Death Penalty Poll - In Brief

[mediaboy]

"Juan Corona, a Mexican-American, was sentenced to 25 consecutive life terms for murdering 25 migrant farm workers he had hired, killed, and buried in 1970-1971 near Feather River, Yuba City, Calif., on February 5, 1973, at Fairfield, Calif."

The Longest Prison Sentences. "The longest recorded prison sentences were ones of 7,109 years, awarded to 2 confidence tricksters in Iran (formerly Persia) on June 15, 1969. The duration of sentences are proportional to the amount of the defalcations involved. A sentence of 384,912 years was demanded at the prosecution of Gabriel March Grandos, 22, at Palma de Mallorca, Spain, on March 11, 1972, for failing to deliver 42, 768 letters.

For some sentences I think that killing them might just be cheaper... And quicker..

[Virtual Monkey]

Do as you would be done by.

If you keep your daughter in your basement for 24 years, rape her and abuse the 7 children you fathered with her, you should not be treated as a civilised member of society. Why should the rest of society pay for this person to live a relative life of luxury in his no-doubt solitary prison cell?

Kill him and use the money to feed starving children in Asia.

[Virtual Monkey]

In fact, for people objecting to the death sentence on moral grounds:

If you have x amount of money would you rather:

a) Use it to fund the food and luxuries of the lengthy prison sentence of a proven serial killer and rapist.
or
b) Give the money to someone who lives in terrible poverty, or charities, or the NHS.

[badass]

In fact, for people objecting to the death sentence on moral grounds:

If you have x amount of money would you rather:

a) Use it to fund the food and luxuries of the lengthy prison sentence of a proven serial killer and rapist.
or
b) Give the money to someone who lives in terrible poverty, or charities, or the NHS.

Have you seen the cost of an execution in America?

Prison cell with a concrete bed, hole in the floor for a toilet and 1 hour per day forced labour is far better. Thats what should be available on our prison system.

[Splash]

I keep seeing these claims of a "luxury" life in prison. Never having been in prison I personally can't comment, but... if what I've read is true and that's your idea of "luxury" then I truly do pity you.

[Salazaar]

I don't know why people keep bringing money up as an argument for capital punishment...?

Firstly, even if it costs less to execute them it would only be a marginal amount. Just look at countries when it's used, particularly the US with its similar legal system, and you'll see that there's no real cost benefit.

Secondly, given the tiny number of people who would actually be subject to such a punishment, even if it were proven to be more cost effective, the amount of money in question would be a drop in the ocean compared to our national budget.

Thirdly, I find it sickening that anyone could decide whether a person lives or dies on financial grounds. Stick to the moral arguments and figure out how to pay for it afterward.

[Betty_Swallocks]

Never mind the cost

Never mind the deterrent

The concept of punishment is one that seems to be overlooked these days. I'm not interested in rehabilitation. What I want is that someone who has demonstrated their contempt for human life is absolutely prevented from repeating their crimes.

All a prison sentence does is defer the time when society will be at risk from that individual, sometimes for as little as 10 years.

Those thugs who kicked that goth girl to death could be back out on the street before they are 40. Can anyone honestly say that people who have so little regard for others that they would kill someone for looking different to themselves are somehow miraculously going to be model citizens after spending 18 years in the company of other like-minded people?

Don't make me laugh. They will go on to raise families infected with their own values (if you can call them values) and the risk to us all is perpetuated.

People like that should be removed from society. Permanently.

If a life sentence meant that the murderer would be kept in jail until the end of his or her natural life then there would be no need for the death penalty, but as long as we have a system that is happy to release thugs after 16 years and 3 months in the case of the younger of those two then I'm afraid I see no alternative.

[mediaboy]

I don't know why people keep bringing money up as an argument for capital punishment...?

...I find it sickening that anyone could decide whether a person lives or dies on financial grounds. Stick to the moral arguments and figure out how to pay for it afterward.

But when the sentence is likely to go over the end of their life, and the parole date similary, why should we keep them alive?

I won't advocate it in any sentence where they have a chance of getting out of it alive. It's a waste of money, to keep them alive just to die in jail. It may seem coldhearted, but like in those ridiculously long sentences above, there's not much chance of them survivng 7000 years in jail..... It's like death support machines.

[Ypnos]

1. Using money as a deciding factor as to who lives and dies is, frankly, disgraceful. This is supposed to be a civilised society, so let's get a grip.

2. What about women who kill men that abuse them? Soldiers? Kids who grow up and kill their abusive parents? People who step in to stop a rape and end up killing the rapist? People who are framed for a murder? People who are wrongly accused? Should they get the chair? If everything was as black and white as The Sun readers would like to think, then we'd still be burning witches and running around with pitchforks and torches.

3. America's judicial system is one of the most corrupt, clogged up and flawed legal systems in the world; who the hell would want to model themselves on that?

