'Society That Wants To Protect People Has To Have Death Penalty" - Says Peter Hitchens
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2023
- The death penalty has always been a topic of heated debate, with passionate arguments on both sides. Some argue that it is a necessary tool to protect society from serious violence, while others believe it is a violation of human rights.
Peter Hitchens says any society that wants to protect people from serious violence "had to have the death penalty", telling Mike Graham that he wanted to go and see one as a journalist.
Hitchens goes on to say that if healthcare in the UK was at a similar level as that in the United States, "we would have a homicide rate in this country on an American level."
#peterhitchens #mikegraham #talktv #ulez
Click here for more from TalkTV talk.tv
If you need any help visit: talk.tv/helplines
Do you really want to introduce the death penalty to a society that does trial by social media?
no thank you
😂😂😂
@@DannyBoy89 Not sure what's so funny . You wouldn't be laughing if it was you or a family member in the dock.
@ im laughing cos its the likes if your goodself that contributes to this “trial by social media”
Plus, MSM.
I am in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty but it needs to be backed up by an extremely robust and scrupulously honest policing and justice system. We have neither of these things in place at the moment.
Bring it back for treasonous politicians only.
Good luck with that
I don't care how robust the systems are, you can't ever - EVER produce a 100% safe judiciary. Nobody would argue for the death penalty if they were on death row awaiting execution for a crime of which they were innocent., NOBODY would argue that in any universe.
@@FeckWokewell no sh1t lol - silly point to make.
@@FeckWoke Video evidence can prove guilt without doubt. No risk of miscarriage of justice in such a case
"The two main parties are not different enough anymore" - The illusion of choice.
The death penalty should be used for people who have committed heinous crimes that cannot be refuted, denied or justified. They do not deserve to be spared and others do not deserve to have to continue to accommodate them in this life - Fred & Rose West and Peter Sutcliffe would have been such candidates.
Many people who have been found guilty of heinous crimes are, sometimes after many years, found to be innocent. I believe Lucy Letby will found to be completely innocent in the future.
The problem with only handing out the death penalty when the jury is absolutely sure and the evidence is irrefutable is that any competent defence lawyer will say that because his client didn't receive the death penalty, then it shows the jury aren't sure if the defendant is really guilty, and they'd appeal the sentence citing reasonable doubt.
@@grebo65I don’t think this is a problem in the States where they have the death penalty, is it?
All child killers, serial killers, mass killers, and serial rapists, imo.
@BanjoPixelSnack what about Andrew Malkinson, the "rapist" jailed for 17 years, who was released last week after it was finally proved he was innocent. He'd possibly have been executed by now, and he didn't do it.
The traitors in parliament would never reintroduce the death penalty , as they would all be strung up for treason ,
Any person found guilty of terrorism should face the death penalty, as should anyone who kills a child.
Giving the state ultimate power of life or death over its citizens is never a good idea. It will always be open to abuse. The death penalty should never be reintroduced for this reason.
While people still get wrongly convicted I can't agree with Peter on this one.
@@SM-mz2hz They don't always. DNA cases can and have been wrong. Same with CCTV.
@@SM-mz2hz Would you be happy if the state muredered 1 innocent person out of every 10,000?
Basically death penalty should be the first choice of punishment for all premeditated murders.
In Saudi Arabia or Mordor.
And if you were awaiting execution for a murder that you hadn't committed would you be saying that? I'll answer for you, no you wouldn't.
@@FeckWoke Note I did not mention allegation of premeditated murders, but actual murders. Given any reasonable doubt about the allegation, execution must not go ahead.
@@mmmoroi who gets to judge on the amount of doubt required?
@@mmmoroi do you think there is reasonable doubt in Lucy Letby's case? If so - do you think it's right she's been sentenced to spend the rest of her life in prison?
If you DON'T think there's reasonable doubt - you're wrong. Shes been convicted without even proof of a crime having been committed. Let alone proof of any wrong doing on her part. Just conjecture and circumstantial evidence.
