Death Penalty

[clapham_gull]

however life, should mean life.

Doesn't need to. You can detain someone indefinitely.

I'm quite happy about a "life" sentence meaning 20 years, whilst the other more severe one is in place.

 

[Waynflete]

I feel judges should sentence based on the effect of a crime, not just the technical offence itself.

I've always found this an interesting point. As you say, currently judges do take the effects into account, and intuitively that makes some sense.

I can't help but feel it's a bit strange though. What if you hit someone in your car while speeding and injure them very badly. You may wish with all your heart for that person to make a full recovery, but there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Whether they survive will depend on how they fall, how quickly an ambulance gets there, the quality of medical care they receive - none of which you can control.

If that person subsequently dies, you will face a much worse punishment than if they survive, even though your offence (hitting someone while speeding) remains exactly the same.

Maybe that's just how it goes sometimes, but can't help feeling it's a bit strange. (Obviously, the way to avoid this is not to speed and hit a pedestrian in the first place.)

 

[Bisto]

Please let us not go into the 'lets quote scripture' cul-de-sac.

As a student of Cottesmore and Cardinal Newman, old and new testament reading was brow-beaten into us and I can tell you that for every moral statement and story there is a counter statement or story.................... I know let us 'turn the other cheek' let everyone off and close all the prisons!

There is a nucleus of personalities that are flawed by the socially accepted norms and that have no aspiriation or ability to change.
They do not sit there in prison, remorseful of what was done at thier hands and understanding that there is another path. Some know no different due to their lifetime experiences and some are psychologically wired in such a way that prevents logical and moral thought in the way society assumes is correct.

The media particularly TV, show selective dipictions of prison life that creates false realities in the mind of the general public. Some people are evil (through nature or nurture I am not sure).

We have to protect the wider society not as a deterant to others but as a termination to ensure that Human Right extremists never inflict their presence into society again and this is why I believe that in some cases inmates should be considered for execution!

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Please let us not go into the 'lets quote scripture' cul-de-sac.

As a student of Cottesmore and Cardinal Newman, old and new testament reading was brow-beaten into us and I can tell you that for every moral statement and story there is a counter statement or story.................... I know let us 'turn the other cheek' let everyone off and close all the prisons!

There is a nucleus of personalities that are flawed by the socially accepted norms and that have no aspiriation or ability to change.
They do not sit there in prison, remorseful of what was done at thier hands and understanding that there is another path. Some know no different due to their lifetime experiences and some are psychologically wired in such a way that prevents logical and moral thought in the way society assumes is correct.

The media particularly TV, show selective dipictions of prison life that creates false realities in the mind of the general public. Some people are evil (through nature or nurture I am not sure).

We have to protect the wider society not as a deterant to others but as a termination to ensure that Human Right extremists never inflict their presence into society again and this is why I believe that in some cases inmates should be considered for execution!

Some just need the chicken factory treatment-2 methods 1 solution-harsh but until love conquers all-fair.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Last year the BBC reported it costs 41k per annum to keep a prisoner. For those who are never going to be released because they are mad or bad why should they be a drain on the public purse?

We already have chronic overcrowding and have no money (or polictical will) to build new prisons.

In these difficult times there are difficult decisons that need to be made this feels like a more straightforward one.

I have only flicked through this thread but this post caught my eye. The idea that we should bring back the death penalty, a law that has been proven to kill innocent people, because it costs less is absolutely ridiculous, especially as in America death penalty prisoners cost more and are often on death row for 10-20 years.

The death penalty is immoral. I can't believe it keeps being brought up on here. If any government decided to bring it back, we would be thrown out of the EU as no member is allowed to have the death penalty. What I can't believe is that in the 21st Century there are countries that still have it and people in this country who still genuinely believe it is deterrant, despite the fact that violent crime in American states that have the death penalty (and other countries that still have it) is higher than the UK.

