Is it time to bring back the death penalty?
Discussion
AJS- said:
I support the death penalty for two reasons:
Firstly it removes the twisted individual from the gene pool. This is a good thing in it's own right. Even against life long incarceration, because they are still a danger to prison guards and fellow inmates.
Secondly it expresses the public's disapproval in the strongest possible sense, and gives the public a closure on the anger felt towards the worst offenders.
I reject entirely the argument that it brings us down to the level of the criminal, because it simply doesn't. Administering quickly and fairly the ultimate penalty set out in law, after a fair trial and a right of appeal is so far removed from the way most murderers operate as to be almost an opposite.
And if the person is innocent?Firstly it removes the twisted individual from the gene pool. This is a good thing in it's own right. Even against life long incarceration, because they are still a danger to prison guards and fellow inmates.
Secondly it expresses the public's disapproval in the strongest possible sense, and gives the public a closure on the anger felt towards the worst offenders.
I reject entirely the argument that it brings us down to the level of the criminal, because it simply doesn't. Administering quickly and fairly the ultimate penalty set out in law, after a fair trial and a right of appeal is so far removed from the way most murderers operate as to be almost an opposite.
AJS- said:
I wouldn't argue for it as a deterent. I support the death penalty for two reasons:
Firstly it removes the twisted individual from the gene pool. This is a good thing in it's own right. Even against life long incarceration, because they are still a danger to prison guards and fellow inmates.
So where are you going to draw the line on that? Should we have the death penalty for GBH? After all, people who've committed GBH are a danger to prison guards and fellow inmates, and if you're prepared to commit GBH, there's a good chance you'll kill someone, whether you mean to or not.Firstly it removes the twisted individual from the gene pool. This is a good thing in it's own right. Even against life long incarceration, because they are still a danger to prison guards and fellow inmates.
If you feel strongly enough about it, you could easily keep murderers incarcerated in such a way as they cannot present a risk to anyone else. Effectively you're making an argument based on economics. The risk of executing innocent people is worth it for the cost savings of keeping murderers incarcerated.
AJS- said:
Secondly it expresses the public's disapproval in the strongest possible sense, and gives the public a closure on the anger felt towards the worst offenders.
Really? Are you "the public" then? I thought it was all of us. Personally I wouldn't feel a sense of closure over anger, as it would be permanently overshadowed by the possibility that an innocent person had been executed. If someone I cared for was murdered, I would certainly take closure and satisfaction from the knowledge that their killer was going to spend the rest of their lives locked in a small, bare room with nothing to do but think about what might have been if they hadn't killed. I think this would arguably be worse than death, and more importantly it is easier to reverse if we got it wrong.AJS- said:
I reject entirely the argument that it brings us down to the level of the criminal, because it simply doesn't. Administering quickly and fairly the ultimate penalty set out in law, after a fair trial and a right of appeal is so far removed from the way most murderers operate as to be almost an opposite.
Most murderers kill for emotional, financial or substance-altered reasons. Is that really the opposite of killing because it gets you some extra votes? Too many people either have been (or would have been subsequent to abolition) executed after what was at the time viewed as a fair trial and right of appeal for any sort of civilised human being to think that this could possibly be a fair and just activity.Halb said:
We are imperfect, and I reckon it shall always be so. Our imperfection affects our current situation. Have you played the 'what if' game with the example I gave? A killer/rapist/paedo/torturer is released and goes onto commit more of the same, against a member of your family. A permanent solution would have denied this ever happening. I am not flippantly just throwing this back at you, but asking you to think rationally as you have asked of those who want the DP.
Definitely a good point. But releasing a killer etc who then kills again is a flaw with the current prison sentencing and/or parole system, not an argument for capital punishmentMario149 said:
Halb said:
We are imperfect, and I reckon it shall always be so. Our imperfection affects our current situation. Have you played the 'what if' game with the example I gave? A killer/rapist/paedo/torturer is released and goes onto commit more of the same, against a member of your family. A permanent solution would have denied this ever happening. I am not flippantly just throwing this back at you, but asking you to think rationally as you have asked of those who want the DP.
Definitely a good point. But releasing a killer etc who then kills again is a flaw with the current prison sentencing and/or parole system, not an argument for capital punishmentturbobloke said:
Mario149 said:
I'm not sure how you're tying the emotion of hate into this?
I'm not, the only mention of hate has come from you. Could you indicate that word in what I said? As it's not there, you can't highlight it! 
turbobloke said:
Perhaps you missed the point of what I posted. There's no excuse for clouding the consideration of a death penalty with emotion in terms of family members. If a death penalty is warranted and just, or if it isn't, that will be the case regardless of who is in the dock in terms of whether they are a relative of yours or mine, or not.