Seen to many men freed and cleared of the crimes they'd been convicted of to endorse or ratify the return of the death penalty
Two problems. Firstly US states that had the death penalty and stopped saw no increase in murders, so there is very little deterrent effect, and secondly juries in the UK became reluctant to find murders guilty because they did not want to be responsible for someone's death.
The US states that abolished the death penalty had practically already done so years before signing it into law. In these jurisdictions the death penalty was handed down infrequently, and when it was the convicted would spend many years on death row, perhaps never being executed at all. I think it is therefore no surprise that the _de jure_ end to the death penalty made little difference to murder rates when its implementation as a deterrent was already lacking.
I for one would be far more hesitant about committing a murder if I knew I'd face the gas chamber instead of being locked up with three square meals a day, access to a library, a basketball court, and the hope of eventual release (or escape). The fear of severe and harsh consequences, when made genuine, absolutely functions as a deterrent because it is built into the basic human psyche.
Note that this is not necessarily an overall defence of the death penalty but simply of its function as a deterrent.
More than just two problems: how about the fact that courts make mistakes? There have been several cases where a person is jailed and then the conviction quashed because they are innocent after all. DNA evidence is not infallible. Samples can be contaminated accidentally or deliberately. Humans make mistakes. Samples can get mixed up. Somebody's life is at risk because of those mistakes. Also, do we really want to allow The State (currently run by incompetent and self-serving weak politicians) to have the power to execute citizens? Prisoners DO NOT lose their human rights, despite what the gammons think. The fundamental human right is the right to live. This is a cornerstone upon which civilised societies are built. Removing that and providing the state with the ability to kill citizens is such a bad idea... look at Saudi, China, Iran, the redneck states in USA and North Korea. Do we really want our country to degenerate into a mess like theirs? I agree with so much of what Peter Hitchens says, particularly on drugs. He is just plain wrong on this subject though.
Forget the US, how about the UK ? Our murder rate has increased massively since the abolition of hanging.
The US has a legal system that delays executions by sometimes decades . Many convicted murderers die of natural causes before they can be executed. In contrast, our system had criminals hanged within a few weeks of conviction. Our system therefore applied a deterent greater than life imprisonment, whilst the US system , due to it's incredibly slow moving , blurs the borders between the two punishments.
I am in favor of restoration, provided that it is carried out soon after conviction as it was before, and that irrefutable evidence is used to obtain a conviction.
How about the scum, Shane O'Brian, he slashed a young fellow to death for no reason, on video. Do you not think he should hang. Are you not angered that, the money in taxes you pay for his up keep could instead have been put towards noble causes like fighting diseases , and improving sanitation in developing countries ? Would you care to calculate how many needy lives could be saved, if our worst scum no longer needed feeding and guarding ? I would imagine the number of worthy souls that could be helped by the funds we throw away on trash, are legion.
Can you morally justify the waste ?
To be convicted in the UK, your guilt needs to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. For the death penalty, I'd only back it where it'd only be used in clear-cut cases where ALL doubt of guilt has been eliminated. Else, you risk a judge sentencing the innocent to death.
What are your thoughts on a judge sentencing someone to life in prison without any proof of guilt? (As happened to Lucy Letby).
@@paulroberts7544Lucy Letby is guilty, evidence was overwhelming
@@paulroberts7544what are your thoughts on jurors not sitting through every day of a 10 month trial, being an arm chair detective and reading a few news websites and coming to a conclusion without ever reviewing all the evidential material. (Like you on UA-cam)
It isn't possible to eliminate all doubt. Witnesses can lie, CCTV can be altered (I once saw a man sat on a toilet get eaten by a T-Rex- that was on TV so it must be true, eh?), DNA samples can be mixed up, planted or contaminated. Mistakes happen. Set-ups happen. Since by definition none of the jury, the 12 people who must make the decision, will have witnessed the crime first-hand then it is not possible to rule out all doubt. It is not possible to categorise cases into "100% guilty" and just "guilty" Basing an execution decision on the result is utterly ludicrous.
