Bring Back Death Penalty
Poll: Bring Back Death Penalty
Total Members Polled: 513
Discussion
Digga said:
Again, I'd bring the Anuj Bidve killing as a case in point. The killer did it, no question and showed no remorse - in fact showed contempt, laughing during sentencing. really, what's the point of keeping this sort of individual?
Would he have behaved the same knowing that he would face death if convicted though? Knowing such behaviour would be practically suicide. As things currently stand he got a 30 year sentence, no joke but part of his gangster identity, almost a lifestyle choice by the sounds of it. danjama said:
With todays technological equipment and lengthy investigations, using forensics etc, I see no reason why it should not be brought back, if we are absolutely sure of a persons guilt. And there is very little chance of false conviction in this day and age.
Absolutely I would want it brought back.
Okay Absolutely I would want it brought back.
100% sure is not posible as evidence could of been planted by teleporting aliens
Unlikely but still posible
So include human error and we are down to 99.9% sure
So for every 1000 people we kill 1 was innocent
Are you happy to be that innocent person?
Digga said:
Again, I'd bring the Anuj Bidve killing as a case in point. The killer did it, no question and showed no remorse - in fact showed contempt, laughing during sentencing. really, what's the point of keeping this sort of individual?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18...
Okay we kill himhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18...
the BBC said:
In the hours after the killing, Stapleton had checked into the Campanile Hotel, close to the crime scene, to observe the investigation, the court heard.
He also went to a tattoo parlour and had a teardrop design placed below his right eye - a symbol used by some gangs to mark that the wearer has killed someone.
Det Ch Supt Mary Doyle, of Greater Manchester Police, said the murder was "completely random and without motive".
He also went to a tattoo parlour and had a teardrop design placed below his right eye - a symbol used by some gangs to mark that the wearer has killed someone.
Det Ch Supt Mary Doyle, of Greater Manchester Police, said the murder was "completely random and without motive".
What have we achieved
We have an extra dead person and some very rich human rights lawyers
Lets just keep him till he dies of old age
AJS- said:
Digga said:
Again, I'd bring the Anuj Bidve killing as a case in point. The killer did it, no question and showed no remorse - in fact showed contempt, laughing during sentencing. really, what's the point of keeping this sort of individual?
Would he have behaved the same knowing that he would face death if convicted though? Knowing such behaviour would be practically suicide. As things currently stand he got a 30 year sentence, no joke but part of his gangster identity, almost a lifestyle choice by the sounds of it. TheHeretic said:
Not really sure why you picked out that particular quote? Checking into a hotel, and a teardrop tattoo have no bearing whatsoever on the absolute evidence of the crime, or is this just for dramatic effect?
Without expanding at great length, merely that the crime was random, pre-mediatated (a large number of murders have more complex motives and often involve ongoing issues between parties familiar with or even related to one another) and that afterwards he appeared to celebrate to offence. No remorse then. No remorse in court. Little real redress for the family because:AJS- said:
Would he have behaved the same knowing that he would face death if convicted though? Knowing such behaviour would be practically suicide. As things currently stand he got a 30 year sentence, no joke but part of his gangster identity, almost a lifestyle choice by the sounds of it.
being in prison is not seen as any great hardship or punishment for many offenders, some even aspire to it.CDP said:
AJS- said:
Digga said:
Again, I'd bring the Anuj Bidve killing as a case in point. The killer did it, no question and showed no remorse - in fact showed contempt, laughing during sentencing. really, what's the point of keeping this sort of individual?
Would he have behaved the same knowing that he would face death if convicted though? Knowing such behaviour would be practically suicide. As things currently stand he got a 30 year sentence, no joke but part of his gangster identity, almost a lifestyle choice by the sounds of it. I'm not massively in favour of the death penalty, and can see many flaws in it's application and a philosophical problem with allowing the state such power, but a part of me still wishes Stapleton and a few others like him were facing the rope rather than even a lifetime in prison.
If there was a shred of evidence to suggest that death penalties significantly reduced murder rates, I could see the justification for wanting to instigate a debate. However, if anything the evidence points to the contrary (as criminals have nothing to lose, as stated above). Introducing a general higher level of death among criminals, police and civilians can't be good. The only reason for it is people's general bloodlust and desire for revenge, which is not a good enough reason.
As for that scumbag laughing, he wouldn't be laughing if prison sentences were longer and harder. Prison should be somewhere that you really don't want to go. I'm not talking about rat-infested torture chambers but for someone who has it tough on the outside, these days being inside isn't much different. You can argue that prisons would become overcrowded but to me the answer is to have more community sentences for lesser offences. Make those community sentences longer and strictly enforce them so if they're not completed, a sentence in prison (which, remember, is now a much bleaker place) is inevitable.
As for that scumbag laughing, he wouldn't be laughing if prison sentences were longer and harder. Prison should be somewhere that you really don't want to go. I'm not talking about rat-infested torture chambers but for someone who has it tough on the outside, these days being inside isn't much different. You can argue that prisons would become overcrowded but to me the answer is to have more community sentences for lesser offences. Make those community sentences longer and strictly enforce them so if they're not completed, a sentence in prison (which, remember, is now a much bleaker place) is inevitable.
AJS- said:
A man walking out of the woods with blood on his shirt killed the woman lying in the woods stabbed to death, beyond reasonable doubt.
