-
Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Okay, this is just a quick poll and request which is the prelude to something else, but just curious. So if you have the time, please just drop in and leave your input.
The poll is simple - the death penalty - are you for or against it?
Please answer in the poll, and then write a very brief post as to why you hold that position.
The idea here isn't that you have to defend yourself, or that you should challenge others, but simply to collect data on opinions and reasons. I know it's a complex subject but as best you can try to boil it down to a few sentences at the most; the bottom line as it were.
Thanks.
G.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against - because it is possible to wrongly convict someone
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For, but only in extreme cases and in the face of unequivocal guilt.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against because nothing is 100% certain
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against - because of the risks of a wrong conviction. I also believe that a lifetime in jail is probably mental torture enough for a lot of people.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against, because if we're to be human then we should rise above the level of animals and the mob mentality.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0iD
For, but only in extreme cases and in the face of unequivocal guilt.
Agreed
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against.
Regardless of the possibility that you might wrongly convict someone, I just don't think it's right to kill other people if there's an alternative. :stop: And of course, that alternative is an excellent reality TV show called The Running Man! You're damaging to society? Bloody well pay back the debt you owe!
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
for.
prisons cost money, if there is 100% proof that the person is guilty then they should pay the price.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splash
Against, because if we're to be human then we should rise above the level of animals and the mob mentality.
this
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against, since there is always a possibility of wrongful conviction.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against. Primarily a matter of principle; I don't believe in killing for revenge, which is all that it is. Add in the racing certainty that innocent people WILL be executed, and that merely reinforces my position.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Im mixed mind about it. Against because as others have mentioned, its not always about revenge or "an eye for an eye" way of thinking, babaric times are long gone etc. The person may be wrongly convicted, may not have a healthy state of mind, may be under some kind of influence etc, may be young.
But then again were there is cases of people commiting crimes and havin no remorse, where the evidence is un-disputable/witnessed/fact etc and repeat offences. then yea those people deserve to go to hell.
plus its a good detterent.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splash
Against, because if we're to be human then we should rise above the level of animals and the mob mentality.
and again.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
I don't believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent but has the exact opposite effect.
I'll use Joe as an example. Joe shoots and kills his boss, he knows damn well what's going to happen to his neck if he gets caught, so he has nothing to loose...
A man with nothing to loose means everyone who stands in his way has everything to loose, the people who attempt to resuscitate his boss, an innocent pedestrian crossing the road, the police officers who try to arrest him.
This is one of the many reasons why I oppose the death sentence, the others have been covered above.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against. Can be put to better use (eg. slave labour).
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For. All 100% proven murderers, rapists, pedos etc.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HSK
plus its a good detterent.
countries with capital punishment are crime-free?
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Koolpc
For. All 100% proven murderers, rapists, pedos etc.
OK so the idea is not to challenge others but through the medium of funky colouring there is highlighted three separate glaring fallacies of simple pro-death penalty statements.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For - but only where guilt is proved 100%
Google Hanratty and see why.
Edit: Blimey - new evidence shows he was almost certainly guilty. Oh well...
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DDY
I don't believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent but has the exact opposite effect.
I'll use Joe as an example. Joe shoots and kills his boss, he knows damn well what's going to happen to his neck if he gets caught, so he has nothing to loose...
A man with nothing to loose means everyone who stands in his way has everything to loose, the people who attempt to resuscitate his boss, an innocent pedestrian crossing the road, the police officers who try to arrest him.
This is one of the many reasons why I oppose the death sentence, the others have been covered above.
What about thugs and yobs running the streets, shooting and stabbing others for little or no reason, would a death sentance make them think twice before mindless activity?
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
directhex
countries with capital punishment are crime-free?
Nuhuh, who said it would stop crime, and countries would become crime free. But i'm sure there is a percentage of people would at least think twice.
I think alot of these people don't think twice is because prison, means nothing them. life doesn't mean life.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For certain extreme categories of offence, and with a pretty stringent set of criteria, and certainly in principle ..... for. If anyone wants my actual reasoning, I suggest utilising the Search button, because I've been through it at length a couple of times at least, and I don't think I can face getting into it all again.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For, proof has to be 100%
Would not mind shipping them on the some unknown island in the middle of the ocean and leaving them there, but I'd rather not have two countries capable of whooping us in the ashes :D
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
No proof is 100%. Sometimes even confessions are fake... The best that can be legally proven is "beyond reasonable doubt"
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiM
No proof is 100%. Sometimes even confessions are fake... The best that can be legally proven is "beyond reasonable doubt"
What about video evidence, and lots of witnesses?
Then again they can be forged, I see your point.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiM
No proof is 100%. Sometimes even confessions are fake... The best that can be legally proven is "beyond reasonable doubt"
Hmmm.
The trouble there is that in and of itself, that is a deliberately vague term. How much doubt is "reasonable"?
Proof can, in my opinion, and in one case for which which I was on the jury, go WAY above that, with that just being the minimum standard necessary for conviction.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Personally I'm against the death penalty, because quite frankly, it's about getting revenge on the people who commit terrible crimes. It's also an "easy" way out for criminals, instead of spending 40+ years locked in a prison they get killed and it doesn't matter.
