if there was a vote to bring back the death sentence?

Home Forum Chat Forum if there was a vote to bring back the death sentence?

Viewing 40 posts - 201 through 240 (of 324 total)
  • if there was a vote to bring back the death sentence?
  • Ramsey Neil
    Member

    But the cost of a death sentence doesn’t have to be anything like that amount and indeed isn’t in other countries that have the death penalty . The US is always mentioned when this argument comes up because it is so staggeringly expensive . Nobody ever uses Vietnam as an example of the cost of the death sentence and there is a good reason for this .

    novaswift
    Member

    Really difficult question. On one hand I’d like to think I’m a reasonably decent guy who lives a hard working life contributing to a civilized society.

    On the other hand I’ve lost a close friend and workmate last year . I’ll spare you the details but she was terrorized and stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack . The animal who did this admitted the crime in court but used every lie in the book to try and get a reduced sentence.

    Having grown close to her parents and witnessed the sheer hell they’re still going through I would gladly flick the switch myself. Revenge ? Yes absolutely and that’s probably where the reasonably decent guy goes out the window. As I said it’s a difficult question but every situation is different .

    People on this thread are too quick to call others idiots merely because they have a different opinion.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    The question again is how many innocent people are you willing to have executed along with the people who you think deserve it?

    sirromj
    Member

    What about if we got to eat them after? Though suspect they might need considerable tenderizing.

    Ramsey Neil
    Member

    The question again is how many innocent people are you willing to have executed along with the people who you think deserve it?

    As I alluded to earlier in 10 years from 2001 to 2011 there were 35 innocent people killed in England by people who had been release after previously killing somebody . So you would need to put to death more than 35 innocent people  in that same period for that argument to work .

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    and to all those who say what about all those who would have been wrongly executed I would point you to the article below that says that over 30 innocent people were killed by convicted killers who had been released from prison

    So – how many innocent lives is it ok for the state to take in order to reduce that possibility? 29? What if one of them was your wife/husband/child?

    Ramsey Neil
    Member

    Obviously the system that results in the fewest innocent deaths would be preferable . Personalising it as you are trying to do makes no difference .

    Premier Icon batfink
    Subscriber

    I’m happy to call anyone a bellend for whom cost is the deciding factor for whether people should be executed.

    So what IS the argument for re-instating the death penalty?

    Its not a deterrent, it’s not cheaper (in fact it’s more expensive), there is an argument about preventing reoffending – but that takes us back to the cost of executing vs the cost of long term incarceration.  It seems like some people are openly advocating execution purely for revenge/”justice”…. at which point this becomes purely a primary school level debate about ethics and morality.

    What else is there?

    IMO, “a primary school level debate about ethics and morality” is exactly what this is.

    Edit: it seems like people are conflating the death penalty issue with the issue of tougher sentences for particularly heinous crimes.  I’m all for “throw away the key” in some cases, and tougher sentences in general – but absolutely not the death penalty.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    <div class=”bbp-reply-author”>Ramsey Neil
    <div class=”bbp-author-role”>
    <div class=””>Member</div>
    </div>
    </div>

    <div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

    As I alluded to earlier in 10 years from 2001 to 2011 there were 35 innocent people killed in England by people who had been release after previously killing somebody . So you would need to put to death more than 35 innocent people  in that same period for that argument to work .

    Or, you would need to understand that you can’t cancel out the death of one individual by not killing another.

    </div>

    Premier Icon rone
    Subscriber

    What is wrong with revenge as a reason within the law? Please tell.

    Simply because it’s an emotive reaction.

    cornholio98
    Member

    What is wrong with revenge as a reason within the law? Please tell.

    Once you establish revenge is acceptable then do you expand the penalties?

    Some lashes for stealing? Someone was blinded so you can blind the perpetrator? Revenge is not a good reason for anything especially something that is permanent.

    Premier Icon funkmasterp
    Subscriber

    it’s not cheaper (in fact it’s more expensive)

    I’m firmly in the no camp, but as others have stated it depends on which country you are looking at as an example.

    mattsccm
    Member

    Woohoo. Usual crap spouted. Notice how many of  those who feel that they have the kind, considerate liberal attitude are the ones being nasty?

    Calling people idiots, suggesting that a democratic vote would be wrong etc.

    Its always the way. Being kind and considerate but only to those who agree with you. Stuff the rest and I’m making sure I am nasty about it type of thing.

    Surely, if one is considerate and balanced in thoughts with the well fair of all concerned, both the views of all should be equally regarded and the democratic process be revered. Or is it that Orwell was right?

    Nasty selfish people some of you.  Oh yeah and I bet those are the ones who fire back.