You can never eliminate all doubt!
I'm not convinced the death penalty is a deterrent. The USA has this in a number of states, but the homicide rate is 30 times that of the UK.
If you'd listened to the broadcast you would have heard that the death penalty is hardly ever carried out even in these states, as the example given in Louisiana - nobody executed since 2010 with no change in the law.
Only Texas and Oklahoma really carry out executions these days.
It is not a deterrent - If you want a deterrent you increase the likelihood of the perpetrator getting caught.
The death penalty is just revenge murder.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136Being caught is not the deterrent but the threat of punishment inherent in being caught. If you will get a light sentence then it is unlikely you will be deterred. As for the latter, Just Deserts not revenge.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136Oh please, the government White Paper published in 2007 showed the UK murder rate fell every decade from 1900 until the 60's and had risen ever decade since. Kinda makes you think something significant may have happened in the 60's to reverse the trend, huh? What do think it might be? Let's have a look at some big events that happened in the decade:
The Beatles
The Profumo Affair
The Lady Chatterley Trial
The World Cup
Abolition of the Death Penalty
BBC 2
Radio 1
The Moon Landings
World's first heart transplant
It's a tough one, huh? 🙄
Oh and, not "revenge murder" (🙄how old are you, 12?) - JUSTICE
l am in favour of the death penalty but the burden of proof would have to be beyond any doubt, people are calling for letby to be hung, but l would not feel comfortable with that, as the evidence against her was circumstantial, and she was found guilty but any jury that takes a month to come to a decision must have had some doubts, and convicted her on the basis of probabilities
I too would not be comfortable with the execution of Lucy Letby. Whilst I do not doubt her part in the crimes of which she was convicted, she is also something of a scapegoat for a broken NHS system that makes a habit of destroying the careers of whistleblowers. This effectively facilitated some of her later crimes.
This attitude is why people like terrorists get released after half their sentence to go on and commit an act of terror that results in the deaths of many people. The realistic side of society don't feel comfortable with the fact she tortured and murdered innocent and defenceless new born babies. I think her being hung for committing an act as evil as serial killing babies, her being hung is minor in comparison to what she has done. It's not like you're going to be forced to watch her being given capital punishment, nor is it going to impact the quality of your own personal life or you family. She deserves everything she gets and this country is too wuss when it comes to dishing out punishments that fit the crime. I think if the death penalty is not an option then all the people who are happy with keeping these types of evil alive should be made to take them into their homes and be responsible for their wellbeing, protection and health seeing as they want them alive so much. The rest of the tax payers shouldn't have too.
@@Twmpa Agreed why should we keep someone who killed babies at the tax payers expence especially with people unable to afford food and even housing why should she get both for free?
You cannot produce a burden of proof high enough to negate the possibilities of a miscarriage. That's simply not possible.
@@Twmpa”her part” she was the one that killed the babies pal, yes she might have been enabled but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve to hang. That is some contrarian tripe you have written.
And what protects those who are executed for crimes they didn't commit.
I'm fed up to the teeth with people who think the way to deter violence is more violence.
If you would say that to kill somebody, an act of insanity, then it becomes unreasonable to assume the death penalty would be a deterrent
I drive because I want to......its my human right....
It's not a human right, unless you build your own car and drill your own oil, you are very over entitled..
Donald Trump and all he stands for are slightly more profound than summarily portrayed by Peter Hitchens here.
Two fat wasters talking and they think they are working on the Bank holiday 😂 talk about our of touch.
Trump is as profound as the depth of a cigarette paper.
it's the populist movement that really scares the establishment as it threatens to derail their gravy train, more wars & conflict equals more money for them the washington elite ( both sides of the political aisle ) trump has made himself the leader of this movement
Profound in the most sleazy, corrupt way.