Finally, it's also bloody expensive to run, with all the appeals and the like the cost for the legal aid can run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. A Quick google shows that an execution can cost up to $3m per prisoner.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Lifers can expect a reasonable quality of life in prison, they get schooling, great helthcare, earn a (minimal) wage. Not Like it's hard labour. Now my best friend from school is 7 years in and has about 20 to do & it's no drama to him. He's just become institutionalised & now lives a comfortable life & wants for very little. Like he said recently, he has no stress about fuel prices, no mortgage worries, no job, no fear of losing his job etc. UK prisons, for the most part (not all, not by a long chalk), are soft.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against. We should be above revenge.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For.
They would need to make it punishable by death to falsify evidence in a court case where the defendant is facing the death penalty though.
IMO, there are way too many crimes and they are dealt with way too leniently these days. Something needs to be done to keep prison numbers down, the prospect of death for a violent crime could be a good deterrent and for those that flaunt the law still, we won't need to feed/cloth/heat them for 15-20 years.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against for the reasons put forward by Splash and Menthel.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For, over crowding in prisons, most people are guilty and will just reoffend, life in prison now means 20 odd years small life, give a deterrent to others.
My personal favorite would be to strip all prisons of anything they dont need games consoles sat tv, internet go back to the basics and stop sending them to butlins on our money god damn it.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
I think many of us who are against the death penalty would support tougher prison time (I know I would) but that's a different discussion.
The deterrent effect of the death penalty is disputed but the statistics would seem to suggest it actually makes the murder rate higher (see here for example.)
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
For. People don't have respect for life if they kill someone, so if the threat was if they get caught and convicted of murder they should be put to death as well.
I understand the concerns about wrongful conviction. I still think it should be enforced.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against (for civil crimes). War crimes/crimes against humanity (Hitler, Milosovic etc.) should be judged on a different scale.
Imprisonment = punishment, death = revenge - justice is not about revenge.
Possibility of wrongful conviction - no case can ever truely be cut and dry.
Doesn't work as a deterant - proven in US.
Doesn't lower overall costs - it costs far more to have prisoners on death row than normal prisoners, especially when you add on the additional legal costs that those sort of cases attract.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lucio
Personally I'm against the death penalty, because quite frankly, it's about getting revenge on the people who commit terrible crimes. It's also an "easy" way out for criminals, instead of spending 40+ years locked in a prison they get killed and it doesn't matter.
Finally, it's also bloody expensive to run, with all the appeals and the like the cost for the legal aid can run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. A Quick google shows that an execution can cost up to $3m per prisoner.
It's not necessarily about revenge. If you've got someone that has killed numerous times, and can never be released because they're likely to immediately do it again (and some convicted killers have asked never to be released precisely for that reason, as indeed, some have asked for the DP for that reason), then it isn't about revenge.
Conversely, you'll regularly get people saying they don't want the DP because it's too much of an easy out for convicted killers, and that instead, they want them to 'really suffer' by being locked up for decades, or the rest of their life. So you could just as easily argue that the DP is the 'humane' option, and that lifetime imprisonment is the way to go if you want revenge. And they can't both be true, can they?
And the cost argument doesn't work either, if you're basing it on US figures, because what you're citing the cost of is the US legal system, not the death penalty. Saddam Hussein had a death penalty too, and in involved getting dragged outside and shot. Net cost, about $0.05.
And no, I'm not advocating Saddam's method. But to use US costs does not mean it would cost that here, and nor does reducing costs imply a lack of justice, or the denying of due process, or appeals, etc. What it implies is designing a system that is designed to protect even the accused, while doing away with frivolous appeals lodged on all sorts of technical points that even the lawyers lodging them KNOW will not work. That is the situation is the US. Many of the appeals, which accounts for a large part of the delay and a large part of the cost, even by the lawyers filing them, are acknowledged to be merely delaying tactics to put off the inevitable. They aren't about winning appeals, because in many instances, they know they won't. It's about using the delay implied by the court's schedules and caseload to delay things by weeks or months at a time, while awaiting those appeals. So we design a system that prevents such frivolous time-wasting appeals while still allowing for serious appeals as part of the process.
While it's perfectly fair game for any lawyer fighting DP cases to use any legal manoeuvre he/she can to keep their client alive, it doesn't mean that we need to have a system that facilitates such legal manoeuvring.
The cost of a fair, reasonable and thorough due process will depend on exactly the design of that system. However, it is pretty possible to put a close figure on the cost of keeping someone locked up for decades, and it increases in latter years, due to increasing age and health issues. And, for some categories of killers (but not all), I'd far rather see that money spent on schools, hospitals or, if necessary, even on prisons for conventional offenders. As far as I'm concerned, there are categories of offence that are so heinous that by committing them, you so totally break the contract with society that society owes you nothing at all, including the continued right to exist.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splash
Against, because if we're to be human then we should rise above the level of animals and the mob mentality.
+1 for me.
Compassion and understanding, even in the face of horrendous crimes, is what separates us from the animals (and certain other cultures around the world).
As for saving money by killing people, that is just stupid.
The best way to save money is to deport ANYONE that isn't a born UK citizen back to their country of origin. Someone else can then foot the bill.
If they are a UK citizen, and a home owner or in holding of other assets, then strip them. Take everything they own to pay for their prison stay.
As for those that think its a deterent to have enforce the death penalty......what are you on about? Has the USA got a crime free society for example.