    PJM1974
    Member

    Sorry mattsccm, but what exactly are you trying to make a point about?

    taxi25
    Member

    Well done mattscccm 100%. It’s why I don’t post much and so many don’t post at all 🙁

    kerley
    Member

    Surely, if one is considerate and balanced in thoughts with the well fair of all concerned, both the views of all should be equally regarded and the democratic process be revered.

    So what do you do if the voters within the democratic process do not have thoughts that are considerate and well balanced ?

    oikeith
    Member

    Its not a deterrent

    Are we sure on that? Would the death penalty not be a deterrent to those committing other crimes who then commit more and more serious crimes? IMO the recent spate of knife attacks in London are linked to gang related activity, gangs commit all sorts of crime. Could the death penalty put people of joining gangs in the first place?

    Spin
    Member

    Sorry mattsccm, but what exactly are you trying to make a point about?

    Its a flounce.

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Subscriber

    So you would need to put to death more than 35 innocent people in that same period for that argument to work .

    No you wouldnt. Thats a false dichotomy. It assumes all murders will be executed and that those 35 were also killed by those prosecuted for murder as opposed to manslaughter etc. It also ignores other measures which can be taken.

    Premier Icon koldun
    Member

    I’m honestly a bit surprised that the people in favour of this have such faith in the UK legal system. Sure, it is not terrible, but it is certainly far more fallible than i would be happy with to provide such a permanent punishment.

    Klunk
    Member

    Could the death penalty put people of joining gangs in the first place?

    could always ask Gary Glitter.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Are we sure on that? Would the death penalty not be a deterrent to those committing other crimes who then commit more and more serious crimes?

    Please feel free to go and find some evidence that it is. Already presented evidence that it does not.

     Could the death penalty put people of joining gangs in the first place?

    Given the mortality rate of those who sign up to organised crime I’d say not, I think it’s covered in the induction but will certainly be in the employee handbook.

    I am leftie and therefore I would bring back the death penalty for anyone who disagrees with me… is what all the right wing people seem to think I think.

    PJM1974
    Member

    In response to mattsccm, it would appear that the majoroity of forumites including myself believe that the very notion of a dealth penalty is monstrous.  You’ve an opportunity to present an argument for it, but it’s always going to be a subjective opinion that doesn’t tally with evidence.

    For example (grabbed from Google): <span class=”ILfuVd yZ8quc”>Study: 88% of criminologists do not believe the <b>death penalty</b> is an <b>effective deterrent</b>. A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the <b>death penalty</b> is an <b>effective deterrent</b> to crime.</span>

    There’s a lot of conflation in this thread.  One poster made a point about being pro-capital punishment citing the tragedy of a family friend being killed by dangerous driving.  Does this mean that the statute books should be re-written so that death by dangerous driving would be a captial offence?  Where would that put manslaughter in terms of culpability and penalties?

    I welcome any rational discussion, but remember that we live in a representative democracy – we elect people to make decisions for us in our best interests as Cougar has already pointed out.  Those decision makers are presented with a range of evidence and arguments, they’re also trained to sift through the moral maze and factual presentation in order to decide upon legislation.  The fact that some of us might not like this, or as a result of our innate need to distill down complex arguments so that they’re simplified into “common sense” scenarious doesn’t mean that populist demands upon crime and punishment are the right way to go.

    The discussion between the two posters involved in criminal justice has made for fascinating reading.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    On the cost basis, now that there are so many new high rise apartments in most town centres, could we not the a leaf out of the ISIS caliphate playbook and just throw people off the top of them*? That’d be cheap enough? Are there any obvious Health and Safety laws that would prevent this? As long as you had a bloke in a high vis vest at the bottom to warn about the plummeting body due to land, that’d be fine surely?

    * Not just for being gay, or ginger, or owt? I’m not suggesting we go that far. Just for the really bad stuff. You know… murderising people and not acknowledging someone who’s just let you out of a side road into traffic

    This is like brexit all over again.

    Its a simple question with a binary answer, which leads to a vast series of interlinked implications that no-one can be arsed working out in advance.

    Personally I wouldn’t mourn a variety of people (many mentioned in this thread) if they were to die. But thats not the core of the question. I guess almost anyone can think of someone the world could do without.

    For a referendum question I would propose a 2 or 3 parter:

    a) Do you support the police and criminal justice system being given sufficient funding to reduce and endeavour to eliminate unsafe convictions?

    b) Do you support the funding of prison education and rehabilitation efforts to reduce the rate of reoffending?

    c) Do you want a return of the death penalty?

    A negative answer to the first or second question disallows your answer to the third (and shows you up as the big poopy head you undoubtedly are).

    Morally the death penalty can be justified, but practically, its the wrong answer to a badly formed question.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Morally the death penalty can be justified, but practically, its the wrong answer to a badly formed question.