4. Make jail a place for people to truly fear. Cable TV? Comfy bed? Decent food? Recreational facilities? I don't think so.

[Saracen]

1. Using money as a deciding factor as to who lives and dies is, frankly, disgraceful. This is supposed to be a civilised society, so let's get a grip.

In theory, yes.

But in practice, money is not unlimited. So if you spend it on one thing, the direct implication is that you can't spend it on something else.

I don't support widespread use of the death penalty, but there certainly are cases where I'd quite cheerfully throw the switch or stick the needle in personally, because there are some individuals that are so far beyond the boundaries of society that I'd have more concern about putting down a rabid dog.

And if we use one of that (fairly limited) number of people as an example, what's so disgusting about wanting to see that money spent on incubators for a maternity unit, or on cancer research that might save lives, or on feeding the starving in Darfur, or on ..... well, there's a HUGE list really worthwhile projects that have insufficient funding. I mean, local activity centres for kids in deprived areas, drug rehab treatment centres, proper funding for people with mental health issues rather than booting them out into "care in the community", and so on.

Using money to decide who lives and dies might be disgusting, but so is wasting vast sums on pathological serial killers when there are so many better things to spend it on than caging monsters for decades. If we ever get to the point where all such projects are fully funded, cancer is cured, and so on, then that's fair enough. Meantime, I know what I'd rather see the money spent on.

[dangel]

Against: we got rid of it for good reason.

Imagine been on a jury that convicts and (effectively kills) only to have evidence thrown up later disproving their guilt. Ouch doesn't cover it..

[Ypnos]

Saracen, I strongly disagree.

One could argue that most of these people are products of society and so by killing them we are only feeding a vicious cycle and becoming like them ourselves. But even if you put that aside, if the British government can slap all those hundreds of billions of pounds on the desks of bank owners and warlords, then they could slap it on the desks of the managers of the NHS.

You say that the amount of people who would be "put to death" would be small, then one could argue that the money saved there would be a drop in the ocean compared to the rife corruption at the top ranks of the government, where politicians use public money to pay for their mortgages or buy their wives gifts or sell peerages. And how much money is tied up in the BAE/Saudi debacle?

I'm not buying it.

The moral quagmire we'd be plunged in as a society, if a death penalty were brought in, far outweighs any money saving ventures. Just look at the American moral compass; I'm surprised they can find their way out of their front door every morning. Definitely against.

[Blitzen]

then we'd still be burning witches and running around with pitchforks and torches.

They do in the welsh valleys and parts of the West country

[Salazaar]

But when the sentence is likely to go over the end of their life, and the parole date similary, why should we keep them alive?

I won't advocate it in any sentence where they have a chance of getting out of it alive. It's a waste of money, to keep them alive just to die in jail. It may seem coldhearted, but like in those ridiculously long sentences above, there's not much chance of them survivng 7000 years in jail..... It's like death support machines.

But there are so few prisoners who actually meet that condition that the overall difference in cost, even if you executed them all, compared to the cost of keeping the general prison population is so small as to be moot.

Basically you're making what should be a moral decision on the basis of money to save pennies!

[watforddude]

I think it should be braught in for extreme cases like they do in other countries. like the dad who killed baby p, in my mind he should be sent to iraq or something and get hung instead of a nice cosy prision. urgh W****R or that bloke who melested that 6 month old baby same should be done with him. they dont deserve to live.

but then again, it should only come to them being killed if they have concrete proof that the person/person's involved did commit the crime. for instance saddam hussain no one can argue that he didnt deserve to be hung.

but then you get people like ian huntley, yes he's tried to kill himself (i cant remember if he succeded or not) but he should recicve the same treatment, if death is the sentance you get for doing thing like that then i think it will make people think twice about doing what there about to do. but then what sick person would think about things that would involve them being put in the chair in the first place, but that is the world we live in today.

(my first proper rant on hexus aha)

[Ypnos]

I think it should be braught in for extreme cases like they do in other countries. like the dad who killed baby p, in my mind he should be sent to iraq or something and get hung instead of a nice cosy prision. urgh W****R or that bloke who melested that 6 month old baby same should be done with him. they dont deserve to live.

but then again, it should only come to them being killed if they have concrete proof that the person/person's involved did commit the crime. for instance saddam hussain no one can argue that he didnt deserve to be hung.

but then you get people like ian huntley, yes he's tried to kill himself (i cant remember if he succeded or not) but he should recicve the same treatment, if death is the sentance you get for doing thing like that then i think it will make people think twice about doing what there about to do. but then what sick person would think about things that would involve them being put in the chair in the first place, but that is the world we live in today.

(my first proper rant on hexus aha)

You need concrete evidence to convict anyone of anything. Yet some people get put away, when they haven't done anything wrong. It's a fallible system. Imagine if Bulgaria still had the death penalty, Micheal Shields would be toast by now and we all know the case against him is as solid as jelly.