Capital punishment !

[Lyndhurst 14]

It’s interesting that in the US, which a lot of people view as being an example of a country which strictly enforces the death penalty, the average time on death row between being sentenced and executed is currently 15 years and rising . It was 6 years in 1984.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

 

[Buzzer]

£89 online (in case anyone's interested)

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Footballers emptying their noses onto the pitch should be a capital crime

 

[Buzzer]

Footballers emptying their noses onto the pitch should be a capital crime

Yup. I think we're kindred spirits. All we need to get the ball rolling is for one high profile footballer to have a couple of tissues tucked inside his sleeve just in case and within a year we'd be spared the sight of flob at football.

 

[drew]

Not what im saying at all i was waiting for someone to pick up on that point.

"Lets kill everyone and who gives a damn if a few innocents get caught up in the crossfire, just collateral damage"

Hmm i cant see where i have put that anywhere or even hinted at it i think that is just you trying to put words in my mouth !!

Of course miscarriages are wrong but there is very very few these days, and yes one is too many but i still think people would say something totally different if it was one of their kids or family that were murdered.
The word NIMBY springs to mind.

You most certainly did hint at it in you post as per below. Your comments suggest that you accept the collateral loss of innocents as long as you get it right in the majority! There are only two angles, either you accept the likely death of innocent people wrongly convicted or you don't. I would suggest that the vast majority of those opposed to capital punishment do so because they consider that the loss of one innocent life is not worth paying. I am however for far stiffer prison sentences and conditions.

'Im not saying i dont see your point or value your opinion but you have to look at it from all angles dont you ? You could put 1000 times more up on here that were got right couldn't you !
There are people in jail like Peter Sutcliffe, Denis Nilsen, Ian Huntley, Robert Black, Roy Whiting, Ian Brady etc etc that are secure convictions !!'


As for you NIMBY comment, wtf is that about? As someone previously posted, if you are reintroducing capital punishment just to satisfy an individuals craving for vengeance then you are doing it for the wrong reasons. If there was conclusive proof it acted as a deterrent then that may be a reason to consider it but you still end up with the probability of an innocent dying. Surely better just to chuck them in jail and throw away the key?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Can you just show me some conclusive evidence how capital punishment ISN'T a deterrent ? Shouldn't be too hard considering how vehement you seem to be , just some figures quantifying how many people capital punishment HAS deterred as against those it hasn't in states that retain it , you'll probably need to give some breakdown on socio-economic conditions if you attempt to use figures in a has/has not debate.

The burden of proof is more with those who claim it's a deterrent.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

I think if it is brought back, it should be reserved for cases of:

Paedophilia
Mass murder
Treason

but only if there is no doubt whatsoever about whether or not they committed the crime.

Treason?

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Can you just show me some conclusive evidence how capital punishment ISN'T a deterrent ? Shouldn't be too hard considering how vehement you seem to be , just some figures quantifying how many people capital punishment HAS deterred as against those it hasn't in states that retain it , you'll probably need to give some breakdown on socio-economic conditions if you attempt to use figures in a has/has not debate.

Or you could just read the post above yours. May not be hard evidence but it makes sense to me as to why capital punishment isn't a deterrant.

 

[GreersElbow]

Can you just show me some conclusive evidence how capital punishment ISN'T a deterrent ? Shouldn't be too hard considering how vehement you seem to be , just some figures quantifying how many people capital punishment HAS deterred as against those it hasn't in states that retain it , you'll probably need to give some breakdown on socio-economic conditions if you attempt to use figures in a has/has not debate.

1) Death PenaltyDeterrence
2) http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf A criminological survey into the death penalty
3)

4)

In regards to how socio-economical conditions contribute to crime. The links are obvious, surely? The working class, and more importantly appropriately looked at are the "underclass" Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates - Sandra Walklate - Google Books This page looks specifically at the connection between the underclass and crime, the evidence in UK crime statistics and socioeconomic statistics speak for themselves. The underclass communities are commonly inner-city, inner-cities have higher crime - but why? Generally due to lack of employment, labour skills and general education, the culture of the "gangsta" is largely associated with underclass, due to broken families and gangs replacing them. Gangs use illegitimate methods of earning money (or robbing it) in order to live, alas adding fuel to the fire. I can PM you more comprehensive details if you want.

 

[GreersElbow]

You can of course never measure to that level of conclusiveness that something acts as a deterrent as you can't ever know whether someone may have committed a crime had it not been for the threat of that punishment. You can only go by the statistics and in the case of capital punishment, that would probably be by comparing the homicide rate in this country with one where they do have capital punishment, for example the US!

When I was young, ie late teens, I thought there should be capital punishment but the intervening years have proved on far too many occasions that the wrong person has been convicted. The justice system makes mistakes although I would still suggest it is probably one of the more reliable in the world and in the end, it doesn't rely on the intelligence of the judiciary to determine if you are guilty but of 12 of your peers. We all saw in the Vicky Price case that you don't always get an intelligent jury. Would you like a jury like that to decide your fate when you knew you were innocent?

