The Death Penalty.

Who is for it and who is against it and for which crimes? Which life termination methods do you find acceptable?

Personally I'm against it despite my devils advocate roll in the other thread.

Capital punishment is not really acceptable in a modern civilised society in my opinion.

Capital punishment is not really acceptable in a modern civilised society in my opinion.

Some people don't fit into civilised society.

I think people would think it was less cool to carry a weapon and possibly kill other people if it meant a harsh outcome.

The punishments at the moment are soft – and certain people know how to get round the law. Toughen the ting up I say

Death penalty for devils advocate trollery 😉 that will stop them.

Against. Obviously…

Civilised societies don't murder people, however awful their crime. This is the 21st century.

Ok then – name the civilised societies on this planet. I'll go for Bhutan and after that I'm stumped.

There really is not a lot of evidence that the severity of potential punishment deters criminals very efficiently. The chance of being caught is a much bigger factor in rational people's decisions about whether to commit crimes. People who are not rational about their criminal behaviour are even less deterable.

So you're left with the death penalty as being for a purpose which has nothing to do with making people safer. It is only useful for satisfying a popular need to see "justice done" and due retribution brought down upon wrongdoers. I don't much like what that impulse says about a society that does it, personally.

Deterrent? it sure as **** prevents reoffending

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Whiting#Whiting.27s_first_conviction

Until you can get everybody to feel that they have a valued place in society then crime will continue and I agree that no punishment will be severe enough to deter societies disenfranchised from crime of any sort.

Having said that, I still feel the compulsion to see criminals feel my/societies 'vengeance' for their crimes. Though I know it is neither deterrent or productive.

zulu – True. But the rate of re-offending is so high for almost all other forms of punishment that this argument would pull you in the direction of executing almost anyone convicted of a crime, however minor.

If we start from the assumption that we only want to execute people for genuinely serious offences where we can construct some sort of credible argument for it being proportionnate then reoffending is not really a big issue anyway, as the alternative is likely to be a lengthy period of incarceration. Reoffending rates are lower for people who are imprisoned for longer than they are for people who serve short sentences.

So you would have had whiting executed for child molestation? The wiki article you link to says that the psychiatrist believed there was a high likelihood that he would offend again. The mistake was releasing him.

Capital punishment is not really acceptable in a modern civilised society in my opinion.

And it's also not really acceptable in some fairly uncivilised societies.

Russia, despite it's often uncivilised behaviour and general tough stance on most things, doesn't execute people
– not even drug traffickers.

I'm for it but only in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever of guilt (ie many witnesses to the crime or DNA evidence etc).

Mainly because i don't think it is a good use of tax money to lock these people up for life. The 3 scumbags who shot dead a local post office shopworker local to me recently all got around 34 years minimum sentence. They were all in their early 30's. That means that as they finish their sentences they will be at retirement age and be sustained on benefits from now until the day they die. It costs a lot to keep a prisoner in extreme comfort these days and i don't like to pay for it. Prisons should be god awful places that deter reoffending – not the holiday camps we currently have.

I always think that for all the people who are very much against the death penalty, what would they do if they had a gun in their hand and caught their partner/wife/child being gang raped and the rapists refused to stop? Would you watch or would you fire? I can't believe that anybody wouldn't kill to protect their loved ones given the right circumstances and how does that differ to capital punishment except that you are judge, jury and executioner?

How would you feel if your child was raped and murdered and then the killer gets a nice warm cell with laptop computer and sky tv? It easy to say you don't believe in the detah penalty when those sort of crimes only happen to other people…

Just my opinion mind you, i don't enforce it on others. Everyone has their own take on it.

Capital punishment is a product of a violent society, not a solution to it.

DNA evidence is not 100% reliable….

Christ It's like the Daily Mail in here.

Not acceptable to kill another human being as punishment ever, anywhere, or for any reason. It's unthinkable to me that some governments find it is.

annabanana – our government do it all the time. Iraq and Afghanistan spring to mind.

Anyone gobbing in support of it should be prepared to be the one pulling the trigger, giving the injection etc, or would doubt and conscience get the better of you?

If you killed an innocent by mistake would you agree that according to your views you should then be executed?

Not sure why the death penalty is any less civilised or humane than locking someone in a cage for 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives? Not expecting to need to make the choice but hell if I was faced with either I'd rather the death penalty (injection if possible :p ).

In cases without any doubt for certain crimes I'm pro capital punishment, not as a deterrent but so the criminals aren't a drain on society any more. That said it would have to be more efficient and better handled than some of the US systems which see prisoners on deathrow for years trying to exhaust loopholes.

The UK government kill people as punishment in Iraq and Afganistan?

They killed 10's of thousands of them as punishment for having different views to the UK government's yes.

According to some research i found online a few years ago, it was reckoned that incarcerating a 21yr old male for the rest of his natural life cost in the region of 2.5 million US dollars. To execute him cost circa 5 million US dollars when taking into account all the appeals etc he is allowed by Federal and State Laws in the United States.

The argument that it costs too much money to keep them alive is flawed.

Would those who wish to see Capital Punishment return be happy to see the accused/condemmed be subject to less Judicial Review than available to any US citizen in order to save money?

Capital Punishment is not about 'Justice' nor is it a deterrent. If you have to execute more than one person then the deterrent has failed.

Capital Punishment is – and always has been – about revenge, & revenge has no place in a civilised Judicial Process.

