How about the death penalty only for those who advocate for it. That way if you like it, the state can murder you and you get your wish
Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.
Wait a minute. Will there be a tax cut?
However as every justice system seems to be riddled with incompetence, corruption
I think funding and approach may be related to success in rehabilitation also .
@Ming the Merciless. You never learn do you? Last time you tried to execute someone he came back and kicked your ass.
Hard death sentence or soft death sentence?
Hard death sentence or soft death sentence?
Depends on on if it was a good crime (money laundering, white collar fraud) or a bad crime (drugs, robbery)
the definition of what is deserving or undeserving of such penalties will depend on the time, public opinion, media reaction not just the actions of the individual.
Might as well just set up a WhatsApp justice mob
Cost savings seems to be a motivator, but because of the rigorous appeals and the high security a death sentence in the USA is more expensive than a life sentence.
Or should we go all China and do it quick and cheap (plus invoice the family).
Maybe we should do a facebook vote for every conviction?
Can we just compromise and execute Piers Morgan, even as a staunch anti death penalty advocate, I would be willing to sacrifice him to pacify the more blood thirsty among us.
Or should we go all China and do it quick and cheap (plus invoice the family).
They harvest organs to order too don’t they? Profitable rather than cheap.
No.
Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.
There are quite a few funding cuts that mean exactly this, but hit non 'offenders'.
Let's hang them publicly. Sell tickets, tv coverage and film rights. We'll make it self financing, 'tis the modern way.
Raffle the hangman's position, sell each inch off rope like they used to.
Combine it with the lottery. A Saturday night treat for the family.
With thanks to Alan B'Stard for the idea. Be careful what you wish for Al.
If you can absolutely guarantee that it'll never be done wrongly, then sure. But that's impossible. Yes of course there are some very few cases where it's essentially indisputable but there's always a line to be drawn somewhere and as soon as any judgement or room to wiggle comes in, it all goes wrong.
I've nothing against the concept frankly but it's impossible to do perfectly and can't be any less than perfect.
As for deterrant, nah. Deterrant effects don't depend on severity of sentencing, except for low grade crimes and career criminals. If you're not deterred by life you're not deterred by death- you're doing it either because you're crazy, you expect to be caught and welcome it, or you don't expect to be caught.
Libya would probably pay to take them off our hands.
I doubt they would want our scrotes. Why would they?
It’s yet another extremely nuanced argument that has been simplified into a binary discussion, TBH I can’t see any merit whatsoever in having a death penalty, the very notion of which depends upon a strict set of rules and tests to be of any use in a civilised society, to the point that it becomes a contradiction - and an expensive one at that, given that the state must bear a burden of both absolute proof and of significant culpability in event of a miscarriage of justice that the cost alone is a burden to bear.
If one is found to be guilty of a capital offence which is subsequently ruled to be an unsafe conviction, then at the very least the state must bear significant responsibility to restore your reputation, pursue the genuine culprit and bring them to justice and also to ensure that your dependents are compensated for a lifetime.
I doubt they would want our scrotes. Why would they?
To sell in their slave markets.
God yes I'd vote for it....it will never go to a referendum as MPs know full well the majority would go for it too.
For me it's not about it being a deterrent, evidence from countries with the death penalty shows it doesn't work like that.
For me it's about getting rid of scum.
Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.
Cheaper and revenge feels great.
I see the "let's hit reverse… hard" brigade are out in force in this thread… plus a few suprises from otherwise reasonable people who want us to turn back on one of the very real advances we made as a society in the 20th Century.
It's a NO from me.
"For me it’s about getting rid of scum."
What's your acceptable scum-to-innocent-person ratio?
Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.
Is this in your version of utopia where you could just crack on with it without any extra legal issues surrounding the state killing people? You do know it costs more to feed and house a bunch of lawyers than a bloke in a cell don't you? Have a quick google of the difference in cost between a death penalty and non death penalty sentence in the States for some merry reading. It's not the thrifty choice.
it will never go to a referendum as MPs know full well the majority would go for it too.
It would be interesting to see if anyone has ever done a correlation between IQ and capital punishment advocacy. Yes, there's a reason why MPs don't fancy the general public getting a referendum but it's the same reason a good number of members of the public aren't trusted with anything more complicated than a checkout till.
What’s your acceptable scum-to-innocent-person ratio?
4 to 1.
“For me it’s about getting rid of scum.”
I would imagine many people have a different view on what might constitute scum... do you expand the system to cull generational benefit claiming families you know the ones the tabloids call scum...
Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.
It must be more expensive to house a killer for 25 years on death row. I imagine the lawyers fees for appeals on death row cases are expensive.
I can completely understand families of victims advocating the death penalty, however thankfully the justice system counteracts this.
A decision to bring in the death penalty in the UK would be utterly despicable IMO.
