h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think it was Gitta Sereny who coined this phrase when writing about Adolf Eichman. Lately, I thought of it when I read about this crime:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7270808.stm

They killed a naive and helpless man simply because they thought they were better than he was. The ringleader said 'I'm not going down for a muppet'. But I suppose when one is stupid, violent and sadistic, it's especially necessary to have someone to look down on.

After having read seemingly every day about murders like this, it constantly challenges my opposition to the death penalty. There has to be *some* deterrent that morons can relate to.

People complain because I'm in favour of the death penalty - say its no deterrent - claim it's more expensive to kill people than keep them in prison.

They miss the point - there are some people the world doesn't need.

"[T]hey acted like a pack of animals."

Animals don't act like that!

I have my own thoughts about the perpetrators and victim of this case which I won't trouble you with, but what struck me most about the story was this:
"Outside the court, Mr Martin's family toasted the lengthy jail sentences with champagne"

I'm very, very uncomfortable with that kind of behaviour. I'm saddened by it every bit as much as I am with the behaviour of the accused. It reminds me of the whooping and hollering that went on outside the jail in American where Timothy McVey was executed. I hope that should I ever find myself in the same position as these people that my behaviour would be more dignified and less triumphal.

No, go on, share your views. It would be interesting to have an additional perspective.

What struck me was the photographs. It seemed to me like I'd seen those brutish, surly, mindlessly defiant mugshots countless times over the past months. There was that father of three who was kicked to death outside his own house by a drunken trio who looked just the same.

I'm against the death penalty because of two reasons: the State should not kill, and the number of mistakes that have been made. No chance of a mistake in this case, though. And as for hanging them, would the world be a better place with these thugs left in it?

If you prefer revenge over punishment, I guess you'd prefer the death penalty, but if you really want to see someone suffer for committing a crime, a life sentence without the chance of parole has to be the most awful thing that can happen to someone. Death seems like an easy way out. But that's not why I can't agree with the death penalty. It's wrong to take life, even for the state to take life, but as you say, too many mistakes have been made with wrongful convictions in murder cases. An execution leaves no way back when it's discovered (note, I said 'when' not 'if') that the person serving the sentence was innocent.

If anything, I think convicts should have their say: more precisely, if someone is sentenced to life without any chance of parole, let him do 15 years or so and then let him choose between death and jail for the sequel.

Can't agree with that. That bastard Ian Huntley tried to commit suicide because prison was becoming a living hell for him. He was thwarted. This was how it should be.

If you murder someone, you face the consequences, and those consequences are what society deems fit, not you.

I found this to be a very interesting read a few days ago. I found the comments at the bottom even more interesting. Almost everyone making a comment assumed that anyone serving a long sentence is there because they're evil and were rightfully convicted by a fair system. I don't think that getting 60 years simply for being in possession of a small amount of cannabis (it happens in the US) is fair, especially compared to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7258061.stm

I wonder if the same people who get outraged about the Brent Martin case can find themselves as angry about three bankers getting 37 months for stiffing their employer of $19,000,000 and aiding one of the most despicable frauds in history (have you heard those phone tapes about how Enron was going to squeeze California and California residents?).

Here's the first story. Forgot to add the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7268647.stm

Of course, in the US you have the 'three strikes' rule. I happen to think we lock up too many people in the UK. For instance, the vast majority of women prisoners are no threat to anyone and shouldn't be in prison. There are always exceptions, as in this appalling case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7268314.stm . Ethylene glycol poisoning is not a peaceful way to die, but dying is probably preferable to the living hell her ex-husband has to go through. *However*, most women should not be locked up.

As for the Enron fraudsters, they deserve everything they get and possibly more. There's a certain kind of narcissism one gets in the upper echelons of a company, where executives begin to think themselves above the normal rules that govern society. Sentences in such cases shoul send the clear message that they aren't

But they belong in the same club as Judges and politicians - so they don't get the sentence they deserve.

Sorry - but I'd happily sentence them to hard labour - for life.

I think society has to look long and hard at what we deem acceptable - and the "get rich at any expense" school of thought, which sees slum landlords, and gang masters boasting of their earnings needs to be stopped.

Similarly a society that discards a tenth of the population because they don't know what to do with them now we don't need factory fodder or cannon fodder is doomed to self destruction.