It costs a lot to keep a prisoner in extreme comfort these days and i don't like to pay for it. Prisons should be god awful places that deter reoffending – not the holiday camps we currently have.

Christ It's like the Daily Mail in here.

I thought I'd put these two quotes together.

So happy to have someone killed as long as it saves you money. What a fine human being you are.

Not sure why the death penalty is any less civilised or humane than locking someone in a cage for 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives?

Its a living, long punishment.

DNA evidence is not 100% reliable….

The forensics labs that the UK Police forces use to analyze DNA say that DNA should not be the only evidence to secure a conviction.

Of course not …even my children know two wrongs do not make a right.

For those who think it deters people you should look at Brady and Hindley who committed all their murders whilst the death penalty was law.

I'm unsure about it tbh. Sometimes I think maybe some people have lost their place in society, but with some they can find it again, so it's a hard call.

I don't always agree with two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe they don't, but justice seems to be overlooked sometimes.

Prisons should be god awful places that deter reoffending – not the holiday camps we currently have.

holiday camps? You clearly need to be a bit more selective about where you go on holiday.

Against for a number of practical reasons:

[list=1]
It's cheaper to keep someone locked up for the rest of their life.
It's not a dterrant. Most people committing any crime either don't expect to get caught, haven't though about getting caught, don't care or are doing something in the moment. The dterrent comes when trying to prevent re-offending.
There's always an element of doubt.
[/list]

Morally it's a fine line between deciding who can and can't kill someone else. Current methods (including injection) are all pretty barbaric.

According to some research i found online a few years ago, it was reckoned that incarcerating a 21yr old male for the rest of his natural life cost in the region of 2.5 million US dollars. To execute him cost circa 5 million US dollars when taking into account all the appeals etc he is allowed by Federal and State Laws in the United States.

I suspect the chinese model is much cheaper.

I'd prefer deportation, but, can't say I'm bothered either way.

I'd prefer deportation, but, can't say I'm bothered either way.

I reckon that being deported to the colonies probably isn't a very realistic option these days. And anyway, I feel fairly confident that the Australians might be "bothered".

I reckon that being deported to the colonies probably isn't a very realistic option these days. And anyway, I feel fairly confident that the Australians might be "bothered".

I'm sure we could come to an agreement with someone.

I've changed my mind, some people really should be executed, without trial

holiday camps? You clearly need to be a bit more selective about where you go on holiday.
Youv'e done some time lately then have you?
No, I didn't think so.

Death penalty is acceptable, the cancer of society should be locked up or if they offend again or murder should be put to death.

Think of the money we spend keeping these unts fed and watered and in a jail?

Would that money not be better spent on schools or healthcare?

Youv'e done some time lately then have you?
No, I didn't think so.

Me neither. Have you got a brochure ?

Definitely Against.

As far as im concerned taking a life whatever the crime can never be justified. I dont think its 'the ultimate deterrent' as many of the people executed in the US would not be considered of sound mind or would be deterred by the death penalty.

The biggest against is that once you have taken someone's life, when you find that they were actually innocent, you can't give it back.

However i dont think the current penal system is anyway near harsh enough for many crimes. Prison should be something that inspires fear but also should be an institution the has the ability to rehabilitate those that want to be rehabilitated.

Prision should be the utimate deterrent. When you go inside the choice you face should be:

a) 23hrs a day in a 6'x8' cell. one hours exercise. No tv, one book per week, maybe a newspaper per day. Much like death row.

b) Education, opportunity to be taught a trade or profession for use on leaving prison. Some minor benefits provide i.e. access to TV / Gym etc. Abuse of this opportunity return a).

c) Govt. work programs. Most likely for those with Life sentences / no hope of parole. Similar priviledges to b) and return to a) if non-co-operative.

A life sentence, meaning life (yours for the rest of) spent 23hrs a day in a cell would come to have some deterrent value after a generation or so when people realise that if you go away for life, you dont come out.

Personally I think you just have to look at the number of miscarriages of justice we've had in the past to see why it can be a bad idea. We'd have killed the Guildford 4 for example.

People say, that's a long time ago, but look at the american model- 9 people were exonerated and released from death row in the last year in the states. These are people who'd all been "proven" guilty, and we're not talking about reductions of sentence, but full acquittal or dismissal of charges.

You can say "Only for those who we know are guilty". We knew the Guildford 4 were guilty, and the judges knew those US death row cases were guilty, and yet they weren't.

I suppose I wouldn't be strongly against the idea if I was convinced as to the infallability of british justice. But nothing's infallible.

If we are talking about it's use in the UK it should be assessed on how it would fit in with the UK legal system and not how it currently works or fails to in the US, China etc.

The argument that a civilized society does not execute is meaningless. A perfectly civilized society could exisit where the worst offenders are quickly and humanly executed. But then the legal system would probably not look quite like the one we have today…

As for comments about who would pull the trigger you will find no shortage of such people in Britain today, perhaps we are not the civilzed society that many allude to after all?

I'm all for it for bike thieves and Labour/Tory MPs who claim more than a fiver on expenses.

Plus one or two ex-prime ministers too.

Youv'e done some time lately then have you?
No, I didn't think so.

I take it you have done time then? How is being locked up in a cell for 23 hours a day like going on holiday?

Don't believe everything the Daily Mail tells you to believe.

MY POV, if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, OK you may be the unlucky one in a million that gets done for a crime you did not commit (A Team reference), but really, make the punishment death for everything, what does it matter to law abiding folk?

Dons stainless steel hat & runs…