Its time to get tougher on the scum in our community but if you think the death penalty is the way forward then its time to take to the trees rather than live in civilisation.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitzen
....
As for saving money by killing people, that is just stupid.
The best way to save money is to deport ANYONE that isn't a born UK citizen back to their country of origin. Someone else can then foot the bill.
If they are a UK citizen, and a home owner or in holding of other assets, then strip them. Take everything they own to pay for their prison stay. ....
While we're talking about things being stupid, let's look at that one.
If the killer is totally isolated, then fine. I have no problem with seizing assets. But many are not. What do you do when the killer has a wife, and maybe kids? A home is then going to be a joint property. Why should the innocent wife (or husband, or partner) be slung out of their home because of the crimes of the killer? How is that justice? How does taking the home away from kids serve justice? After all, it wasn't the partner, or kids, that committed the offences that might carry the DP, was it?
So, back to the isolated killer. Seize the assets, if that's what the system requires. I don't have a problem with that. But it doesn't affect the fact that the killer is going to cost a fortune to keep securely locked up for decades. There's nothing to stop assets being seized, and perhaps used as compensation to his victims. For instance, where his acts deprived a family not only of their loved ones, but if that loved one was a bread-winner, of the income they'd have brought in. Or it could go to a Criminal Injuries Compensation fund.
However you look at, three things are immutable :-
- it costs a lot to keep people locked up.
- taxpayer funds are limited, and there's always plenty of other things to spend the money on
- if you spend millions caring for some of the worst psychopaths in our society, you aren't spending it where it'll do some real good.
Explain to me, if you will, just why it's "stupid" want to spend that money on health facilities, maybe on a children's unit, cancer research, care for the elderly, care for homeless, training for the long-term unemployed, etc, and instead, to spend it on those that are responsible for heinous crimes?
Personally, I can't think of many more useless ways to spend it than that.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitzen
+1 for me.
Compassion and understanding, even in the face of horrendous crimes, is what separates us from the animals (and certain other cultures around the world).
As for saving money by killing people, that is just stupid.
The best way to save money is to deport ANYONE that isn't a born UK citizen back to their country of origin. Someone else can then foot the bill.
If they are a UK citizen, and a home owner or in holding of other assets, then strip them. Take everything they own to pay for their prison stay.
As for those that think its a deterent to have enforce the death penalty......what are you on about? Has the USA got a crime free society for example.
Its time to get tougher on the scum in our community but if you think the death penalty is the way forward then its time to take to the trees rather than live in civilisation.
Interesting take. I seem to recall you were in the forces, right? Explains a lot.
How far back are you going to take this mass deportation plan of yours? You've never benefited from the fact that we have a "melting pot" culture? You've never enjoyed a good curry? Never listened to any music of black origin? I personally think it's wonderful that we have the mix of cultures that we have, however this obviously extends to the fact that people like the BNP are as entitled to their opinion asanyone else.
I'll say nothing more on the matter, this being requested as an "in brief" thread rather than a debate.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
“For” if it is confined to proven paedophiles, child killers and serial murderers. I would lose no sleep over someone like Ian Huntley for example.
CAN’T DO THAT?
“Against” because like other posters I would be concerned about condemning an innocent person. You also only have to look at countries which still have the death penalty to see it is not a deterrent.
I guess the alternative is a harsh prison regime and a life sentence meaning “for the rest of your life”.
I believe that the death penalty was only carried out on those judged to be sane. A future debate might be whether those who carry out horrendous crimes of murder are insane by the very fact that their acts are beyond those a sane person would commit. How do you differentiate between an act of evil and an act of insanity?
But I digress and we were asked to keep our replies brief. Sorry.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against, because the government mucks up any new legislation it brings in. Could you imagine the sort of muck up they'd make of something like the death penalty :o
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amalie
.....
But I digress and we were asked to keep our replies brief. Sorry.
It is, however, a forum specifically created for discussion, as the forum description specifies.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amalie
....
I believe that the death penalty was only carried out on those judged to be sane. A future debate might be whether those who carry out horrendous crimes of murder are insane by the very fact that their acts are beyond those a sane person would commit. How do you differentiate between an act of evil and an act of insanity? .....
In the UK, it's a matter for the judge at a trial to determine sanity, and it's a legal definition, not a medical one. if the person is judged insane, they don't have the mental ability to have committed the type of acts that would carry the DP.
Essentially, most criminal acts, and as far as I can remember, just about all serious and/or violent acts, require two elements, mens rea and actus reas. Simplistically put, the actus reas is whether the accused did the act. In other words, proving it was him wot did it. The means rea is the "guilty mind", in other words, that he knew he was doing it, had control over his actions and knew it was wrong.
If the accused is suffering from a sufficiently serious mental affliction that they are determined insane, they won't be tried, because they would be unfit to plead. In that event, they'll be dealt with under other procedures, which in the case of serious violent offences would probably result in hospitalisation order in a secure hospital.
But even if judged fit to plead, and to stand trial, you can still use the diminished responsibility defence. There are a number of ways in which that can be established, but it is based on medical evidence. And this time, it's a matter for the jury to decide, not the judge. If the accused is able to prove (and the defence has to prove it on the balance of probability) that at the time they committed the act, they were not responsible, then they can't be convicted of murder. Diminished responsibility reduces the offence to manslaughter.
