capital punishment

[DIFFBROOK]

What has upset me is that I adopted a little girl. Her mother was in the lowest of the IQ bands, her partner was a nasty piece of work. I just thank God that Social Services did their job.

I'm gonna give my little girl another hug tonight.

Getting back to what this thread is about. I dont agree with Capital Punishment. He should certainly die in Prison, never be let out.

 

[Brian Fantana]

Stil answer my quetion that I keep on putting to you and everyone whom is anti capital punishment.

Give me one good reason why the person that killed today should NOT be executed.

Why? He is as guilty as hell.

You are going to say that I am dodging the question again but I don't believe in punishing a death with a death.

 

[User removed 4]

If you're prepared to kill someone I dont really see how an electric chair will influence much. Murders are not reknown for their mental stability and rational thinking.

Show me some research and I might change my mind.

I have to say refer to my other post when i suggested an american style grading system, because some murders are indeed comitted by rational , mentally stable people, these are the people i think would be deterred by the death penalty. And on the subject of research, i fail to see how you can accurately record people who WOULD have been deterred by the death penalty, only those who obviously werent.

 

[simmo]

You are going to say that I am dodging the question again but I don't believe in punishing a death with a death.

So there is no reason at all then. You cannot give me one good reason why he should not.

Yet I can give you a good reason why he should. If it deters just ONE, just ONE potential murderer then it is worth it. Because that is one innocent life saved.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Give me one good reason why the person that killed today should NOT be executed.

Because killing people is wrong. And the state actually killing legitimises killing and brutalises society, which presumably isn't the aim. And no system of government has any moral right or mandate whatsoever to put a systematic process in motion to end to one of its own people's lives.

Quite simple really, IMHO. But then I don't express a sinister - almost masturbatorily - salivating over the prospect of a pointless form of revenge, unlike some on here.

 

[Brian Fantana]

So there is no reason at all then. You cannot give me one good reason why he should not.

Yet I can give you a good reason why he should. If it deters just ONE, just ONE potential murderer then it is worth it. Because that is one innocent life saved.

You don't see my point as sufficient reason and if I don't see yours as sufficient either.

Let's leave it at that.

 

[simmo]

Because killing people is wrong. And the state actually killing legitimises killing and brutalises society, which presumably isn't the aim. And no system of government has any moral right or mandate whatsoever to put a systematic process in motion to end to one of its own people's lives.

Quite simple really, IMHO. But then I don't express a sinister - almost masturbatorily - salivating over the prospect of a pointless form of revenge, unlike some on here.

So we shouldn't have armed forces then. That is the state killing other people.

Our state can't kill guilty as hell child murderers, but it can bomb innocent Johnny Foreigner to smitherens.

 

[simmo]

You don't see my point as sufficient reason and if I don't see yours as sufficient either.

Let's leave it at that.

Why because you have no response to it.

 

[User removed 4]

Good point but I think that the majority of murderers genuinely think they'll get away with the act, however twisted that logic may be. Spur of the momonet murders are typical of this. I do think that for all the justifiable uproar over knife crimes I'd like the perpitrators to know that instead of being able to walk out of prison in a few years time they face the very real prospect of the rest of their lives behind bars.

The death penalty is about revenge and I have to say that I'm sure I'd be happy to send somebody who murdered somebody dear to me to their death, I think that's a not unatural situation. However, it still won't bring the victim back will it ?

i think that if life truly meant life and in relatively harsh conditions then i think most people, myself included would be happy to not reintroduce the death penalty.

 

[bhaexpress]

Your logic is completely wrong in the first half of your comment.

People will kill whether there is a death penalty or not. If you brought back the death penalty tomorrow in the UK there would still be murders. It is the level of murders that will be reduced because some potential murderers will be detered.

I am not certain how many murders there are in the UK per year, my guess would be around 1000, if you brought back the death penalty tomorrow I think that figure would be around 900. Thus saving 100 completely innocent lives.

Please, please, please do not bring the USA into this coversation and the death penalty, the USA does have the death penatly and it does have a lot more murders but that is because they have a clause in their constitution that allows any individual to carry a gun, therefore more people are shot dead in an argument rather than get a slap in the face in the UK.

You can only compare the same country before and after (usually abolition), for a much better example look at South Africa and how the murder rates soared after it abolished the death penalty in the early 90's

You're just suggesting this without any tangible proof by your own admission. I really don't think it would make any difference and remember, if we still had a death penalty there's a strong possibility that several convicted then pardoned 'IRA Terrorists' would be dead by now. That's the other major flaw with the death penalty.