Juries in essence, are commonly bound by emotional rather than factual evidence. That's what's really difficult about cases involving murder. A barrister very good oratory skills could easily appeal to emotion in a subtle way. The flaw of jury decision making is that it's random, common people. Many with no real true understanding of forensics and the law itself. (Main example: R v Young 1995 - the jury used a bloody ouija board to 'contact the dead' to decide the fate of Stephen Young.)

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

No, No, a thousand times no.

it doesn't work as a deterrent and it is morally wrong, apart from the possibility of executing innocent people.

Some people will know I am a "religious" person, but I have held these views strongly all my life, and before I became as involved in the Church as I am now.

And I think some people probably have a false idea of what prison life is like. Free education is what might help people survive and prosper if and when they get out again, and even if there are Sky subscriptions and free Gym facilities, they are still deprived of their freedom. They can not go up the pub, to the football, to see their families, to the beach, for a walk in the country and so on and so on.

 

[redhill seagull 66]

Would any of the ones who said no,still say no if there child was murdered by an animal like huntley?

 

[GreersElbow]

Would any of the ones who said no,still say no if there child was murdered by an animal like huntley?

Well it has happened...and I still say no, and I'm fed up with the constant appeal to emotion, it's fallacious. (Keep in mind, April Jones).

Huntley has already shown that life imprisonment is living hell, he has tried to kill himself multiple times.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I don't think i am quite well trained enough to decide who should live or die. Wishing someone is not that close to you or whose path you never want to cross is not the same as requesting them to be burned alive. All becomes a bit godly for my liking. Ideally we're in a world where fitting punishment is decided by the courts and does not include being torn apart by wolves or a nailgun to the eyeballs. We're best off where people learn from their mistakes and realise the consequences of all they've done rather than become a speedy pile of ashes.

 

[thisistips]

So glad we're voting more than three to one the right way. Just one miscarriage of justice would be appalling. Think of the Guildford four.

Just one example, taken from Wikipedia
Timothy Evans's wife and young daughter were killed in 1949. Evans was convicted of the murder of his daughter and was hanged in 1950. An official inquiry conducted 15 years later determined that the real killer of Evans's daughter had been Evans's co-tenant, serial killer John Reginald Halliday Christie. Christie was also responsible for the death of Evans's wife, his own wife, and six other women. He was the chief witness against Evans at his trial because the police accepted all of his statements as fact. The police were incompetent in their several searches of the house at Rillington Place, missing bones of earlier victims exposed in the tiny garden of the property. They also concocted false confessions from Evans to justify their accusations against Evans. The case was important in leading directly to the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 in the UK

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

The Bloody Code proved that capital punishment as deterrent does not work Bringing back capital punishment in common law in this 'enlightened' age would surely result in the return of pious perjury and even more unreliable juries.... it would be the death knell of common law and result in more government involvement and the advent of inquisitorial law, something alien to this country and its history. Emotional judgments destroy the validity of the Law.

 

[Mowgli37]

It's always been something I've never been at ease with. Some would gladly see prisoners hung by the coach load but two points which put me against it are 1) Does it not mean the government is sinking to their level? Surely we must maintain the moral high ground to justify having laws at all? Gandhi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", I agree. And 2) Miscarriage of justice, new evidence can come to light and then how would the people connected with the case feel? The Judge, Jurors and Executioner would be horrified knowing they had sent an innocent person to their death.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

I don't trust our legal system, police or CPS enough to be sure that there wouldn't be any miscarriages of justice. And before anyone says the risk is so small it's worth it so we can get a few scumbags killed - what if it was YOU sat in that cell the day before they kill you and you were innocent ? Just think about it for a few minutes. It's far too easy to say it wouldn't happen to me.

I trust our legal system as any who work in it (and dont expect me to go farther than that) but if anyone thinks the risk is small they are sooooo wrong. Getting the judgement to fit the crime is a tightrope laced with glass. Although it is true to say that the media in some ways acts as a control on what happens in law it is also true that it is far too often guilty of portraying a subjective view of controversial cases for its own ends. Has it ever crossed your minds that the feelings that you have towards a particular case have perhaps been manipulated by the media? Sometimes someone is guilty but the view that you see through the press is often a much clearer picture than the actual evidence shows..... because the media wishes it to be so.

Therefore considering this, how can we honestly trust our judgement on who gets executed or not? And remember, because our legal system is based on precedent, if you decide execution is right for one particular crime, it will be right for all the others of that ilk EVEN THOUGH the evidence in those other cases may not carry the same clarity.

Our system does not allow us the objective freedom to execute. The adversarial system, it can be claimed does... but then you would have to give up juries.

 

[Stoo82]

If there is a chance an innocent person could be killed by the state then no way.

 

[TheJasperCo]

and what happens when you get it wrong and the person turns out to be innocent?

If CCTV, independent witnesses, DNA and forensics all say someone carried out a murder and the defendent was found guilty, would there still be doubt in your mind?