‘How are young offenders to be taught correct respect for law and order without the aid of a sound flogging?’

THE former British hangman, Albert Pierrepoint, who sent 450 people to their deaths via the rope and the trapdoor, was the true master. For him, hanging was a family tradition and he loved his work.

Albert’s Uncle Tom was a hangman for more than 40 years, and his dad was also a dab hand at the art of stretching necks. But Albert Pierrepoint was the master. He was the hangman for 25 years and his speed and skill was equal, if not swifter, than that of his old Uncle Tom.

With 433 men and 17 women to his credit. Albert was a true authority on the topic of the death penalty. After he gave up his work he wrote his autobiography in 1974, and it was a book I greatly enjoyed.

He said that all the condemned men and women that he faced at their final moment convinced him that what he had done had not prevented a single murder. He became a campaigner for the abolition of the death penalty.

But, while Albert believed that he didn’t prevent a single murder, he should have remembered that he prevented those he hanged from doing it again. And that’s why I believe in capital punishment in some cases. It may not scare others so they don’t do it, but it stops those who have been convicted from doing it again. In the case of crimes against children and sex killings, I do believe in the ultimate penalty.

There has been talk of bringing back the rope for killing police or prison officers. What rubbish. In most cases they are armed and able to protect themselves. Why they should rate in the scale of crimes above killing a seven-year-old girl is beyond my powers of reasoning. The weak should be protected: the young, women and the elderly. These are the people who should be protected first. The people who hurt them should be punished the hardest.

In most cases rough and tough coppers and prison officers don’t need help. Bring back the rope for those who prey on the weak.

*

FOR all those Left-wing do gooders who want to ‘love’ criminals back to the right track, let me say that as one who knows, they are on the wrong tram. And for those who think that putting crims in jail for 20 years is going to change things — well, they’re wrong as well.

I would like to see the re-introduction of the lash as a means of punishment. In most cases, serving time in jail is a stupid waste of time. Sometimes jail may be the only answer but in other cases, the lash could be the alternative.

Crimes of lightweight violence, from common assault to grievous bodily harm could be punished with a dozen or so cuts with the lash. I could have handled that instead of a few minor prison sentences.

Some of the young crims around do jail time too easily, and some drug dealers are well looked after on the inside. I think that a few cuts with the lash could add some dash to some of the wimps about and make men of them.

Things are getting too soft and easy all around. We need to get some discipline and backbone back into Australia. We need to bring the strap and the cane back into the school system, and the lash back into the prison system.

A nice bit of sharp pain clears the mind and cleanses the soul. I personally see the lash as a bloody good character builder. If you can’t hang them, lash them and if you can’t lash them, bash them.

Speaking of which, there is not enough bashing going on in police stations in these modern and enlightened times. The limp-wristed approach seems to be the order of the day.

The old ‘toss the bastard down the stairs’ type of police questioning seems to be a dying art. Now it is ‘can I get you a cup of tea, sir, and I am sorry to bother you when you must be busy’ approach. The old telephone book over the back of the head 50 or 100 times, the baton over the knee caps, the loaded gun in the mouth and a good kicking seems to be almost a thing of the past.

I can remember the old lines: ‘He attacked us, your Honor, so 12 of us were forced to restrain him.’ I mean, where has it all gone? Police questioning is no longer the fun it used to be. How are young offenders to be taught correct respect for law and order without the aid of a sound flogging?

Police questioning has become, to be frank, quite boring. The bleeding hearts have won the day. Greenies in the bush, and Lefties in the city. What the hell has happened to us?

The tough approach at least produced tougher crooks, not like today. When police questioned via the use of fist, boot and baton, it produced a tough, hard breed of stand-up criminal.

I believe the soft approach toward the criminal of today is creating a weak, cowardly, limp-wristed, evil-minded, treacherous sort of snake-like crim. They behave more like spoilt, wilful chidren than hard crims.

The criminal of today, is, in my opinion, powder puff scum. Whereas a tough crim will not pick on the weak, the scum prey only on the weak.

NO LAST NAMES

Where did Tony go to?

Gone to the land of Oz,

I asked Dicky why,

And Dicky said because,

Tony talked out of school,

He broke the crooks’ golden rule.

Dicky didn’t need a hand,

Now Tony lives in magic land.

So who is Tony, who is Dick?

No last names, so there’s the trick.