So, when you consider is the mere fact that a horrible offence was carried out is in and of itself evidence that the person is insane, the answer will be no. But if you can establish they they were insane, or even not responsible, they aren't going to be convicted of an offence for which the DP is ever likely to apply, even in the very unlikely event it were to be brought back (in the UK and/or EU).
EDIT - oh, and there's limitations to using the "diminished responsibility" defence too. For instance, in and of itself, being so drunk that you didn't know what you were doing won't work. If you have serious physiological damage caused by drink, such as brain damage, that so badly impaired your mental faculties, well, that might. Alcohol or drugs don't absolve you, but long-term addiction to alcohol or drugs might. Despite being popular in written and TV fiction, diminished responsibility is actually pretty hard to prove, and doesn't often work. Also, as it's a matter for the jury, only in rare situations (such as Tony Martin) will the appeal court consider diminished responsibility if it wasn't brought up at trial, and if it was brought up at trial, it's a jury matter which appeal courts won't overrule.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Thank you Saracen. I usually just skim through long posts but not this one. Very interesting. Thank you for posting it.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
You're very welcome, Amalie. It was an interesting slant that you'd raised on the usual DP issues .
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Damn well against, we should not be removing the problem by killing someone, we should investigate the root problem of what went and caused them to commit a crime in the first place. People are not born murderers, rapists etc.
I'm quite suprised at the amount of people for the death penalty on here! Kind of scares me a bit eeeek! :s.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Well it should be an option, for some specific cases.
I'm thinking of heinous crimes - child murder, mass murder, terrorist acts, where guilt is not in doubt, and the only alternative is to keep the criminal or criminals in custody for the rest of their natural life, at vast expense.
I'm thinking of the Moors Murderers (murderer now), Yorkshire Ripper, etc. These people can never be released, their guilt is not in doubt, and they will simply linger in a cell until they die. I would have no problem, no problem at all, if these people were killed, by the state, via lethal injection.
I'd not loose any sleep over it, and I'd wake up still considering myself civilized.
If you are a Guardian reader type, who would shed a tear for the passing of a child murderer, you can always form some sort of club where you can bleat to each other about how uncivilized it was of society to humanely put these animals to death.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splash
Interesting take. I seem to recall you were in the forces, right? Explains a lot.
How far back are you going to take this mass deportation plan of yours? You've never benefited from the fact that we have a "melting pot" culture? You've never enjoyed a good curry? Never listened to any music of black origin? I personally think it's wonderful that we have the mix of cultures that we have, however this obviously extends to the fact that people like the BNP are as entitled to their opinion asanyone else.
I'll say nothing more on the matter, this being requested as an "in brief" thread rather than a debate.
Why does me being ex-forces explain alot?
It has nothing to do with it so i am not sure what you are imagining.
I never said anything about any kind of mass deprtation either so how your mind works is very mysterious. I love a good curry.......i also like music from black origins....once again, absolutely NOTHING to do with my comment.
A BNP comment aswell............in your mind am i also associated with that?
Come on.....at least engage your brain a little.
I dont care whether the criminal is originally from ANYWHERE in the world. I said nothing at all regarding any particualr faith/culture/country which is obviously what you are fishing for.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Blitzen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzen
The best way to save money is to deport ANYONE that isn't a born UK citizen back to their country of origin. Someone else can then foot the bill.
What were you just saying about not suggesting mass deportion?
It certainly reads that way, although I - when I reread it - presumed that you meant people that committed crimes.
Out of interest, what about second-generation families? Those that have now had children born and brought up in the UK? If their first-generation parents were to commit a crime, would the whole family be deported? If the second-generation children were to break the law, would they be deported?
Same question applies to any foreign family actually.. if one member of the family commits a crime, are all of them punished for it?
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
It certainly reads that way, although I - when I reread it - presumed that you meant people that committed crimes.
Thats exactly what i meant. Certainly not just deport everyone :) Splash read what he wanted to read rather than actually think about what i put.
Quote:
Out of interest, what about second-generation families? Those that have now had children born and brought up in the UK? If their first-generation parents were to commit a crime, would the whole family be deported? If the second-generation children were to break the law, would they be deported?
Same question applies to any foreign family actually.. if one member of the family commits a crime, are all of them punished for it?
No...just the offender.
Then, if the immediate family of the criminal decides to stay or leave with the offender its their choice. This is the same as it being the offenders choice to put his/hers family in this awkward predicament in the first place. People may think about their actions more then.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7688929.stm
For people like this, I think it is wholly justified.
The only real monsters in this world are all human.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Bloody rotten.. :(
Instinctively, I agree - execute the @#!* - but I don't like my gut reaction and I'd argue the law and justice should also be from a slightly higher place.
Hard though it is to have a rational consideration given scum like this. Even as I'm typing this I'm hoping he'll be getting regular kickings in prison but again, that's a visceral, human reaction.
Human beings suck. :(
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
See, you convince yourself that for people like that, your instinct says hang the animal, then you realise the civilised thing to do is keep him alive, try to understand why he did what he did, rehabilitate, etc.
The correct, and therefore civilised thing to do to people like that, is to humanely and as painlessly as possible, give them a one way ticket.
Allowing people like that to carry on with their lives, the only difference being they are locked up at night in a cell, is not civilised.