 

[Bisto]

What I can't believe is that in the 21st Century there are countries that still have it and people in this country who still genuinely believe it is deterrant, despite the fact that violent crime in American states that have the death penalty (and other countries that still have it) is higher than the UK.

I do not believe it is a deterant as I also believe that prison is not a deterant for 62% of the habitual criminals inside. I believe it is a termination of the less than 1% of un-reformable risk.

 

[cunning fergus]

I have only flicked through this thread but this post caught my eye. The idea that we should bring back the death penalty, a law that has been proven to kill innocent people, because it costs less is absolutely ridiculous, especially as in America death penalty prisoners cost more and are often on death row for 10-20 years.

The death penalty is immoral. I can't believe it keeps being brought up on here. If any government decided to bring it back, we would be thrown out of the EU as no member is allowed to have the death penalty. What I can't believe is that in the 21st Century there are countries that still have it and people in this country who still genuinely believe it is deterrant, despite the fact that violent crime in American states that have the death penalty (and other countries that still have it) is higher than the UK.

Well in your opinion its absolutely ridiculous and immoral.

Commitment to morality is great in theory, but not so easy in practice? You think our Govt doesn't have the power of life and death over innocent people? Go tell that to the Libyans et al.

Interesting point about bringing it back and being thrown out the EU? Frankly that only strengthens the argument for the death penalty.

On the subject of the EU though, since Greece introduced austerity measures in 2008 (bless) the Greek suicide rate has absolutely exploded...........the death penalty evidently comes in many forms. Why should criminals be exempt.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Well in your opinion its absolutely ridiculous and immoral.

Commitment to morality is great in theory, but not so easy in practice? You think our Govt doesn't have the power of life and death over innocent people? Go tell that to the Libyans et al.

Interesting point about bringing it back and being thrown out the EU? Frankly that only strengthens the argument for the death penalty.

On the subject of the EU though, since Greece introduced austerity measures in 2008 (bless) the Greek suicide rate has absolutely exploded...........the death penalty evidently comes in many forms. Why should criminals be exempt.

So I take it based on this that you would be happy for someone you know, even a close family member, to be executed for a crime they didn't commit so we can save a few pounds. I can't believe people still suggest using the death penalty when it has been proven that innocent people get executed. As far as I am concerned if there is even one innocent person executed it makes the death penalty wrong.

 

[Boris Yeltsin]

No country should be allowed to kill it's citizens. It would come down to who has the best lawyers in court. Mr Loophole anyone?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

So I take it based on this that you would be happy for someone you know, even a close family member, to be executed for a crime they didn't commit so we can save a few pounds. I can't believe people still suggest using the death penalty when it has been proven that innocent people get executed. As far as I am concerned if there is even one innocent person executed it makes the death penalty wrong.

agree to a point-what happens if(scenario) your wife is raped killed & children killed after a bungled burglary-dna proved who did it(known and regular repeat offender)-oh and your in a wheelchair(ex war hero) as your wife was your carer-why should your needs be put behind the need to keep allowing this to happen...

 

[drew]

I've always found this an interesting point. As you say, currently judges do take the effects into account, and intuitively that makes some sense.

I can't help but feel it's a bit strange though. What if you hit someone in your car while speeding and injure them very badly. You may wish with all your heart for that person to make a full recovery, but there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Whether they survive will depend on how they fall, how quickly an ambulance gets there, the quality of medical care they receive - none of which you can control.

If that person subsequently dies, you will face a much worse punishment than if they survive, even though your offence (hitting someone while speeding) remains exactly the same.

Maybe that's just how it goes sometimes, but can't help feeling it's a bit strange. (Obviously, the way to avoid this is not to speed and hit a pedestrian in the first place.)

Not sure that is a very good argument. Conversely, you can stick a knife in someone and if they die it is murder or manslaughter but if they survive, is it just a case of wounding with intent or something similar. Where I think the issue becomes cloudy is if more emphasis is placed on victim impact statements. You could have two incidents exactly the same but in one case, the victim is forgiveful for what ever reason and in the other the victim is vengeful. Is it right that the perpertrator of the later crime should serve a severer penalty?