It's a very definite no from me.
The government should never be given permission to murder the citizens that it's supposed to serve.
I'd be concerned that an extreme right wing government, aided by messrs Murdoch, Dacre et al., could twist the definition of who deserves to be murdered to include any groups who they happen to dislike. (Lets face it, to save money they've been doing it by stealth to the disabled for over a decade.) There are sufficient numbers of the hard of thinking that they could probably get away with it all too easily.
I know it unlikely but, along with the other issues already mentioned in this thread, it puts me very firmly in the no camp.
I’d be concerned that an extreme right wing government...
Left wing governments are far more prolific in the execution stakes. Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
Killing someone to make the point that killing people is wrong?
No thanks.
Definitely yes.
Then crush their bones and use them to fill in potholes, making it a cost saving double whammy.
I've taught early high school pupils about the death penalty.
The way I do it is at the very start of the topic we have a class vote on whether it should be reintroduced. Usually there's a slim majority for this (many kids are bloodthirsty little gits, they'd have it for speeding).
We then look at the methods. No drama, just a matter of fact discussion on how judicial killing can be done. We don't even discuss the moral arguments for and against at this point.
They then get to vote again on the original question.
Every single time I've done this (maybe 20 times?) the second vote shows a tiny minority (3 or 4 out of 30) in favour of the death penalty.
The numbers for it actually rise slightly when we look at arguments for and against but remain a minority.
Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
ah the right wing imagination off again...
Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
Yes, really, really, really hard to imagine him not doing that. I think I saw it in his manifesto.
Have you not noticed that the pro execution people on this thread are the right wingers...
The death penalty is a bit strong eh, bring back the birch though eh eh!
The death penalty is a bit strong eh, bring back the birch though eh eh!
Well can we start for misleading parliament?
<div class="bbp-reply-author">5thElefant
<div class="bbp-author-role"></div>
</div>
Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
Mental 🙂
@mikewsmith - Would make a refreshing change for the working classes to be spared the rod! I can think of a rather large banking fraud where it would have been appropriate as well 😉
IF ONLY there was some data to show whether the death penalty was effective! If only there were countries who do it which we could look at to see whether it works. Oh hang on....
- Afghanistan
- India
- Nigeria
- US
- Iran
- Japan
- Taiwan
- Kuwait
- Zimbabwe
- Libya
- Thailand
- Guyana
- Uganda
- Bangladesh
- Iraq
- Indonesia
- Botswana
- UAE
- Bahamas
- Cuba
- Belarus
- Yemen
- Saudi Arabia
- Vietnam
- Syria
- Egypt
- South Sudan
- DRC
- Ethiopia
- China
- Sudan
- Comoros
- Somalia
- Barbados
- Malaysia
- Chad
- ****stan
- Oman
- Singapore
- St Kitts and Nevis
- St Lucia
- Bahrain
- North Korea
- Equatorial Guinea
- St Vincent and the Grenadines
- Palestinian territories
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Lesotho
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Belize
- Dominica
- Jamaica
- Jordan
Although, this tread is useful for identifying the half-wits and the ethically-bankrupt..... carry on.
Have you not noticed that the pro execution people on this thread are the right wingers…
'twas ever thus.
No way, apart from anything else the jury would be made up of the very same public that voted on Brexit 😀
complete nutjobs (serial killers, mob hitmen) aside, generally murderers murder because they don't like person X, and often as a crime of passion. If person X is dead, their desire to murder has gone. A death sentence for that would seem to be state sponsored revenge killing.
Thieves on the other hand, no exactly what they are doing, and the same thief commits many many crimes and generally still steals after conviction and release.
Hanging them in the town square on a Saturday morning takes full advantage of the only benefit of the death penalty - 0% reoffence rate.
I would, for certain crimes that I deem to be against the fabric of society, such as the people that attack and mug pensioners, or even wife beaters. Murder would not even have to have been committed.
Why would we want someone like that in society, and how likey is someone with that mentality to ever reform ?
Either that, or find an island somewhere to keep them on... One with lots of wild predatory animals hopefully.
We then look at the methods. No drama, just a matter of fact discussion on how judicial killing can be done. We don’t even discuss the moral arguments for and against at this point.
They then get to vote again on the original question.
Every single time I’ve done this (maybe 20 times?) the second vote shows a tiny minority (3 or 4 out of 30) in favour of the death penalty.
The numbers for it actually rise slightly when we look at arguments for and against but remain a minority.
Maybe you should have put them in the shoes of Milly Dowler's family for example and explain the circumstances of her death.....and then asked the question again?
Maybe you should have put them in the shoes of Milly Dowler’s family for example and explain the circumstances of her death…..and then asked the question again
Which basically brings it back to revenge as a reason.
Which basically brings it back to revenge as a reason.
What is wrong with revenge as a reason within the law? Please tell.