That's right. Because no one who ever intervened to try and stop someone stabbing someone else ever got the victims blood on them. And no one who ever tried to revive someone who they found stabbed in the woods ever got the victims blood on them. 
Christ on a bike. The idiocy of some posts never ceases to amaze me.
Taking another human's life is the ultimate action and should only be done in self defence where no other option remains. That self defence could include national self defence - hence war.
If we as a state or society say it is wrong to kill each other, how can that same society then go on to kill for reasons of retribution?
The argument about keeping dangerous people out of society is countered by actual life sentences (which so actually happen in the UK).
The argument about deterrent is plainly discredited by the fact that many other countries with the death penalty still have a much higher serious crime rate than the UK.
The argument about cost is also discredited by the need for even higher levels of investigation and satisfaction that the conviction is rock solid.
If we as a state or society say it is wrong to kill each other, how can that same society then go on to kill for reasons of retribution?
The argument about keeping dangerous people out of society is countered by actual life sentences (which so actually happen in the UK).
The argument about deterrent is plainly discredited by the fact that many other countries with the death penalty still have a much higher serious crime rate than the UK.
The argument about cost is also discredited by the need for even higher levels of investigation and satisfaction that the conviction is rock solid.
nickbee said:
As for that scumbag laughing, he wouldn't be laughing if prison sentences were longer and harder. Prison should be somewhere that you really don't want to go. I'm not talking about rat-infested torture chambers but for someone who has it tough on the outside, these days being inside isn't much different. You can argue that prisons would become overcrowded but to me the answer is to have more community sentences for lesser offences. Make those community sentences longer and strictly enforce them so if they're not completed, a sentence in prison (which, remember, is now a much bleaker place) is inevitable.
That perhaps is the best compromise. Certainly, offenders where there is no hope or intent to rehabilitate - due to the severity of their actions and attitudes - then conditions should, within humane limits, be harsh.TwigtheWonderkid said:
AJS- said:
A man walking out of the woods with blood on his shirt killed the woman lying in the woods stabbed to death, beyond reasonable doubt.
That's right. Because no one who ever intervened to try and stop someone stabbing someone else ever got the victims blood on them. And no one who ever tried to revive someone who they found stabbed in the woods ever got the victims blood on them. Christ on a bike. The idiocy of some posts never ceases to amaze me.
I'm morally opposed to it, but from a purely practical stance, I see a problem.
I've done jury service many times (don't know why they like me so much!) and I've seen jurors bottle out of a 'guilty' verdict, despite clear evidence, because they were afraid of 'messing up someone's life' (the accused) or of having to sit in the same room as the accused and deliver a 'guilty' verdict. Imagine how these people would 'cope' with delivering a guilty verdict that led to death.
Conversely, I'd be worried that some jurors might let the power of life or death go to their heads, and push for guilty when the case may not be clear cut (see 'Twelve Angry Men').
I've done jury service many times (don't know why they like me so much!) and I've seen jurors bottle out of a 'guilty' verdict, despite clear evidence, because they were afraid of 'messing up someone's life' (the accused) or of having to sit in the same room as the accused and deliver a 'guilty' verdict. Imagine how these people would 'cope' with delivering a guilty verdict that led to death.
Conversely, I'd be worried that some jurors might let the power of life or death go to their heads, and push for guilty when the case may not be clear cut (see 'Twelve Angry Men').
How altruistic!thinfourth2 said:
Okay
100% sure is not posible as evidence could of been planted by teleporting aliens
Unlikely but still posible
So include human error and we are down to 99.9% sure
So for every 1000 people we kill 1 was innocent
Are you happy to be that innocent person?
On the flip side, how many MORE innocent people are murdered every year by criminals who no longer have any fear of the consequences?100% sure is not posible as evidence could of been planted by teleporting aliens
Unlikely but still posible
So include human error and we are down to 99.9% sure
So for every 1000 people we kill 1 was innocent
Are you happy to be that innocent person?
Compare the murder rate per million head of population in the 60 years prior to the abolition of the death penalty to the ratr in the 40 odd years since. It might surprise you.
andymadmak said:
thinfourth2 said:
Okay
100% sure is not posible as evidence could of been planted by teleporting aliens
Unlikely but still posible
So include human error and we are down to 99.9% sure
So for every 1000 people we kill 1 was innocent
Are you happy to be that innocent person?
On the flip side, how many MORE innocent people are murdered every year by criminals who no longer have any fear of the consequences?100% sure is not posible as evidence could of been planted by teleporting aliens
Unlikely but still posible
So include human error and we are down to 99.9% sure
So for every 1000 people we kill 1 was innocent
Are you happy to be that innocent person?
Compare the murder rate per million head of population in the 60 years prior to the abolition of the death penalty to the ratr in the 40 odd years since. It might surprise you.
thinfourth2 said:
Spend a few minutes looking at the costs of the death sentence in America
Its cheaper to keep them locked up
Indeed. Unless we take a Saudi viewpoint. (Take them outside and do the deed), and I'm not sure they are a valued model, there will be appeals, more lawyers, more trials, and so on and so forth. If the justice system we want is truly one where there is no appeal system, it is a sorry state of affairs. Its cheaper to keep them locked up
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But the jury do decide guilt. And if guilt = death, it could sway the jurors' decision.Also, what of the possibility for reduced sentences for pleading guilty? If I were up on a murder charge – and I knew I was innocent – I might be very tempted to plead guilty (and take the 20 years, out out in 12-15) rather than go 'not guilty' and face the long drop.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff