People like that deffo deserve the death penalty. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.
People like that deffo deserve the death penalty. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.
Because we're capable of thinking beyond kneejerk, emotional reactions and looking at wider pictures?
because wher do you draw the line? Ok no one would defnd him but how are yo9u going to endsure folk like the guildford 4 are not excecuted
How about the case of timothy Evans? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans An innocent man excecuted
Or stephan downing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing_case
because wher do you draw the line?
Paedos
because wher do you draw the line?
Paedos
The problem is, everyone has a line. There would be an awful lot of people that crossed them. If you let emotion run public policy the world would be utter chaos.
paedos - still the issue that someone could be found guilty and then later be exhonorated
People like that deffo deserve the death penalty. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.
Try reading the rest of the thread, pretty much everyone has already explained why.
paedos - still the issue that someone could be found guilty and then later be exhonorated
...and if they know they're going to get the death sentence for fiddling with a child, wouldn't they just kill the kid to reduce the chances of getting caught knowing the penalty is no more?
tjagain - Member
because wher do you draw the line?
There will never be a perfect system but there are other scenarios where we have to determine an arbitrary line and do ie medical care.
With a well implemented system the errors would be minimised. Whether any error is acceptable is a judgement call. We have people killed by reoffenders but we don't refuse to in release anyone to save every life.
tjagain - Member
paedos - still the issue that someone could be found guilty and then later be exhonorated
Ironically came home tonight and she's watching a programme about Ian Huntley and the Soham girls, it's on now, I have got to say he's a candidate for the gas chamber if ever there were.
Edit, he's even tried to commit suicide, why not let him? But no, I dare say we'll finance his gender re assignment request and transference to a womens prison such is the way of the PC world these days..
For those concerned about the fact that there will inevitably be a number of innocent people who would be subjected to capital punishment, there's also inevitably a number of victims of reoffending by some who might have received the death penalty.
Again, 1 in 25 put on death row = innocent. Murder rates higher in States with the death penalty and murder rates went up in states where it was reintroduced. How do you manage to square that logically and morally with support for the death penalty?
I get the feeling, that maybe, just maybe - that the lack of value for life shown by the State encourages people to think that killing is a justifiable way of solving differences. What's the point of killing an offender to protect the public from his/her re-offence if the public then murders each other at a higher rate anyway?
It's like giving a drug to 100 fat people, because it will save 2 of them from a heart attack but kill 4 of them through side effects. Pointless.
This thread reminds me that we're a species that is always about a hair trigger away from a loss of rationalism and civility - and Walking Dead style violence.
Ironically came home tonight and she's watching a programme about Ian Huntley and the Soham girls, it's on now, I have got to say he's a candidate for the gas chamber if ever there were.
Edit, he's even tried to commit suicide, why not let him? But no, I dare say we'll finance his gender re assignment request and transference to a womens prison such is the way of the PC world these days..
Your grasp of irony is akin to that of Alanis Morissette.
@Tom_W1987 - Member
The US system is hardly an exemplar for many reasons. Using the death penalty only for the more extreme cases would undoubtedly reduce the risk of error whilst freeing up resources to help others etc.
How do you logically/morally square the victims of reoffenders and those not afforded life saving medical care because we're spending £40kpa keeping multiple murderers locked up?
Why give the death penalty to the perpetrators? Let's kill the potential trigger points/instigators e.g. alcohol sellers, gun manufacturers, politicians creating uneuqal societies that lead to murders and so forth. Yep, let's clean up this planet with some good killing. 😀
Oh no, hang on. Isn't murder wrong? So why would the law/moral enforcers do to others what they're saying is wrong in the first place?
It's too confusing my head hurts. I best go get my gun to let off steam.. 🙄
How do you logically/morally square the victims of reoffenders and those not afforded life saving medical care because we're spending £40kpa keeping multiple murderers locked up?
The murder rate with the death penalty is higher.
How many reoffenders of murder are there? What's your breakdown of costs, how many that are released are committing a further murder?
How far would that saving go given the length of time many of these prisoners spend on death row what is the actual saving?
There are many reasons countries are not spending enough n health care, can you logically and morally square Trident or the Olympics with people not getting treatment? What about the M6 Toll road or the BBC?
deepreddave - Member - Block User - Quote
@Tom_W1987 - Member
The US system is hardly an exemplar for many reasons. Using the death penalty only for the more extreme cases would undoubtedly reduce the risk of error whilst freeing up resources to help others etc.
How, exactly?
No problem with the death penalty myself, where there is no doubt at all about the person being guilty - ofc that means a lot of people wouldn't be executed despite being guilty and would probably lead to less confessions/longer trials so not exactly an ideal solution. I don't really see the appeal of life imprisonment either, I'd much rather be executed personally. Not sure how keeping someone in a cage for the rest of their life isn't barbaric whereas lethal injection is?
