Death Penalty Poll - In Brief

[Saracen]

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.
....

Well, the money "slapped" on the desks of bankers is a bit more complex than that. Firstly, most of it hasn't been slapped on banker's desks. And what has is either in terms of loans (short-term liquidity provision or medium term guarantees) at commercial rates, or capital injections, which are both necessary to avoid a huge scale bank collapse and a national economic meltdown. And in the case of capital injections, well, bank shares are hugely depressed in value right now, amnd it's a pretty fair bet that over a few years they'll go up. And when they do, the taxpayer gets his money back, and some.

Are there risks? Yup. But the damage is likely to be far, far less than not doing it.

As for money to warlords, well, I'm not exactly in favour of that one, but if you get one thing wrong it isn't a reason to not try to get other things right.

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.

Where did I say that? I'm not saying I didn't, but I want to know what context I used in it in. To what are you referring?

Abd again, drop in the ocean or not, a few million here and there can make a big difference to all sorts of worthwhile public services. As for politicians and mortgages, well that's putting it a bit simplistically, but overall I agree with your point, if it is (as it appears to be) MPs allowances and expense claims, the infamous John Lewis list and outrageous abuses of public trust like Margaret Beckett and her flaming pergola, then we agree on that and I've moaned about (some) MPs and their "snout in the trough" attitude before .... many times. And something ought to be done about it, but it probably won't be while MPs regard themselves as above the law and not subject to any standards except the ones they set on themselves. It's a travesty.

But again, that that needs looking at as well doesn't mean we should waste money looking after vicious serial killers.

And BAe? Well, that's complex. In principle, I completely agree that the "bribes" that are allegedly flying around (excuse the pun) are wrong and we shouldn't be doing it. But the world, unfortunately, isn't a simplistic place. If such things are standard practice in other countries, like Saudi, and if we want to do business in those countries, then it's debatable whether we have the moral authority or right to tell other countries what their business morals should be.

And from a pragmatic point of view, if we want to play in their playground, we play by their rules. We could take a high moral tone and refuse, but would the French (aerospace industry) do the same? The Americans? The Chinese?

I don't like it one bit, but it seems to be a fact that if we don't play that particularly obnoxious game, others will, and the results will be that they get the contracts, and the jobs. Do you want to be the one to explain to the hundreds or thousands of aerospace workers why they've lost their jobs?

We can wish the world was a better place and didn't work the way it does, but unfortunately, it does work the way it does. I don't like it one bit, but on our own, we can't do much to change 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.

You're obviously entitled to be against, and whatever moral compass you think the Americans have got hasn't got much if anything to do with a debate in this country, as our legal system currently, and anything we introduced re: the death penalty (if we did) wouldn't need to be and shouldn't be based on what the US does.

[2Cold Scorpio]

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.

What's this 1 hour foolishness? Make 'em work 10 hours in the heat like some of us law abiding citizens have to do to put food on the table. (Thankfully, I found a job indoors with air conditioning, but before that I worked for 14+ hours a day on my feet in scorching hot or freezing cold weather for six days a week; why should some convict get to lay around all day?). If we gotta pay to house and feed them for decades on end, I say get your money's worth out of 'em!

[ploo]

Against - There is always the risk they're innocent, and also I don't believe anyone should have the right to just 'take away someone's life' unless it's extreme serious.

[radar]

the risks of a wrong conviction. I also believe that a lifetime in jail is probably mental torture enough for a lot of people.

Both true statements but here in the UK, it is common to get 15-30 years for murder and most of the time only half is served.

[Betty_Swallocks]

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.

You mean like N.I.C.E. does when deciding who can have lifesaving drugs and who can't because there isn't enough money to go round?

[nichomach]

Both true statements but here in the UK, it is common to get 15-30 years for murder and most of the time only half is served.

That's actually incorrect. Murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The judge at sentencing will set a minimum period that must be served before a prisoner is eligible for release on life license, and that starts at 15 years minimum unless there are aggravating factors, in which case it can be a lot longer. Even then, that doesn't mean that the prisoner gets out then, it means that they are eligible to apply - if they are assessed as still presenting a risk, or even if they haven't, say, shown remorse, then they can be knocked back (and frequently are). Even if they ARE released at some point, they are not free, they are released on license. At any point for the rest of their lives they can be returned to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence. They don't have to be convicted of another offence, they don't even have to have been arrested, they can just have their license revoked.

[watercooled]

I vote yes. There is very little chance in an innocent person being killed today, with DNA and whatever. It should still be used with caution, though. Lots of money is being spend on housing thousands of prisoners and providing them often with a better life than they had outside. This money could be used on schools, NHS, emergency services, providing our armed forced with more/better equipment. People have to pay for a house, they get prison for free. Also, as previously mentioned, convicts often don't serve their full sentence. If prison was less pleasant or if there was some reason to fear prison, people might think twice about crime. There are too many human rights people - after all, what criminals think of human rights when they kidnap / kill someone? I bet they would change their opinion if they were attacked themselves! Criminals who commit serious crime should just lose their rights!

[bobby18121]

i'm genrally against the death penalty because if the person was innocent then it would be too late if they found out later. But then again if the person really did something really bad and deserved it i might think differently.

[Alex]

What happened to:

Okay, this is just a quick poll and request which is the prelude to something else, but just curious.

?

Also, although I have seen many arguments for the death penalty, I have yet to hear anyone give a decent rebuttal to the wrongly convicted person. You couldn't say that it would 'never' happen. Even 1 in thousand, hell, 1 in a million, is that ever worth it?

Oh, and what do opinion polls say? Most importantly really, we live in a democracy, shouldn't what the British public want count?

[scaramanga]

For, but only in extreme cases and in the face of unequivocal guilt.

Today's unequivocal guilt is tomorrow's reasonable doubt. How many cases from the past have you seen being opened again because new forensic evidence not previously available has contradicted the case's outcome?

You can never be 100% certain so there will never be a case for capital punishment.

Even admission of guilt can be coaxed under duress.

[PwnDirect]

For

My moto is "bullets are cheaper than food"

Sums up my reasoning

[grimpy]

For, but only in extreme cases and in the face of unequivocal guilt.

What he said.

[Aden]

53 - 60..

Thats very close.

[Hologide]

For, but only in extreme cases. Especially where there is the possibility of re-offending, danger to other prisoners, potential to pass on an "evil" gene (should one exist, I'm not sure if one has been identified but I'm sure there are such genetics which make one prone to commiting horrendous acts).

For your standard "murder" I believe that a full life sentence, with periods of intense hard labour, particularly during the first few years of the sentence, is more appropriate. But not labour which will take away jobs from law abiding citizens. Menial work, like farming land which is poor and wouldn't normally be used.

[Repressor]

For - but only in the reason of mass murder and solid evidence.

Is there really a point in having people like that around?

[explicit4u]

i am only for the death penalty if the evidence doesn't need to be presented for someone to be convicted. By that i mean, you don't need a long description on why they did it, if you have something like CCTV where you can 100% make out the person and see them committing the crime, then i agree with the death penalty, other then that i am against it. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. If you take someone's life, so shall yours be taken.