Hitchens offers a surface level critique but deflects from real thoughful, critical analysis by stating "I haven't really looked into the matter". I think he's partly afraid that if he did look into the issue ( such as the fact that the 2020 US election was the most dubious on record and had election integrity issues that the UK - and most developed western democracies - themselves do not deem fit for their own elections ie. widespread mail-in voting, drop-boxes etc) he might actually find himself in the 'intolerable' position of supporting a man who offends his genteel sensibilities. The horror.
Hitchens is right, the judiciary, CJ, system, police force, should all be overhauled, reformed before considering the death penalty, the corruption has gone on for too long.
So true, our judiciary system meeds to be brought out of the Victorian era and completely overhauled, not fit for purpose in a modern age.
Hitchens is wrong because the death penalty will break intnetal law.
Unrepentant evil must be stopped and must be sternly dealt with as a matter of principle.
Thou shalt not kill, unless you really really want to, then it’s fine.
@@dangerousfables Thou shalt not murder. Like Augustine argued, it is an evil to not intervene to stop an evil.
@@JosephusAurelius You can stop them without becoming a murderer yourself. It’s why I like prisons instead of nooses. I’m not vengeful, so only concerned with protecting society and rehabilitating offenders wherever possible. Wrath, revenge and murder seem like bad things to me regardless of what St Augustine thought. That fool came up with original sin, so he’s not to be trusted.
@@dangerousfables So, if you had the chance to assassinate Joseph Goebbels, you wouldn’t do so?
I would not support the reintroduction of the death penalty in the UK although I support it in principle. The problem is that it's entirely unworkable.
I'm certain that if there was a referendum held in every country that doesn't currently have the death penalty whether it should be introduced it would pass in a landslide so why not give them that option
Because the issue is too important to be decided by idiots!!!
That's because most people in any given country are blood thirsty dim-wits Sean. Hence why it is so easy to start wars.
The ECHR does not permit the death penalty. Therefore there is no need to debate the issue.
@@stephenbaxter3369 exactly
The death penalty was abolished in the UK mainly because of the execution of a 19 year old mentally retarded man who had NOT killed anyone , and whose only crime was breaking and entering.
Because he was in the company of another youth only 16 years old who killed a police officer ,he was executed, the irony is that the 16 year old was not executed because he was too young.
The police wanted revenge and despite public opinion overwhelmingly in favour of sparing the 19 year old the justice system showed its contempt for the public and killed him.
But the stupid British police had shot themselves in the foot, public outrage ensued and the death penalty was abolished, now inasmuch as the death penalty is a deterrent to the carrying of weapons, as Hichens says the police are now more at risk of facing criminals with weapons.
Totally agree with reintroduction of death penalty, this country is far to soft, and no mistakes this time around either due to DNA evidence. Barbaric society needs barbaric punishment.
Mistakes can and do happen with DNA evidence.
100's of people have been legally killed by mistake in the USA...just losing one life is enough to stop bringing capital punishment back!
Do you think the conviction of Lucy Letby is sound?
In her case there is no proof of any crime - let alone proof of wrong doing. She has been convicted based upon conjecture and circumstantial evidence only.
If it would be wrong to sentence someone to death without proof - how is it OK to sentence them to life in prison?
@@kevinb9830 Not as many as there would be without it.
@@urbanfox53 well no, but still. One innocent person being murdered is too many.
How many innocent people is it OK to kill in order to have the death penalty then, Peter? Nearly 200 innocent people in the US have been put to death by the state and subsequently exonerated of the crimes they were charged with. And don't give me the 'yes but we have to be REALLY sure' as they were REALLY SURE about all those people they murdered in the US.
If one of your family was put to death for a crime they didn't commit would you say "fair enough, but it's still worth having the death penalty"? I somehow doubt it.
Also, it isn't a deterrent, murderers don't generally weigh things up legally speaking before killing.
It is a deterrant, and the statistics before and after abolition in the UK on homicide rates per capita show this.
As a matter of principal I say no to the death penalty - as much as some people clearly deserve it. You cannot realise the terribleness of your crime and come to truly repent if you are dead. Also, for those who say yes but with safeguards: Those safeguards will never be perfect enough to stop the state incorrectly robbing someone of their future.