@mikewsmith - The murder rate with the death penalty is higher.
What's your source, adjusting for all other factors?
There are many reasons why murder rates increase so the causal link between murder rates and the abolition/introduction of capital punishment is complex to say the least. I recall reading that c80% of the states with the highest murder rates had the death penalty but so did 40% of the lowest. Maybe the death penalty was introduced in response to higher crime rates?
I don't know if we should or shouldn't have it but I do think it's a wider discussion than all killing is bad, the system won't be perfect or some stats about the US suggests it doesn't work.
Mike/Tom et al who are anti capital punishment - do you hold your view with experience of serious offenders being released into your community? I don't but recognise that it's not ok to suggest they be released somewhere but NIMBY.
It seems to me that universal access to guns has more to do with murder rates than any of the social engineering around crime management.
@codybrennan - Member
The greater the proof, the lesser the risk, the greater the savings?
Do you have any evidence to suggest life imprisonment is the most cost effective option?
"Explain to me one more time
How when they kill it's a crime
But when you kill then it's 'Justice'".
From the first page
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Methodology in link
[img] 
[/img]
Mike/Tom et al who are anti capital punishment - do you hold your view with experience of serious offenders being released into your community? I don't but recognise that it's not ok to suggest they be released somewhere but NIMBY.
Rehabilitation is one of the parts of a sentence, there are and should be strict guidelines for release and there are also life without parole type sentences. I don't have the murder reoffending rates here, do you?
I don't personally know serious offenders who have been released but for some people the person they were before 30 years behind bars is not the one that emerges.
Explain to me one more time
How when they kill it's a crime
But when you kill then it's 'Justice
You explain how when they kidnap it's a crime, but when the state kidnaps and imprisons it's not a crime.
You lot should all be forced to watch the Green Mile on repeat until you agree to stop fantasising about killing people with ropes and firing squads and electric chairs.
Usual stw hand wringers wring hands.
Pump em full of out of date death drugs, hopefully it will be more painful.
You explain how when they kidnap it's a crime, but when the state kidnaps and imprisons it's not a crime.
Well I don't believe prison is the right solution, in most cases but the most serious, so this collapses right there.
However the difference between kidnap and imprisonment is clear. The first things that come to mind are:
In prison everyone knows where you are.
In theory you are safe from harm.
There is a known release date except for the most extreme cases.
It is reversible in the event of a miscarriage of justice.
@mike - saw that but where's the correlation setting all other factor aside? What were the murder rates pre the death penalty? What's a reasonable projection without it being introduced? There's so many other factors, gun access, socio-economic etc. If there were a definitive study I'd move off the fence 🙂
Last article I read suggested 3000 serious crimes by reoffenders within 12mths of release I think but don't have a breakdown or know whether one exists plus the stats are only part of any story. Isn't the lack of empirical data an issue for both arguments?
I'm a fervant supporter of rehabilitation and think we need to do way better on raising aspiration and improving pathways to education/employment for many who are tempted to commit crime.
@curto80 - I was going to reply but oob seems to have it covered (assuming you're comfortable with prison as a concept).
The rates are based on the total figures across all states in the US, so the broad spread should reduce a lot of the bias.
Though the fact that the rates are still close in reality also shows that it's not really a deterrent either, if you were looking for something to show it reduced murder then it certainly doesn't.
Some figures on reoffending, again smaller sample size and has a number of other issues associated with it
http://criminology.research.southwales.ac.uk/features/reoffending/
Of 894 arrested for murder 13 were rearrested for a further homicide offence. 177 for a "violent" offence though the list includes breaking into a dwelling.
What does it say? parole and rehabilitation isn't quie working?
Does it mean most should face the death penalty to protect from a small number? Does it mean we are getting punishment and rehab right and just need to do more? Does it mean there should be full life available?
I still don't see an argument for execution in there.
DRD- ah, I see what you're saying.
What you're proposing is that we should have a [i]higher standard of proof[/i] needed for the death penalty?
Would that be something higher than "beyond reasonable doubt", the current highest level required by law?
"However the difference between kidnap and imprisonment is clear."
Agree.
So isn't the difference between extra-judicial killing and private individuals killing whoever they like also clear? If not why not?
@mike - cheers. Western Australian stats relating to 1984-2005?
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585908/proven-reoffending-quarterly-bulletin.pdf ]MoJ 2014/15[/url]
A quick read reveals 'proven reoffending' is defined as an offence within 12mths of release and conviction within 12-18mths thereafter so quite a narrow definition nevertheless:
>390,000 proven reoffences were committed over the one year follow-up period, with those that reoffended committing, on average, 3.23 reoffences each.
