Death Penalty

[Seagull27]

Your argument is based on cost, rather than the morals of the punishment itself (or even reward, in a suicide bomber's opinion?)? I don't think the debate should even touch on cost and, whichever way it goes, it's a far more fundamental moral debate...

One thing on the suicide bomber thing. While I'm no expert, I'm fairly sure that they want to die in 'honour', whilst doing an act in the name of their religion and God. I don't think this would apply if they were sentenced to a death penalty, even if they had already carried out the intended act. So I don't think they'd see it as a reward.

Agree with the rest of your points though.

 

[dingodan]

You cannot condemn a man for an action, and then carry out that same action in retribution. By doing so you forgo the right to condemn the man in the first place.

 

[Brovion]

Not in the simplistic way you are quoting it no, our murder rate has gone up exponentially since abolition, but i doubt that is solely due to this, society has changed as well, all these factors need to be considered.

To be pedantic that's not strictly true. It has gone up, admittedly, but not 'exponentially'. The lowest period for murders per head of the population was the mid-twentieth century, around about the time the death penalty was abolished; the rate now is comparable with the rate in the mid-nineteenth century when of course they DID hang people. (There's a very dry academic paper on it that you can google and download the pdf if you're so inclined). However as you say other factors are involved (a more selfish society and decline in belief of punishment in the afterlife being two reasons).

Anyway as a limp-wristed lefty do-gooder I'm obviously totally opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, but may I suggest a compromise? How about we re-introduce the death penalty - but don't actually kill anybody? In other words we condemn people to death, but instigate a lengthy and complex appeals process (which will probably happen anyway as The Spanish has suggested) which runs for YEARS and means that the guilty eventually die in prison. Everybody wins!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

most guilty verdicts are correct

And if YOU were one of the people found guilty incorrectly ? How would feel as you ate your last meal ? How would you feel as you were led to the death chamber ? of course you would be thinking "Well at least they get most verdicts correct" !

 

[DTES]

All these things have to be taken into consideration, both moral, rights and cost.

Really? Where do you draw the line? If cost can override moral rights & wrongs then there must be a price on anything? I could suggest all kinds of ludicrous examples and say "so if it would benefit the economy/taxpayer would you also agree with doing X?" Obviously you wouldn't support doing just anything to benefit the taxpayer, so where do you draw the line? There have to be some things where the cost to the taxpayer is irrelevant and this debate, for me, is one of them.

 

[User removed 4]

To be pedantic that's not strictly true. It has gone up, admittedly, but not 'exponentially'. The lowest period for murders per head of the population was the mid-twentieth century, around about the time the death penalty was abolished; the rate now is comparable with the rate in the mid-nineteenth century when of course they DID hang people. (There's a very dry academic paper on it that you can google and download the pdf if you're so inclined). However as you say other factors are involved (a more selfish society and decline in belief of punishment in the afterlife being two reasons).

Anyway as a limp-wristed lefty do-gooder I'm obviously totally opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, but may I suggest a compromise? How about we re-introduce the death penalty - but don't actually kill anybody? In other words we condemn people to death, but instigate a lengthy and complex appeals process (which will probably happen anyway as The Spanish has suggested) which runs for YEARS and means that the guilty eventually die in prison. Everybody wins!

I agree mate but I SOOOOO wanted to put exponentially in the sentence !!

 

[teaboy]

I voted no, but only because there wasn't the option "just for people who put their pets in clothes". String 'em up!

 

[fire&skill]

Anyone remember Derek Bently?

Exactly this. I vividly remember my Mum telling me about the case when I was very young, as I was espousing the 'eye-for-an-eye' theory at the dinner table. A few years later we both watched the film 'Let Him Have It' with Christopher Eccleston - not to mention the song 'Let Him Dangle' on Elvis Costello's 'Spike'.

The argument is that if it was your loved one that was killed you'd feel different. Put me in a room with a baseball bat and the murderer and let's see what happens, but NEVER let me be part of a society that gives me permission to go into the room with the baseball bat in the first place. I'm definitely with JetsetJimbo on that one.

 

[drew]

You cannot condemn a man for an action, and then carry out that same action in retribution. By doing so you forgo the right to condemn the man in the first place.

So you don't think Herr Pretzel or whatever his name is should be held in captivity because that is what he did to his daughter or the couple in America who had that girl captive for 18 years!!!

Right here goes:

Death Penalty: for any person that does wrong to kids, rape, murder, abuse, thats Death Penalty, no questions asked., Preplanned murder such as the Ipswich Ripper that killed 5 prositutes a couple of years back, is also death penalty, todays technology is far better than it was and most guilty verdicts are correct, based upon DNA.
I also think LIFE should mean LIFE.

Those five words alone are the strongest argument against capital punishment.

When I was younger I used to think we should have capital punishment but there have been far to many wrong convictions along with those that were deemed 'unsafe' make me change my mind. If you had a solid conviction with absolute no uncertaintity then it would be acceptable but no conviction has that 100% factor. Someone already mentioned Derek Bentley, what about Barry George and the Jill Dando murder or Colin Stagg and the Rachel Nickell murder.

How many people wrongly convicted have a mental disorder and for that matter, how many who have committed an act of murder have done so from a background mental disorder, family abuse etc etc. Are they made to pay for the what they became due to the negligence of others. What about when someone is released into the care in the community when they are not able to cope and committ murder. Are they guilty or is the Doctors who released them?