Being civilised does not mean failing to act, and it does not mean being unable to carry out harsh punishments.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
I hear ya but my main problem with the death penalty is the error factor. I can't remember the exact name of the programme it was a show I watched as a teenager called something like 30 Days in May and it followed a guy in the USA who was sent to the gas chamber. The evidence against him was, at best, flimsy and he was subsequently shown to have been innocent of the charge. It was an extremely depressing programme and set me against the death penalty as a result.
Now the scumbag referred to above arguably deserves death and there are probably many more like him but is it worth the risk of even a hundred scumbags for the inevitable innocent life that will end up getting lost? That's the risk and for me, it's not a risk we should be taking. Ostensibly, as a civilised society I don't think it's something we should do that's why I don't trust my gut, human reaction (which is that this @#*! should be strung-up from the nearest tree.)
I suppose it also depends on what justice is supposed to achieve - punishment, rehabilitation or both? Vengeance?
Interestingly (or not) a good friend of mine does something like social work (child care and the like.) She's come from an extremely abusive childhood and went into her career to help people and do what she can to stop others experiencing the kind of upbringing she had. We often argue about some of the people she deals with (many of whom are - let me be charitable - scrounging, violent, chavtastic ratbags) and how they should be treated. I take the Devil's Advocate position that they shouldn't be helped but they should be punished. She always takes the difficult background and other mitigating circumstances. Now she's more qualified than I am (professionally and from her own background - my childhood was about as close to ideal as you can get) and I noticed the murdering scumbag cited above is in the lowest 1% intelligence bracket. Not an excuse, not an explanation or a reason but as my instinct is that he should have something similar done to him I would rather the State took a more intellectually cool position than my own. Would justice be done by executing him? Possibly, I'm not sure (my inner voice would wish him good riddance) but I wouldn't like to be part of a modern Britain who does this.
Please excuse this discursive and possibly contradictory post - I'm heavily dosed-up on Lemsips and such due to a slight touch of Black Death at the moment.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
I hear you Pollaxe, it's oh so difficult to be objective about such an emotive subject.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splash
Against, because if we're to be human then we should rise above the level of animals and the mob mentality.
Yeah, but let's face it: what percentage of the human populace is actually human?
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Well we will just have to lock him up in a cell at night then, allow him to live his life, eat, drink, relax, think, watch a bit of telly, blah, blah.
After all, why should he loose anything more than his freedom? He only murdered a baby by snapping its spine in half.
Lets not get uncivilised about it.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiM
Against. Can be put to better use (eg. slave labour).
I Like that idea.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stewart
Well we will just have to lock him up in a cell at night then, allow him to live his life, eat, drink, relax, think, watch a bit of telly, blah, blah.
After all, why should he loose anything more than his freedom? He only murdered a baby by snapping its spine in half.
Lets not get uncivilised about it.
Just like Ian Brady, Ian Huntley and the multitude of other scumbags we are paying for, of course.
I don't like the idea any more than you do but I believe our judicial system is not good enough to prevent miscarriages of justice and for me, even one innocent life lost would not be a fair trade. Is that a price you think is worth paying in society? I asked above what your idea of justice is, I'd be interested to hear it. Would you think justice would be better served by the swift, painless, humane method of execution you proposed or make him hurt before he goes out? Or, would a lifetime (or at least decades) of punishment be more appropriate for what he's done, do you think?
Unfortunately, I agree with what you've posted above regarding what's probably going to happen to him and I'm afraid that he'll have it far, far too easy in prison or institution. A cushy number with lots of psychiatrists trying to find out about his childhood etc. If it were up to me I would like prison time for certain offences (this filth for example) to be really hard time. Hard labour and the years spent there as punishment not a chance for reform and to reintegrate into society. Some people are never going to be rehabilitated. That's a related but slightly different matter about what we're talking about here though and it also throws up other questions about dealing with prisoners and ultimately what they're in prison for (hence why I asked what your idea of justice is.)
So, hard though it may be to bear at times I do think it's a sacrifice worth making and - rightly or wrongly - yes, I do think the fact that we don't execute criminals makes us more civilised than a society that does.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Well as I said, my idea of justice is that, for certain cases, terrible crimes, where guilt is not in doubt, Bradey, Huntley, the Yorkshire Ripper, etc, the death penalty is far better than a life in a reasonably cushy prison at tax payers expense.
I've never understood the mindset of people who think that you have human rights simply by being human and being alive. Human rights are for people who act decently.
Also the idea that we must not take revenge... why not? Its probably easier to say we must not take revenge if you are not murdered as a child in cold blood. Revenge as a punishment makes perfect sense.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
30 days in May - I remember that programme too. I thought the guy had admitted to being the "look out" - he was a teenager at the time and was in his thirties when the programme was made - that is just my recollection, I may be wrong.
Anyway, I was looking on the internet to see if I could check this when I came across this site - it gives the details of life on Death Row, statistics etc. Far from saving the taxpayer money, a death row prisoner can spend many years in jail before the execution takes place.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/#Top
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amalie
.....