>Less than 1% of all proven reoffences committed over the one year follow-up period were indictable which includes murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery.
Always a need to improve all inhibitors of crime however I was only discussing the arguments for/against execution of the most extreme offenders.
Well for starters it is irreversible.
But the difference between murder and execution is not clear, the analogy the kidnap= murder and imprisonment=execution does not fly I am afraid.
"So isn't the difference between extra-judicial killing and private individuals killing whoever they like also clear? If not why not?"
"Well for starters it is irreversible."
Aren't both irreversible?
"the analogy the kidnap= murder and imprisonment=execution does not fly I am afraid."
Agree. Imprisonment isn't kidnap and murder isn't state execution. They are different.
@cody - yes, a higher standard of proof and the most extreme cases. Would that negate some of the arguments against?
There is a wide range of proof in cases which pass the beyond reasonable doubt test. Video evidence of a murder or someone caught in the act is likely to be stronger evidence than oral testimony but both could pass the BRD test.
Thanks DRD.
deepreddave - Member
@cody - yes, a higher standard of proof and the most extreme cases. Would that negate some of the arguments against?
In my mind- no, it wouldn't.
So far, all you've done is present to us [i]how[/i] we'd reduce the possibility of miscarriages of justice.
What I've not seen from you is convincing arguments as to [i]why[/i] we need a return of the death penalty.
So- why? What would bringing it back achieve?
So- why? What would bringing it back achieve?
It would make people who like others to be killed (meeting their own requirements) happier.
Agree. Imprisonment isn't kidnap and murder isn't state execution. They are different.
I didn't say that, your logic has failed here.
I didn't say that, your logic has failed here.
You said:
But the difference between murder and execution is not clear, the analogy the kidnap= murder and imprisonment=execution does not fly I am afraid.
...so the second half of your sentence is 100pc correct in my view. Your failure to justify the first half of your sentence makes me think you're not sure about it yourself.
Either you can't read or you are deliberately misquoting/misunderstanding. Just for the record. I am not going to bother engage with you on this topic again. I am happy to discuss and defend anything, but not with wilfull trolling. Thanks for your time.
Just for the record. I am not going to bother engage with you on this topic again. I am happy to discuss and defend anything, but not with wilfull trolling. Thanks for your time.
Can we have a button that adds this automatically?
Would save a lot of the time with the few obvious trolls on this forum.
@cody - yes, a higher standard of proof and the most extreme cases. Would that negate some of the arguments against?
I think that would actually cause [i]more[/i] problems.
If you start having different grades of guilty then lawyers would be all over that in appeals.
You'd be asking a jury to not only determine if the defendant was guilty, but also decide exactly [i]how guilty[/i] they were.
Jurors with some doubts might be tempted to decide that they were guilty (just to be safe), but not [i]very guilty[/i].
Conversely in particularly nasty cases jurors might be tempted to rule the defendant was [i]extra guilty[/i] to try to influence the punishment they receive.
"So- why? What would bringing it back achieve?"
For me that's the crux. If it were possible to be sure there was a significant net saving of life I'd be reluctantly in favour of the Death penalty.
But I don't think it is and I'm not sure it ever really could be.
@cody - I'm exploring the arguments in favour to counter the reasons given against, rather than advocating either per se. Can you explain what imprisoning people and severely restricting their quality of life until they die achieves? How's that working as a deterrent? Why don't you think that money could be better spent on helping law abiding people, education etc?
@graham - Jurors and judges already make big decisions however the punishment could be a balance of proof and nature of the offence i.e. multiple/mass murderers caught in the act (simplistic to make the point). As to the weight of evidence I think we have a court hierarchy already set up who could consider this.
Having served on a jury I wouldn't let one decide more than they do now! In fact I'd favour a basic exam before you served and having a legally trained person appointed to assist every jury with interpreting the law but that's a separate discussion :).
@oob - it's interesting if the defining factor is 'lives'. What if the state executed a a mass murderer and 3 people benefited from their organs being transplanted so net result +2 lives - that ok? I'm not advocating farming criminals for organs but is a long term cost saving really impossible from a well legislated and run system involving capital punishment?
Ah- sorry DRD, I thought you had some answers. I was keen to hear your side. Apologies, I'll move on.
Having served on a jury I wouldn't let one decide more than they do now!
Exactly. And pushing the "how guilty are they exactly?" decision onto the judge doesn't really solve the issue.
e.g. Jury finds the defendant guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) and then the judge rules that they are not "very guilty" as there is no irrefutable evidence. Hey presto, instant appeal.