Unfortunately, it is far from black and white despite what a few keyboard warriors seem to think on the burglarly thread!!!

 

[Seagull1967]

Really? Where do you draw the line? If cost can override moral rights & wrongs then there must be a price on anything? I could suggest all kinds of ludicrous examples and say "so if it would benefit the economy/taxpayer would you also agree with doing X?" Obviously you wouldn't support doing just anything to benefit the taxpayer, so where do you draw the line? There have to be some things where the cost to the taxpayer is irrelevant and this debate, for me, is one of them.

I do take your point, but unfortunately it all has to be taken into account! You only have to look at the old people are treated with regards to cost and also care, (NHS and other factors). In an ideal world what you have said should be paramount but unfortunately this is not the case

 

[Seagull1967]

The problem we have is there will never have a perfect system and unfortunately an innocent member might be executed for murder!

But even taking this into consideration where there proof from all corners DNA, witness statements and any other information if the person is convicted then the death penalty should be applied.

In some cases the prisoner will take their own life which I feel should not be prevented.

 

[clippedgull]

Ok, here is a question....

To those who oppose the death penalty.

If you witnessed a person murdering a family member would you still be opposed to the Death Penalty being handed to that person?

 

[pasty]

I've always been against. However, I do think that in some cases a sentence of "Life imprisonment" should mean you never get released.

Absolutely this. Apart from the fact that I am completely against legalised murder (sorry, death penalty), this also gives the option of release in a case of "oops, got that conviction wrong then"

 

[Acker79]

Ok, here is a question....

To those who oppose the death penalty.

If you witnessed a person murdering a family member would you still be opposed to the Death Penalty being handed to that person?

Isn't that playing with emotion and muddying the waters of debate - taking away the detached let's look at things in a calm measured manner, and instead use fear to drive through one side of the debate?

It can go the other way: What if your son or daughter is caught murdering someone, would you be so eager to see them on the receiving end of the death penalty?

 

[drew]

Ok, here is a question....

To those who oppose the death penalty.

If you witnessed a person murdering a family member would you still be opposed to the Death Penalty being handed to that person?

You should work for the Sun. Of course if you witness that they you are going to want to see retribution of the most severe kind but that's not what society is about. What if the victims family are a forgiving religious type and don't want the death penalty whereas another family are old testament zealots who want an eye for an eye. Is it right one murder dies and the other doesn't?

As for the costs argument, it is never a case of getting found guilty then being taken away and given a seat in a metal chair linked to the mains. There are years and years of appeals through various courts before sentencing is carried out. Look at America and see how long people remain on 'death row' before finally shuffling of their mortal coil.

 

[fire&skill]

Ok, here is a question....

To those who oppose the death penalty.

If you witnessed a person murdering a family member would you still be opposed to the Death Penalty being handed to that person?

Yep. As I said before, put me in a room with a baseball bat and the murderer and let's see what happens, but NEVER let me be part of a society that gives me permission to go into the room with the baseball bat in the first place.

 

[darters74]

right here goes:

Death penalty: For any person that does wrong to kids, rape, murder, abuse, thats death penalty, no questions asked., preplanned murder such as the ipswich ripper that killed 5 prositutes a couple of years back, is also death penalty, todays technology is far better than it was and most guilty verdicts are correct, based upon dna.
I also think life should mean life.

totally agree with this. If you kill someone, then you should be killed. Paedos should be castrated, tortured, then killed!

 

[DTES]

I do take your point, but unfortunately it all has to be taken into account! You only have to look at the old people are treated with regards to cost and also care, (NHS and other factors). In an ideal world what you have said should be paramount but unfortunately this is not the case

The example you give, of the maltreatment of old people, is an example showing that cost does play a part. It doesn't in anyway show that cost should play a part in the debate. If anything, it suggests the opposite, as you do imply by mentioning "an ideal world".

As I said, I didn't want to explicitly state a ludicrous example in case you thought I was taking the piss, but I'm not sure you quite understood my point - you didn't answer my question about drawing the line.

If I could absolutely prove to you that it would be a massive benefit to the economy/taxpayer to just kill every elderly person once they reach a certain age, would you approve of it? Obviously you wouldn't (I'm not implying that you would); the taxpayer benefit is irrelevant. It does though prove that the following question is valid: If there is definitely one situation where the taxpayer benefit definitely isn't relevant (above) and one where it is relevant for you, where do you draw the line? At what point does taxpayer benefit become irrelevant compared to morals?

My answer is that the taking of a human life - any human life - is on the side that cost is irrelevant. Even if you support the death penalty from a moral perspective (a valid point of view even if I disagree with it), it has to be on that basis not cost. Surely?

 

[Waynflete]

Ok, here is a question....

To those who oppose the death penalty.

If you witnessed a person murdering a family member would you still be opposed to the Death Penalty being handed to that person?

Fire&Skill has already answered this point very eloquently I think:

The argument is that if it was your loved one that was killed you'd feel different. Put me in a room with a baseball bat and the murderer and let's see what happens, but NEVER let me be part of a society that gives me permission to go into the room with the baseball bat in the first place.

It's precisely because any one of us would feel that way if it happened to us, that the law should not be made up by people in the middle of their anger and grief.

Edit: Beaten to it...

 

[pasty]

Ok, here is a question....

To those who oppose the death penalty.

If you witnessed a person murdering a family member would you still be opposed to the Death Penalty being handed to that person?

Yes. In my mind, supporting the killing of the perpetrator puts me in the same boat as that person.