You say ‘no’ and in the same breath ‘some clearly deserve it’? How messed up is that? Frankly who cares if the malefactor repents or ‘realises the terribleness of the crime’? If warranted according to the law, it’s Punishment and it’s Justice, not therapy!
@@jamesrogers5277 That's why I said 'on principal'. Nothing at all messed up with that. Some people do deeply heinous things to other people and those are the ones you could argue *deserve* such punishment, but I would arguement that we lower ourselves to their level if we enact the death penalty.
@@banedon8087 Thank you for your response.
You repent before the hanging.. Innocent people are robbed of their future by the hundreds every year. You either have the public unable to walk the streets safely or take the chance of hanging the wrong person. I will take the latter.
But it's okay to incorrectly lock someone up in prison for life?
Mike Graham for the love of god stop interrupting and making noises when people speak. You don’t need to constantly say Mhmm, yeah as if to prove your intellect by making it sound as if you know everything that Peter is coming up with.
Finally yes I agree the death penalty for Murder, rape, pedophiles, torture, animal cruelty, and drug making and trafficking, repeat offenders and heinous crimes, no death row, no appeals straight from the court to the excursion.
Reoffending is far too high especially for the crimes I mentioned plus why should we pay tax for them to get free food and board when law abiding British citizens are skipping meals or becoming homeless
Next it will be the death penalty for hurty words...
And what would be an acceptable level of wrongful convictions?
@@rewdwarf123 what is the current number of acceptable wrong convictions huh?
What is the current level of repeat offences?
How many more people suffer because we let the worst criminals go?
Is it really better to keep someone in jail for their entire life on the tax payers money that to simply kill them?
If you ask me this is currently worse repeat offences creating more victims that there should be and keep people in jail for life for what exactly some kind of revenge?
Punishment is rarely effective and you can force someone to change their ways if they don't want to your only option is to execute them as they are just going to cause more suffering it's inhumane to imprison them and even more inhumane to unleash them back in the public.
I would suggest that it is better to work towards creating a more harmonious, caring and generous society. According to Fairchecks more than 12 million people in the UK have a criminal record. That is too many and can impact career prospects even when an offence is minor and several years in the past.
You first answer doesn't support your point at all. There isn't an acceptable level, but you cannot do much to right a wrong if you've already executed the person.@@matthew-005
Definitely! And the birch too. But the Government shouldn’t have the say on it-the British voters should.
DNA evidence and cctv everywhere gives us the power to scientifically prove who the killers are, plus serial killers with bodies every where, Dahmer etc. make it rather easy to know what they did
So don’t raise a fuss if you think an election is rigged? What about the voters? How would you ever improve the system if you accept its failure?
Exactly! Half of the US population believes the last election was rigged, whether it was or not is beyond the point, when the public no longer trust the voting system something needs to be said & done to remedy that situation.
So, here is what I think...
The death penalty, or capital punishment, has been a source of heated debate for decades. One of the most pressing concerns surrounding its implementation is the potential execution of innocent individuals. While the legal system endeavours to be rigorous and just, it is, like any other human institution, fallible. Mistakes can arise from multiple fronts - from misinterpreted evidence and unreliable witnesses to prosecutorial misconduct and flawed forensic methods. With other forms of punishment, there's an opportunity for exoneration if new evidence emerges, but the finality of the death penalty means that any mistakes are irreversible. This irrevocable consequence has led many to question the ethical and moral grounds of capital punishment, especially when there's a chance, however slim, of killing an innocent person.
Reject CBDC!
Totally disagree.
1. We know it's not a deterrent.
2. We know we are not infallible enough to avoid injustice. Mistakes happen too frequently.
3. Only arguement in favour is a financial one. An the legal appeals process totally negates that.
4. People locked away for life are no threat to anyone outside.
5. Revenge and justice are not the same.
It would be misused for political killings.
Only a fool puts there faith in the system to give them authority to end life.