Please let us not go into the 'lets quote scripture' cul-de-sac.

As a student of Cottesmore and Cardinal Newman, old and new testament reading was brow-beaten into us and I can tell you that for every moral statement and story there is a counter statement or story.................... I know let us 'turn the other cheek' let everyone off and close all the prisons!

There is a nucleus of personalities that are flawed by the socially accepted norms and that have no aspiriation or ability to change.
They do not sit there in prison, remorseful of what was done at thier hands and understanding that there is another path. Some know no different due to their lifetime experiences and some are psychologically wired in such a way that prevents logical and moral thought in the way society assumes is correct.

The media particularly TV, show selective dipictions of prison life that creates false realities in the mind of the general public. Some people are evil (through nature or nurture I am not sure).

We have to protect the wider society not as a deterant to others but as a termination to ensure that Human Right extremists never inflict their presence into society again and this is why I believe that in some cases inmates should be considered for execution!

Who decides which conviction is 100% proven and which isn't? Because if there is even a 1% chance of innocence then you cannot execute. Do you think a jury should decide because after all, they have never got it wrong! Should you decide. It's very easy to quote a 'bang to rights' case, ie the felon was seen shooting the victim by over 20 different people and it was captured on cctv etc but not every case is like that so where do you draw the line?

You also mention people who are unsound because of lifetime experiences. What if baby Peter had survived and because of what he went through he grew up thinking that violence was the norm. Nurtured in that environment, if he went on to kill, is that his fault or society for failing to protect him in his infancy.

Well in your opinion its absolutely ridiculous and immoral.

Commitment to morality is great in theory, but not so easy in practice? You think our Govt doesn't have the power of life and death over innocent people? Go tell that to the Libyans et al.

Interesting point about bringing it back and being thrown out the EU? Frankly that only strengthens the argument for the death penalty.

On the subject of the EU though, since Greece introduced austerity measures in 2008 (bless) the Greek suicide rate has absolutely exploded...........the death penalty evidently comes in many forms. Why should criminals be exempt.

Your arguments seem to get weaker and weaker. First you advocate that the death penalty is ok as cost saving exercise and now that it would be good to use it to get out of the EU!! With regard to suicide rates, what would be the effect on these if Greece were declared bankrupt because no one will lend it any money?

agree to a point-what happens if(scenario) your wife is raped killed & children killed after a bungled burglary-dna proved who did it(known and regular repeat offender)-oh and your in a wheelchair(ex war hero) as your wife was your carer-why should your needs be put behind the need to keep allowing this to happen...

The emotive argument fails every time. As previously mentioned, you have to be 100% certain and there are very few cases that this is so. And when it isn't 100%, where do you draw the line. At 99%, maybe 95% or even just 51%.

 

[Buzzer]

Your arguments seem to get weaker and weaker. First you advocate that the death penalty is ok as cost saving exercise and now that it would be good to use it to get out of the EU!!

I'm not in favour of the death penalty but it's you that seems to have the weak arguments. CF has not said advocated the death penalty as a cost-cutting exercise. What he's said is something completely different. Life and death decisions based on finances are made every day in the NHS. It's a cold fact of life (and death) that money is finite whereas needs appear to be infinite. To boil it down to the words "cost-cutting" is simplistic, very weak and highly emotive. Likewise with your comments about the EU.

The emotive argument fails every time. As previously mentioned, you have to be 100% certain and there are very few cases that this is so. And when it isn't 100%, where do you draw the line. At 99%, maybe 95% or even just 51%.

Nope. This argument is absolute nonsense I'm afraid. Criminal guilt is decided on the case being beyond all reasonable doubt and to all intents and purposes is 100%. If you are referring to DNA tests then rarely are they anything less than 99.99% accurate in forensic tests.

