically ,to the perpetrator, there is no benefit on leaving the witness alive.
So capital punishment for child abduction / rape would lead to more of the victims being killed.
Which is why,as I say, knee jerk reactions to dreadful crimes might need reconsidering.
On the general point of capital punishment being a deterrent, there is plenty of evidence that it is not the case in places where the tariff is that.
That smacks of the mindset of a perpetrator ...Perhaps if they let their victim live they get a quick, humane hanging. If they kill them they are garotted after having all their teeth extracted without anaesthetic?
Sorry its a no from me and all civilised countries.
Sorry its a no from me and all civilised countries.
Only for the past 50 years or so in this country. Things change. I expect they'll change back again when things get bad enough.