Death penalty could be life in prison until you die there..there are too may miscarriages of justice
100 %agree also basic prison ,no privelidges for heinous crimes
Mike (much as I admire you and your show) for heaven’s sake stop making punctuating noises like ‘yeah’ or ‘hmm’ - and interrupting - when PH is talking… the little noises don’t help the listener at all, and since the words of your guest have inherent interest and value they have no need of a booster or qualifier from you!
Better still...
Give every home an AR15!
There is a prison in Russia (they can do some stuff right), called black dolphin and it looks like hell, not because it’s dangerous but because of how powerless the inmates are, they have no privacy, very little contact with prisoners who aren’t in their cell, and the guards control all elements of the inmates lives, they can’t even walk outside of their cells they are crouched over and blindfolded whilst moving around the prison.
It’s for russias worst offenders, serial killers, rapists and cannibals, serving time in there is worse than death, it would break even the worst if killers,
Good!
Russian torture prisons. Another great reason to visit Putin’s playground.
That's the way prisons should be ......a huge deterrent.
@@davidmclachlan6592 Prisons don’t work as deterrents unfortunately. Lots of studies on that.
@@dangerousfables .....not when there are mobile phones in them, drugs, access to the internet and the prisoner's hold power over the running of them.
Oh come on, I do agree “society is built around cars” and public transport is awful, and I agree many people do genuinely need to drive, but really, there are bazillions of lazy and fat people making unnecessary trips in cars all the time. There’s a physically able person in my office who drives the one mile journey to work every day, and I mean every single day. He even has to sit in traffic to do it. There is a perfectly pleasant walk he could do through a lovely and safe park. I don’t think I ever got a lift to school, come rain or shine, never, I was made to walk the 1.5 miles. Down busy roads. It did me the world of good
Strange that people are pro abortion but against capital punishment
Two Sunday's are worse than one (rainy) Sunday.
I work in blood transfusion section of the NHS, we save many knife attacks in the NHS, so many in fact i cant remember the last time i saw a death from one. Probably 2 years ago now. We see on average 6 or 7 a week in the hospital i work at. There are many more which although are stabbings are more of a "humiliation" stab...usually to the bum area.
Until I turned 40 I too was in favour of the death penalty, however given that the crimes that would attract it most often leave families or surviving victims with a life sentence of pain I no longer think that those criminals should be able to escape into death.I took inspiration from 18th century prison reformer John Howard who wanted the death penalty replced not just with a whole life term but in addition 200 lashes from the cat-o'-nine-tails to be inflicted EVERY New Years Day.Maybe those lashes could be delivered by a member of a victim's family.
Society needs the death penalty to be able to protect itself against those in power and elsewhere who constantly seek to violate and abuse it...the powers that be should NEVER be in a position to use the death penalty against society for ANY reason...test this out and see for yourselves at your peril
No, it doesn’t. Hitchens should move to the USA if that’s the sort of society he wants to live in.
This is why Manchester is a great city. You can walk most places, or get the tram if you're going out to a suburb
The Edinburgh tram does go from the airport to leith and beyond to Newhaven. It’s a great Tram…
The tram line in Edinburgh does go from the airport all the way to the docks in Leith. Keep up Mikey.
It still took almost 20 fkn years to build and messed up half the city for as long ruining countless businesses.
If sitting on your arse talking crap on a bank holiday can be described as "working"
Gonna tell my kids this was Gavin McInnes and Jordan Peterson
Love Peter but he’s starting to bumble and make mistakes. Driving the kids to work?
shocking to hear a man of God such as Mr. Hitchens argue for the Death Penalty. one would not expect that.
actually, the rest of his takes are pretty moderate tho.
100 percent agree
@@veloblox now that i think about: Christianity is based on the execution of an innocent man.
'Trump was created by liberal arrogance ' .. absolutely spot on.
After the letby case, with that prosecution and that defence, who would give them the choice of execution. Also Tommy Robinson would have swung years ago.
Totally 100% agree
Moaning about Bank Holidays when they are paid a fortune to show up on these shows as if other people wouldn’t do the same. Agree with the rest tho.