    Can you define the moral justification?

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Subscriber

    Morally the death penalty can be justified

    I don’t believe it can.

    Premier Icon Pz_Steve
    Subscriber

    At the risk of being terribly simplistic, for me it boils down to a simple question: Is it wrong to kill?

    – If the answer is Yes, then no-one should do it, including the state (unless we’re happy for our legislators to live by the “do as I say, not as I do” maxim)

    – If the answer is No, then what exactly will be capital crimes?

    For that reason I would be against it, even if there was some magical guarantee that all convictions were sound.

    What would be the sentence for a repeat murderer at the moment?

    You already know the answer to that don’t you, just as well as I do.

    “Can you define the moral justification”

    Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

    So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?

    I think I know that answer for me, so I’ll happily (perhaps even enthusiastically) apply that to others.

    Having said that I am dead against the death penalty for the reasons expressed above.

    Some people (some on here) seem to think that killing another person for any reason under any circumstances is morally equivalent to murder.

    These people are either moral giants from olympus (or similar) sent to educate us lower mortals in their higher ways, or moral pygmies who lack history books and dictionaries.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    This people are either moral giants from olympus (or similar) sent to educate us lower mortals in their higher ways, or moral pygmies who lack history books and dictionaries.

    Either way, a fair number of them will end up on jury duty and will be less likely to convict knowing there’s a death sentence involved. That would mean murderers being set free.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    “Can you define the moral justification”

    Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

    So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?

    Imprisonment and mental health assessments with rehabilitation, all things that were a lot tougher to do 2-3000 years ago which is why we shouldn’t really be basing modern laws on,

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Subscriber

    You already know the answer to that don’t you, just as well as I do.

    Actually no I don’t. That’s why I asked.

    scotroutes, mikewsmith

    I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.

    But I I’m against the death penalty for practical reasons, given above (which I believe are insurmountable).

    For clarity, I have equal disrespect for people who think that introducing the death penalty would do anything positive (without even considering the state of the criminal justice system) AND those who say that all killing is murder.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.

    And we can make an assessment of it, I’d say it’s paper thin

    Premier Icon v8ninety
    Subscriber

    I’m against for both moral and practical reasons. But a thought just occurred to me, that may give heart to people who (understandably) feel the need for revenge against the perpetrators of some horrendous crimes.

    The prison service spends a great deal of effort preventing a lot of these individuals killing themselves. This suggests to me that life in a shitty prison is indeed a fate worth that death. So, revenge, ✅?

    The prison service spends a great deal of effort preventing a lot of these individuals killing themselves. This suggests to me that life in a shitty prison is indeed a fate worth that death.

    You been in prison lately?

    I don’t have any factual evidence to hand but in my experience of prisoners at risk of self harm, most of those at risk of committing suicide are those who are pissed off with themselves for being a shithead in the 1st place.

    Prime recent example….a pal of mine still in the service told me of a guy who’d killed himself a couple of months ago at the the jail I was at. Transpires he’d been a bastard to his wife/partner & kids so social services had taken away his access rights. He was of course, annoyed by this & said he was going to kill himself. Staff believed he was at high risk of suicide so placed him on constant watch (that’s basically a designated officer watching him….err..constantly) this is extremely draining on staff resources (cos there aren’t enough) & eventually the risk was assessed & reduced to ‘four an hour’, this doesn’t mean someone checks on him every 15 mins it means four ‘intermittent’ checks an hour but staff need to be sensible & not do four checks five mins apart for instance. Also it’s not down to one staff member being designated to do it at this point. Consequently he wasn’t checked for a while within an hour & he strung himself up, dying later in hospital.

    Now before anyone blames staff for not doing their job right, I suggest having a go at being a screw & trying to cope with the extreme pressures that staff have to deal with on a multi-daily basis. (Youv’e got Grayling to thank for that, the Prick.) On that particular wing there were 3 staff coping with 60 odd prisoners. It only takes 1 or 2 more cons to kick off about absolutely anything & other important things get overlooked.

    HMPS is still woefully understaffed but prisons are by far, better, safer & more decent places than they used to be.

    Anyway…..back to the death penalty…

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    scotroutes, mikewsmith

    I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.

    Not by me. I was only trying to point out that some folk would have mail objections that would reduce the chance that all murderers were convicted.

    I’m still waiting to find out how many innocent people it’s acceptable to kill just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, were the wrong colour or just spoke with the wrong accent.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    The moral question seems to require a legitimate debate but it honestly doesn’t

    We condemn murder as a terrible act, and in order to demonstrate to the community how terrible it is and much we abhor it: We the state, will commit another murder…

    It makes no sense

Viewing 40 posts - 201 through 240 (of 324 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.