Anyway, I was looking on the internet to see if I could check this when I came across this site - it gives the details of life on Death Row, statistics etc. Far from saving the taxpayer money, a death row prisoner can spend many years in jail before the execution takes place.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/#Top
That does NOT show what the cost implications of the DP are, though. It shows what the cost implications of the US judicial system and their DP are. But we don't have the US judicial system. See this post earlier in the thread.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
That does NOT show what the cost implications of the DP are, though. It shows what the cost implications of the
US judicial system and their DP are. But we don't have the US judicial system. See
this post earlier in the thread.
But if we had the death penalty here, would we not allow appeals which take time and in the meantime we would have to provide accommodation, food, prison staff etc. Keeping a prisoner imprisoned for several years would be expensive but, on the other hand, without the benefit of appeal we risk executing someone who may be innocent.
I do take your point though and don't imagine that we would ever have the equivalent of Death Row here but I thought the website gave an interesting view of the US judicial system if only to show that the death penalty does not deter others (i.e the register of prisoners and crimes committed). I don't think the death penalty worked here either, if someone is going to commit a crime such as murder, they probably do not think about the consequences.
Having said all that, reading about James Howson yesterday - the monster who, over a period of time, attacked his baby daughter before finally putting her over his knee and breaking her back - it does make you think that a lethal injection for this type of lowlife is not such a bad idea after all.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amalie
But if we had the death penalty here, would we not allow appeals which take time and in the meantime we would have to provide accommodation, food, prison staff etc. Keeping a prisoner imprisoned for several years would be expensive but, on the other hand, without the benefit of appeal we risk executing someone who may be innocent.
I do take your point though and don't imagine that we would ever have the equivalent of Death Row here but I thought the website gave an interesting view of the US judicial system if only to show that the death penalty does not deter others (i.e the register of prisoners and crimes committed). I don't think the death penalty worked here either, if someone is going to commit a crime such as murder, they probably do not think about the consequences.
Oh, we'd certainly have a process of appeals, and it'd need to be a thorough one. But we don't have the US system. For a start, we don't have a written constitution the way the US does. And while, in many ways, the constitution is a good thing, it does present plenty of opportunities for lawyers to mount challenges.
Bear in mind, a LOT of the appeals that are mounted over DP cases in the US aren't mounted with any hope or expectation that the appeal will succeed. Some, naturally, are, but a lot are procedural. A lot also seek to hunt out any minor constitutional issue that hasn't previously been resolved and challenge it. Not challenge it because it casts any dount on guilt or innocence, but because it can be challenged.
And, if it's challenged, it will take time to hear. How long depends on the nature of the issue, but some issues go through several hearings and, potentially, right up to the US Supreme Court, and that can take years. Meantime, the DP finds itself on hold, and that is what leads to some Death Row inmates being there for years.
Okay, I hear people saying, if there's an issue to be decided, it needs to be decided before the DP is carried out. Well, true, but the US system is set up in such a way that there are DP lawyers that use the appeal system simply as a delaying tactic. As I said, they appeal knowing that it won't work, but also knowing that it will take time. That isn't my assumption, by the way. Some of those DP lawyers have taken part in TV documentaries, or written articles, where they've stated that that is the objection. In other words, it isn't about the case in hand, it's about delaying the punishment because they believe that, regardless of what the law says, and regardless of the offence, and regardless of the offender, that the DP is wrong in all circumstances.
Well, they're entitled to hold that view. And they're entitled to use the law to achieve that end if they do it legally, and as far as I'm aware, they do do it legally. But they're playing the system, using technicalities rather than respecting the clear intent of the law. And that is why when we don't use the US system of jurisprudence, we can't use the costs attached to it to determine what costs would be here.
Amalie, I'm not saying what costs would be here. We can't know what they'd be without knowing what the system would be, and especially what the appeals process would be and if there'd be any special provisions given the permanence of the penalty. I can't honestly see how it could be as high as the US given that our system is nothing like as obtuse as the US system, but until or unless we have laws, we can't know what it's cost.
My point, however, is that the US costs aren't a viable way to assess costs here.
And let me give you another example of differing systems. The rules regarding admissibility of evidence are very different here to in the US. The US uses a principle called the fruit of the poisoned tree, the metaphor being that if tree is poisoned, so is the fruit. For instance, if a confession is obtained as a result of illegally obtained evidence, is the confession admissible? In the US, it is not. It's a constitutional amendment to protect Fourth Amendment rights.
In the UK, the situation is very different.
Suppose evidence is obtained by a wire tap. When confronted with such evidence in a police interview, the accused confesses. So, now you're got a recording that was obtained illegally, and a confession that might only have been obtained because of the recording. In the US, the jury will never hear, or indeed know of, the confession or the recording.
As I understand the law (and any lawyers on here may correct me), in the UK, the recording would probably be inadmissible, but the confession probably wouldn't be. It would be admissible unless it either fell foul of s.78 of PACE, or unless the judge felt it would have such an effect on fairness as to be inadmissible.
Now, let's get back to those US constitutional appeals. Suppose it was found that whoever filled in the form requesting authorisation for that wiretap put the date in the wrong box, or put 1st January 2007 when it should have been 1st Jan, 2008? Is the wiretap legal? Well, there's a matter for appeal, if that didn't come out at trial. And if it does mean the wiretap was illegal, then in the US, not only does the wiretap go but so does the confession. Yet, has it made any material difference to whether the accused committed the crime, or to the nature of the crime?
Similar provisions relate to the results of searches.