It is very clear to me that the reason British politics is so bad at debating is because those in positions of power within British politics are talentless and incompetent. They say the cream will always rise to the top, but this is absolutely not the case in politics.
What about innocent people who have been executed for crimes committed other people, if the death penalty had been applied in the 70s the so called Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 would have died for crimes committed by other people, apart from that I admire Peter Hitchens
I used to be against the death penalty - bring it back to deal with our psychopathic treasonous poly-LIE-TIC-ians, civil SERVANTS, judiciary & poolice.
The population of Zurich is about 1.5 million; the population of London is around 8.5 million. The difference is a problem.
I don't believe in the death penalty.
Don't be silly. Like the USA? The murder rate is 3 times lower in the UK per capita, compared to the USA. The death penalty clearly isn't working there, is it?
Severe deterrents are needed. Otherwise, do what you wish.
On the bank holidays. It isn't a bank holiday in Scotland because we have the sensible idea of having an extra bank holiday after New Years day. So we can get an extra days drinking in and recovery after new year. But I work for a multinational that only follows the English bank holidays so I have to take the day or I lose it. My wife is at work as she is a teacher in Scotland and the schools are actually back. So I would be happy to get rid of this one - but for us wage slaves it is nice to get a day off. We aren't lazy. At the same time I spent a couple of hours prepping to go back to work tomorrow so I am a mug anyway. On a side note I think both Peter and Christopher Hitchens are/ were such great voices and always argue from a rational and reasoned point of view. I don't always agree with their points of view but I never feel they would hate me for it.
If it doesn’t stop murderers then I’m out.. That’s the only reason I can think of that could justify it.
But it yakes them off this earth
She no one has to pay for them
It is too dangerous for children to walk to school because of traffic. Answer drive them to school.
If you think the trams (and S-Bahn) in Zürich are good, Peter and Mike, you need to check out Stuttgart. You will quickly realise what an antiquated public transport system Zürich has - it is desperately in need of modernisation. I challenge you to experience Stuttgart before lauding Zürich . . .
And yet this man opposes abortion and assisted dying. He's a bit mixed up. He seems to be something of a 'contrarian'.
RE: Holidays. Peter fails to mention national newspaper employees generally have 6 weeks annual paid leave...which more than compensates for working some bank holidays (the industry has various shift patterns).
And as for politicians they have more holidays than they spend in parliament.
This seems to be Hitchens favourite four subjects that he likes to discuss :-
1. E-scooters.
2. Changing the clocks twice a year, and how he thinks it's pointless.
3. Legalising drugs.
4. Bank holidays - and how he doesn't like them, and thinks they should be on a different day. Also - thinks they're pointless these days as most people have an annual allotted leave.
This double act between Hitchens and Graham is so tedious. Bicycles! Grammar schools! Enough please. Cars make the modern world. We should clear the roads of 20mph speed limits and cycle lanes. Hitchens on his bicycle contributes nothing.
A streetcar named desire.
Mike, stop interrupting Peter when he speaks you berk!
Considering the ineptitude and corruption within our state from the police to the judiciary and the civil service to the government and lords, and the media, not too mention the evil alive and well within said institutions, i would be reluctant to bring back the death penalty.
Sadly.
As i can think of alot who could do with it, like large groups of men, who moved to Britain who are overly intrested in the playground people.
Can't apparently keep them in prison and cant send them home. I'd happily volunteer to put the hood on and pull that lever, and sleep soundly.
Or the cop who ended Shara. Or how about ex pm war criminal tony? Or some of the current crop?
But there in lies the problem, the aforementioned institutions, who have shown themselves for what they are. They could read this and destroy me simply because it points a finger at them, and if that included the death penalty they'd use it.
And the masses would cheer because the media would blast what they were told to say 24/7 cops would "find" evidence, pps and judge would conduct the orchestra, and done.
And its not any bill of rights or the echr bs thats stopping them, they have destroyed our rights in the guise of progrressiveness, and following the echr only happens when they need to, its a great excuse, why do you think sunak wont leave? Its only there is more important fish to fry.