 

[cunning fergus]

So I take it based on this that you would be happy for someone you know, even a close family member, to be executed for a crime they didn't commit so we can save a few pounds. I can't believe people still suggest using the death penalty when it has been proven that innocent people get executed. As far as I am concerned if there is even one innocent person executed it makes the death penalty wrong.

There's a lot this Govt (and previous Govts) do that I am not happy about, however I understand that there need to be a rule of law. As for miscarriages the door swings both ways and it has been the case that the guilty have been found innocent. That's life.

So your contention here is more about the criminal justice system, and whether it can safely find the accused guilty or not. I dont doubt that it is flawless, but it is what we have got. You are innocent till proven guilty, not guilty till proven innocent. If you are guilty then you take the penalty whatever that is............Death or Bongo.

Anyway I digress, as my point was for the mad and bad who will never be released, death is cheaper for the public purse than keeping them alive at 41k p.a. and counting. Morality is all very well when you can afford it, but like it or not cuts need to be made...........this is an easy one.

The same argument can be run for state funded euthansia for the suicidal and terminally ill. This one is double bubble for the tax payer as not only do we break the swiss monopoly (charging 10k a pop and increase employment) we get an upside on reducing pensions and NHS costs.

Its win win, but only if we can open our minds.

 

[cunning fergus]

Drew, there are plenty of compelling reasons why we should get out of the EU and if introducing the death penalty, gets us to that point I will build the gallows myself. Frankly I couldn't care less about the Greek suicide rate, why should I? I raised it soley as a delicious statistical morsel relating to the current Euro crisis. If your arguement is that we should stay committed to the Euro project in order to supress the Greek suicide rate it is you that has a weak argument.

 

[Stoo82]

who was found guilty of milly downers murder originally? the details must be available on the internet somewhere.

I'm sure there was a step father who was released only a few years ago, I thought it was this case, because he was found to be inocent. But with the death penatly he would have been killed.

Without trivulising the poor gilrs death. It was someone like Millie Downer about her age similar sort of case.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

There's a lot this Govt (and previous Govts) do that I am not happy about, however I understand that there need to be a rule of law. As for miscarriages the door swings both ways and it has been the case that the guilty have been found innocent. That's life.

So your contention here is more about the criminal justice system, and whether it can safely find the accused guilty or not. I dont doubt that it is flawless, but it is what we have got. You are innocent till proven guilty, not guilty till proven innocent. If you are guilty then you take the penalty whatever that is............Death or Bongo.

Anyway I digress, as my point was for the mad and bad who will never be released, death is cheaper for the public purse than keeping them alive at 41k p.a. and counting. Morality is all very well when you can afford it, but like it or not cuts need to be made...........this is an easy one.

The same argument can be run for state funded euthansia for the suicidal and terminally ill. This one is double bubble for the tax payer as not only do we break the swiss monopoly (charging 10k a pop and increase employment) we get an upside on reducing pensions and NHS costs.

Its win win, but only if we can open our minds.

I can't believe you can have such a laissez faire attitude to people's lives. As I said, would you have this attitude if someone you knew was wrongly executed? Presumably under your proposal the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four would have been executed and not been able to be freed as the crimes they were convicted of were surely serious enough. I am sure their family and friends would be happy to know that you would have killed them and worried about their true guilt afterwards.

As for cost, saving money by executing is not only a ridiculous argument but also not true. Death row prisoners in America cost more to keep locked up and are often on death row for decades. Or are you suggesting the Chinese version where you go from crime to execution in six months so we would officially go back to medieval times? Maybe we could just kill people we feel are bad and cut out the middle man and use vigilante justice. To be honest, that is almost as logical as your argument.

 

[cunning fergus]

I can't believe you can have such a laissez faire attitude to people's lives. As I said, would you have this attitude if someone you knew was wrongly executed? Presumably under your proposal the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four would have been executed and not been able to be freed as the crimes they were convicted of were surely serious enough. I am sure their family and friends would be happy to know that you would have killed them and worried about their true guilt afterwards.