US rules on admissibility are very complex, and being no lawyer, I'm certainly not overly familiar with them. But there are rules, for instance, about who can be searched in a car, and under what circumstances. Suppose police pull a car over for a "traffic" violation. The car has a passenger, and the passenger is guilty of something. Can the police search the passenger? And, if the stop was illegal, can the passenger challenge the search, or can only the driver challenge it? Because, if the search was illegal, nothing found in it can be used. According to the California Supreme Court, only the driver can challenge the stop. If that's the case, the police can stop any car, legally or otherwise, and anything found on the passenger would not be fruit of the poisoned tree because the driver would be the only one that could challenge the search, so the Fourth Amendment poisoned tree logic would not protect passengers.
But what if the passenger was a fugitive already? What if a warrant was already in existence for his arrest?
What if the basis for stopping the car was illegal, but the passenger was not only wanted (say, for burglary), but was carrying a gun that he'd used to murder a family during a burglary, and a video of him raping and torturing the victims before killing them? Would it be that, because the search was illegal, the gun and video would be excluded, but perhaps because warrant already existed, the detention of the burglar was legal, or would a wanted felon be freed because the whole search was illegal, only to be rearrested on the steps of the courthouse as he left court?
That, incidentally, was based on a real case, though the passenger was convicted of drug offences, and I've made up the gun, etc, and the burglary. And the US Supreme Court overturned the California court.
Which, in itself, brings me to another difference between US and UK legal systems. For anything other than minor offences (such as locally enforced parking violations, littering, rubbish-dumping, etc) the UK has national laws, at least in relation to England and Wales. Scotland's a bit different in some regards and N. Ireland has a few quirks too. But, for major offences and certainly including anything that the DP might apply to, either you're in the jurisdiction of the English (and Welsh) courts, or the Scottish Courts. In the US, you might find yourself in a case that appears to be the subject of State courts, but then turns into a Federal (national) case. Or, like that example above, the offence (drugs) might be a State issue, but the implications of either issues that crop up at trial, or procedural matters, might be Federal, or might end up going past a State's Supreme Court and up the the US Supreme Court.
We don't have the same State and Federal distinctions as the US, and we don't have the same jurisdictional issues between then, let alone constitutional ones.
Anyway, I hope that's given some flavour of why I say that any cost figures associated with how the DP works in the US aren't a valid guide to how it would work over here. It's why I said the costs are based on the system, and we have a very, very different system here. Many of the basic principles are the same, largely because the US system drew heavily on the UK system when it was created, but it's gone it's own way since in a number of absolutely fundamental areas, such as the poisoned tree logic. Our system is, basically, diametrically opposite to the US system in that regard.
Incidentally, while I support the use of the DP here, in specific types of cases and with necessary safeguards, I think the whole question is academic, because I don't think it'll ever come back. It would certainly require either that the UK leave the EU, or that the EU make a fundamental shift in policy, and while the former is a vague (and probably undesirable) possibility, the latter is something I'd bet won't happen in my lifetime or the vaguely foreseeable future. So it's all hypothetical about what it might cost, because I don't see it happening any time soon, if ever.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
I'm against it for several reasons:
1. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing a human being is capable of which means that they forfeit the right to life.
2. Institutional killings lower society to the same level as the murderer.
3. It is rarely possible to prove something 100%, and even when they did do it, there may be underlying reasons for the crime- eg. Ruth Ellis suffered from a mental illness and was abused by her husband.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitzen
Thats exactly what i meant. Certainly not just deport everyone :) Splash read what he wanted to read rather than actually think about what i put.
It may well have been what you intended to imply, but the wording seems pretty blunt to me. It makes no mention of any kind of offending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
The best way to save money is to deport ANYONE that isn't a born UK citizen back to their country of origin. Someone else can then foot the bill.
As I said in my post: you're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else here, but please don't accuse me of reading some secret message between the lines when I was doing anything but.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
But Splash.. when we're talking about penalties and crimes, surely you should take that context into it?
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Were it not for the fact that the word ANYONE was in capitals I would probably have assumed that's what Blitzen meant, however the stress implied on the word suggested otherwise to me. On top of that it's a discussion about capital punishment, not the nationality of the criminals incarcerated in our jails.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Definitely FOR the death penalty in certain circumstances.
In 1996 a certain Thomas Hamilton walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and slaughtered 16 children aged between 5 and 6 years old, plus their teacher. If he had lived (he shot himself) he would have been imprisoned for life, possibly in a mental institution, at huge financial cost to society.
If my dog bit a child that dog would be painlessly 'destroyed'. To my mind the likes of Hamilton are less worthy of life than my dog. Killers such as this, and there have been many examples in recent years (though perhaps not as extreme), should be executed, not as a punishment, not as a deterrent, but simply to permanently remove them from society.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against.
Not convinced by any stats to show there's less violent crime in places that have the death penalty so can't see the deterrent aspect. Seems to be society getting it's revenge which makes me a bit uncomfortable, call me an old liberal softy.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
There's no going back once you have sentenced someone to death, the wrongly convicted have no chance
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fortunate Son
There's no going back once you have sentenced someone to death, the wrongly convicted have no chance
Of course there's going back after you've sentenced someone to death, and the wrongly convicted have an appeals process.