For now.
a civilised society doesn't murder their own citizens. there have been quite a few cases where the death penalty would be a just and satisfying solution. and those cases turned out to be miscarriages of justice.
You're right Dave.
I despair at the stupidity and backwardsness of the English people including that archaic half-wit Peter Hitchens.
Plenty of innocent citizens are murdered every day .99% of the hangings were just and proper.
I’m not sure about that a civilised society should protect his citizens (I’m not sure about the death penalty tbh but believe that some people deserve to die for their crimes) but I think that is the duty of a civilised society
Hitchen's wishing Sharia Law upon Britain; he's losing the plot.
You don’t have to tell everyone
If it helps, bank holidays are statutory and although they do move dates (Easter) it's the same number every year, so nothing has changed. Ofc there are very occasional extra bank holidays (coronation), but not many.
Trump was saying what he says now 30 years ago.
Big discussion about the death prenatally because of that white nurse, it wouldent be discussed if it were a horse of a different color ,
The uk used to have a great tram system, and trolley system then a good omnibus system and it was publicly owned......get real and get rid of some privatisation.
its the end of summer bank holiday
I normally agree with Peter on many things.... however my main difficulty with the death penalty is not on moral grounds or arguments about deterrents etc. Having seen many juries in action I am not convinced all would convict in cases were they need to where they knew that someone's life was at stake on their decision.
Lee Rigbys' murderer should have received the death penalty.
I have doubts about the detterent argument and one mistake is one too many.
If we had a referendum on the return of Capital Punishment the turnout would exceed the one to leave the EU in 2016 and the result would be a 'YES!'
Is he Christopher's brother?. He sounds a lot like him.
I am a proponent of the death penalty but only when there is incontrovertible proof of guilt and for the most heinous of crimes!
Who decides that? You can very rarely have absolutely no doubt.
@@techtipsuk - DNA but that would also have to be tested several times independently because of previous cases of cross contamination also witness statements with the caveat that would also have to be tested with the highest levels of scrutiny and of course confession, but that would again have to be tested as people do pay others to take the fall so to speak, so there would be a certain standard of measures and merit to be met and of course then the jury!
You should read up on the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt. No one is convicted of heinous crimes unless proof is, as you say, incontrovertible.
The legal system would most definitely need to be changed if capital punishment were to be reinstated. But even without the safeguards that most people would definitely want to ensure not executing an innocent wo/man, I believe the legal profession would eat up a great deal of public money. Studies find that it costs U.S. taxpayers almost $1m (ca £800,000) per execution.
The US is the only nation in the World where studies can be made, and the only possible example. God Bless self centered Anglo Saxon World. I don’t support death penalty, by the way.
I have read about the sort of stuff that that money is spent on. The details would make many people laugh. Certainly not stuff that China waste money on and they execute more people than any other country.
Thank you for your passive-aggressive reply@@Provo647
Yes, the judiciary system needs to come out of the Victorian era.
@@urbanfox53 They need to dress back to 1688.
Old men shout at cloud
Peter Hitchens is such a bore about working hours and bank holidays but is as nothing compared to how ghastly Mike Graham comes off with superficial remarks.
we should strive for honest elections
Wye are you continually picking up an empty cup and pretend to be drinking from it?
I would like to hear Peter Hitchens talk/write about Agenda 21 and the C40 Climate Change Leadership Group, chaired in London by Sadiq Kahn. Now that would be interesting.
How do you briefly introduce the topic of ULEZ, and within thirty seconds end up waxing lyrical about the glory heydays of bloody trams and totally not discuss ULEZ? 🙄
Peter Hitchens has a good commend of the English language as he’s fluent, eloquent and speak in well formed grammatically corrected sentences and paragraphs
Bye the way piggy, the trams now go to Leith.
I like how society has experimented and is basically making a u-turn back to religious ideas that have existed for millennia
I have a lot of respect for Peter, but on this he is wrong.