 

[simmo]

You're just suggesting this without any tangible proof by your own admission. I really don't think it would make any difference and remember, if we still had a death penalty there's a strong possibility that several convicted then pardoned 'IRA Terrorists' would be dead by now. That's the other major flaw with the death penalty.

Look at the murder rates in South Africa, before and after the death penalty was abolished in the early 90's. If you want tangible proof of evidence of whether the death penalty is a dterent or not.

Also look up the murder rates in the UK after the death penalty was abolished in the 60's.

 

[Man of Harveys]

So we shouldn't have armed forces then. That is the state killing other people.

Our state can't kill guilty as hell child murderers, but it can bomb innocent Johnny Foreigner to smitherens.

I might well be flattering you here but if you're implying that state methods of war shouldn't be deployed at anything other than times of extreme threat to that state, then I'd entirely agree with you.

 

[SNOOBS]

I can't understand how somebody can say a person who has killed another shouldn't be killed themself.
I don't however believe he should be executed though, he should be locked up for much longer than 22 years, in a cell with no luxuries at all.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Look at the murder rates in South Africa, before and after the death penalty was abolished in the early 90's. If you want tangible proof of evidence of whether the death penalty is a dterent or not.

Also look up the murder rates in the UK after the death penalty was abolished in the 60's.

There are a hell of a lot of other factors that have gone into South Africa to produce that figure! Its not based purely on the abolotion of the death penalty.

As for your assumption that there are more murders in the US because they all carry guns, Canada has more guns legally owned than the US yet it has a lower murder rate than the UK AND the US. Doesnt support your logic does it sunshine!

 

[SNOOBS]

Look at the murder rates in South Africa, before and after the death penalty was abolished in the early 90's. If you want tangible proof of evidence of whether the death penalty is a dterent or not.

Also look up the murder rates in the UK after the death penalty was abolished in the 60's.

Can you not just show them to us

 

[simmo]

I might well be flattering you here but if you're implying that state methods of war shouldn't be deployed at anything other than times of extreme threat to that state, then I'd entirely agree with you.

In a nutshell I believe that our armed forces do cause state sponsered killings, sometimes these individuals sadly are innocent.

I do not see why anti's have qualms about our same state killing individuals like the person today, whom is clearly guilty.

 

[El Presidente]

Can you let me know how exactly i inferred that if he had killed her in a "nice" way,or a pensioner etc then he wouldnt be worthy of execution ? As it happens there are no acceptable forms of murder , but i would agree with an amercian style "grading" , ie murder one/two ,and an appropriate scaling of punishment.

You called for this particular murderer to have the rope, but not for other killers. In doing so you are implying that he should be singled out for state execution, and thus his taking of the life of an innocent is somehow 'worse' than another murderer.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on the hanging issue, just trying to tie up some of the loose ends.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

In a nutshell I believe that our armed forces do cause state sponsered killings, sometimes these individuals sadly are innocent.

I do not see why anti's have qualms about our same state killing individuals like the person today, whom is clearly guilty.

I think intention is the clear thing-by implementing the death penalty the state is clearly intending to kill someone. Nobody sets out to kill civilians in war (except the Americans)

 

[El Presidente]

RobinWooley avoids the subject, however, I will open up this question to anyone whom is vehemently opposed to capital punishment.

Please give me one good reason why this person should NOT be executed.

I can give you one reason why he should, because it may stop someone else doing a similar crime becuase of the punishment they would have to face. If it just stops one killing then would it not be worth it?

Presumably you would also bring back the rope for anyone who kills another person through speeding in a car, or by using a mobile phone whilst driving and killing someone as a result. It would certainly act as a deterrent.

 

[simmo]

There are a hell of a lot of other factors that have gone into South Africa to produce that figure! Its not based purely on the abolotion of the death penalty.

As for your assumption that there are more murders in the US because they all carry guns, Canada has more guns legally owned than the US yet it has a lower murder rate than the UK AND the US. Doesnt support your logic does it sunshine!

Do you know any South Africans, why don't you ask them why they are over here. Have you ever been to South Africa? it is now the most violent country in the world, it wasn't always like that you know. Ask South Afircans what they think.

Canada's population is probably one tenth of the USA, also they will use those guns for hunting no doubt, part and parcel of the rural society they live in, nice try to get me on a technicality.

Look up the rates on google etc. very easy to find concerning murder rates before and after abolition in South Africa and in the UK, post abolition.

In any case am off now, have a good weekend and come on the Seagulls!