It's a bit trickier going back after sentence has been carried out though, but that will be some time later.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Against because, as has been said, sometimes innocent people get executed. I also foolishly believe that society has a part to play, willingly or not, in the creation of those individuals who commit monstrous acts, and as such should bear the cost of its own existence.
I know, horrible flaws in my logic, but it's an emotive subject, and I find it difficult to be objective over it.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dogz
Against.
Not convinced by any stats to show there's less violent crime in places that have the death penalty so can't see the deterrent aspect. Seems to be society getting it's revenge which makes me a bit uncomfortable, call me an old liberal softy.
I'm in complete agreement.
Also, how many innocent people have been "posthumously pardoned" from back in the day when Britain did have capital punishment?
I find capital punishment as savage and barbaric as the crimes committed by those being punished.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splash
Against, because if we're to be human then we should rise above the level of animals and the mob mentality.
Darwin would like to have a word with you. ;)
Personally, I'm for it. The bleeding-heart liberal mindset that is so widespread these days sickens me. I remember a time when people still had the b--, er, guts to do what was needed, even if it were distasteful or hurt somebody's over-sensitive feelings. That's what's wrong with the world today...
Prison time is a foolish notion for truly horrible crimes (like where 30+ years to life come into play) which, in the end, only penalizes the law-abiding citizen, since they have to pay for it. Parole should also be abolished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thestjohn
I also foolishly believe that society has a part to play, willingly or not, in the creation of those individuals who commit monstrous acts, and as such should bear the cost of its own existence.
Bull. Society does not create monsters; each man/woman is responsible for his or her own actions. If they willingly break the law, they lose *all* "rights" granted by that law (other than right to a fair trial, etc.). Other than that, I don't believe in criminals having rights unless they prove their innocence. Why should they enjoy protection under the law when they willingly violated the security granted to others?
As for the ones too stupid to know Right from Wrong...good riddance. These would not have survived without excessive aid anyways (Darwinism), and even then its unlikely. This sort of dead weight being removed from the equation only serves to improve the species as a whole. ^_^ The less time spent on fools, the better; Nature would have done the job eventually anyways.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
2Cold Scorpio
Personally, I'm for it. The bleeding-heart liberal mindset that is so widespread these days sickens me. I remember a time when people still had the b--, er, guts to do what was needed, even if it were distasteful or hurt somebody's over-sensitive feelings. That's what's wrong with the world today...
And what happens when the police knock on your door, your lawyer fails you, you're tried, convicted and hanged for a crime you had absolutely nothing to do with? Who are your grieving family going to cry to then?
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
While I'm not familiar with *all* of Darwin's theories I don't really see how "survival of the fittest" applies here. Based purely on that the murderer is a more fit person to survive than the victim.
Or is there some other theory you're hinting at?
As for
Quote:
If they willingly break the law, they lose *all* "rights" granted by that law (other than right to a fair trial, etc.)
They lose "all" rights, except the ones you decide they get to keep? This isn't Guantanamo Bay or Mega City One, y'know...
I did try to keep within the remit of this thread (ie to keep it brief), but the nature of this kind of discussion seems contrary to that...
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
2Cold Scorpio
Darwin would like to have a word with you. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Splash
While I'm not familiar with *all* of Darwin's theories I don't really see how "survival of the fittest" applies here. Based purely on that the murderer is a more fit person to survive than the victim.
Actually Darwin never specifically applied his theories to humans at all so I doubt he'd have much to say at all.
And there's a theory that since we now have the ability to extensively manipulate ourselves and our environment we've effectively thrown off a lot of the effects of Darwinian evolution. What little effect it still does have on us certainly can't justify killing people in the name of justice, Darwin would be turning in his grave for suggesting something like that!
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Personally I'd like to see some of our prisons go the same way as the methods introducted by Joe Arpaio:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Arpaio began to serve inmates surplus food including outdated and oxidized green bologna[12] and limited meals to twice daily. Meal costs would be reduced to 90 cents per day; as of 2007 Arpaio states that he has managed to reduce costs to 30 cents per day. Certain food items were banned from the county jail, mainly coffee (which also reduced "coffee attacks" on corrections officers), but later salt and pepper were removed from the jail (at a purported taxpayer savings of $20,000/year).
Arpaio banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing them, or harassed the officers by comparing their anatomy to the nude photos in the publications; the ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.[13]
Smoking and weightlifting equipment were also banned. Entertainment was limited to G-rated movies; the cable TV system (mandated by court order)[citation needed] was blocked by Arpaio to limit viewing to those stations Arpaio deems to be "educational", mainly Animal Planet, Disney Channel, The Weather Channel, A&E, CNN, and the local government access channel.
Personally I'd like to see that people who are doing time, actually having a hard time of it rather than living in relative luxury (and by this I mean better standards of living than some less well off people in our country)
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
"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."
Quote:
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..
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Salazaar
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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? :O_o1:
4. Make jail a place for people to truly fear. Cable TV? Comfy bed? Decent food? Recreational facilities? I don't think so.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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..
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
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 :D
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mediaboy
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!
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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)
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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)
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ypnos
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ypnos
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ypnos
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
badass
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?). :mrgreen: If we gotta pay to house and feed them for decades on end, I say get your money's worth out of 'em!
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
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.
-
Re: Death Penalty Poll - In Brief
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Funkstar
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.