As for cost, saving money by executing is not only a ridiculous argument but also not true. Death row prisoners in America cost more to keep locked up and are often on death row for decades. Or are you suggesting the Chinese version where you go from crime to execution in six months so we would officially go back to medieval times? Maybe we could just kill people we feel are bad and cut out the middle man and use vigilante justice. To be honest, that is almost as logical as your argument.

Why are you surprised, do you think everyone else thinks like you? The criminal justice sytem is the criminal justice sytem, you are guilty when you are found guilty. You can appeal against it, but while you do you remain guilty. Its not perfect, but that's what we have, warts and all.

If social services acted properly children who have been killed by their parents and guardians would still be alive, if the home office acted properly people have been killed by illegal immigrants would still be alive, if the NHS acted properly patients who have been killed by Doctors and Nurses would be alive, shall I go on?

Your assumption is that we adopt the US model and that we can't come up with an effective solution. That's ridiculous.............you need to be more open minded.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Why are you surprised, do you think everyone else thinks like you? The criminal justice sytem is the criminal justice sytem, you are guilty when you are found guilty. You can appeal against it, but while you do you remain guilty. Its not perfect, but that's what we have, warts and all.

If social services acted properly children who have been killed by their parents and guardians would still be alive, if the home office acted properly people have been killed by illegal immigrants would still be alive, if the NHS acted properly patients who have been killed by Doctors and Nurses would be alive, shall I go on?

Your assumption is that we adopt the US model and that we can't come up with an effective solution. That's ridiculous.............you need to be more open minded.

So your basic argument is because patients die when they shouldn't it follows that it is no problem for the state to execute innocent people. I have to say you win the award for most bizarre argument for the death penalty I have ever heard. There is literally no point in arguing as you are not going to change your mind but you still have not answered if you would be so relaxed about killing innocent people if you knew them.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

So your basic argument is because patients die when they shouldn't it follows that it is no problem for the state to execute innocent people. I have to say you win the award for most bizarre argument for the death penalty I have ever heard. There is literally no point in arguing as you are not going to change your mind but you still have not answered if you would be so relaxed about killing innocent people if you knew them.

think he/she has-

not to decide to do anything about killers,is to decide to let them continue.

not to decide is to decide

 

[Bisto]

You also mention people who are unsound because of lifetime experiences. What if baby Peter had survived and because of what he went through he grew up thinking that violence was the norm. Nurtured in that environment, if he went on to kill, is that his fault or society for failing to protect him in his infancy.

You miss the point I am trying to make...I look at these comments and i see people who have never had contact with our prison population. Some people are just plain bad and the prision system DOES NOT rehabilitate any inmates despite what the media tells you. Why people are so perverse in the context of our social norms I know not but they are. No remorse, no acceptance of the crime, no perception of the damage and harm, no believe that their behaviour needs amendment.; these people are the ones who are detained at her majesty's pleasure of for an undefined length. There are sentenced in the belief that they will never be released however, the Human Rights lobby in future years (not even born where the crimes were committed) always campaign for release under licence of these people and there is a risk these maybe unleased upon the wider society.

If you read my earlier posts you will see that I do not support the campaign 1x murder = death sentence but serial killers, habitual violent rapists and kidder fiddlers of varying degrees should be considered for this. (and I did say CPFC for parking offences upwards).

If people believe that all offenders can become contirbuting citizens, they are WRONG
If people believe that all the criminals who are responsible for the most heinous crimes will reform, they are WRONG
If people believe that criminals who should spend the rest of their lives inside will defininately will, they are WRONG

Some people should be sentenced to death to protect society (not as a deterant, not as a cost saving exercise but as protction of society)

In the last 50 years (including before DNA evidence was available) less than .001% of serial killer convictions were deemed to be unsafe not wrong.

It would be a wake up call if as a civic duty everyone served one week as a guard in Belmarsh, whitemoor, wakefield of Frankland and look at some of these animals in the eye.