I'm sorry, but that's a straw man argument. At no point was I talking about a family member being sentenced to death who deserved it (i.e. was guilty) and asking "how would you feel?". The 2 options in the thought experiment are (1st one mine, 2nd one based on your subsequent rebuttal, from previous posts):
1) would you be willing to have your loved one sentenced to die, then executed, for a murder they didn't commit, due to a punishment system you voted for in say a referendum.
2) would you be willing to have your loved one incarcerated for X years, for the same they didn't commit, because you voted for keeping (and presumably improving) the current sentencing system.
On the assumption that you believe judicially killing an innocent person is never right if it can be avoided (if not, say now), you have to pick one of the above. Neither is good, but you have to pick *one* as the justice system is flawed due to humans being part of it so it could happen to you and *would* happen to someone else eventually, so the worst case scenario must be considered.
BUGGER BUGGER! Just reread your post, and realised you were doign a what if...
Anyway, here's what I wrote before i reread your post:
It's worth the risk of killing an innocent person so we can execute guilty people.
Even if I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on that statement (technically the one I've quoted you on actually), I genuinely respect you and your point of view for finally cutting through the b*llsh*t and saying it
Anyway, here's what I wrote before i reread your post:
Kermit power said:
The risk of executing innocent people is worth it for the cost savings of keeping murderers incarcerated.
FINALLY! Someone in the pro DP camp has come out and said it!It's worth the risk of killing an innocent person so we can execute guilty people.
Even if I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on that statement (technically the one I've quoted you on actually), I genuinely respect you and your point of view for finally cutting through the b*llsh*t and saying it
Edited by Mario149 on Monday 27th June 11:42
Mario149 said:
turbobloke said:
Perhaps you missed the point of what I posted. There's no excuse for clouding the consideration of a death penalty with emotion in terms of family members. If a death penalty is warranted and just, or if it isn't, that will be the case regardless of who is in the dock in terms of whether they are a relative of yours or mine, or not.
I'm sorry, but that's a straw man argument. At no point was I talking about a family member being sentenced to death who deserved it (i.e. was guilty) and asking "how would you feel?". The 2 options in the thought experiment are (1st one mine, 2nd one based on your subsequent rebuttal, from previous posts):
1) would you be willing to have your loved one sentenced to die, then executed, for a murder they didn't commit, due to a punishment system you voted for in say a referendum.
2) would you be willing to have your loved one incarcerated for X years, for the same they didn't commit, because you voted for keeping (and presumably improving) the current sentencing system.
On the assumption that you believe judicially killing an innocent person is never right if it can be avoided (if not, say now), you have to pick one of the above. Neither is good, but you have to pick *one* as the justice system is flawed due to humans being part of it so it could happen to you and *would* happen to someone else eventually, so the worst case scenario must be considered.
The mention of 'loved ones' is irrelevant.
How I would 'feel' is irrelevant.
Being 'willing to have' is irrelevant.
Also I don't have to pick one of the above as they involve an emotive diversion which is irrelevant.
If a death sentence is or isn't justified - and you can think one thing, others will disagree - it doesn't depend on who the accused is, nor does it depend on what their relatives feel or are willing to have.
Bing o said:
And if the person is innocent?
Then a terrible series of mistakes have happened, just the same as if someone innocent is locked up for years on end, and later cleared. Or indeed never cleared. I'm sure it has happened. Not a perfect answer, but it is not a perfect world. Kermit power said:
So where are you going to draw the line on that? Should we have the death penalty for GBH? After all, people who've committed GBH are a danger to prison guards and fellow inmates, and if you're prepared to commit GBH, there's a good chance you'll kill someone, whether you mean to or not.
If you feel strongly enough about it, you could easily keep murderers incarcerated in such a way as they cannot present a risk to anyone else. Effectively you're making an argument based on economics. The risk of executing innocent people is worth it for the cost savings of keeping murderers incarcerated.
I would draw it at people who are a proven lethal menace to those around them. I wouldn't rule it out for GBH if it could be very clearly demonstrated that this person posed a mortal threat to people around them. On the other hand if someone had once lost their rag in extreme circumstances then DP would not be appropriate.If you feel strongly enough about it, you could easily keep murderers incarcerated in such a way as they cannot present a risk to anyone else. Effectively you're making an argument based on economics. The risk of executing innocent people is worth it for the cost savings of keeping murderers incarcerated.
Like many things in law the line is not clear and fixed but needs to be assessed in every case by a court.
All choices can be called economics in that sense. I'm really arguing for the death penalty on the moral grounds that I believe eliminating the worst elements of our society is the right thing to do.
Kermit power said:
Really? Are you "the public" then? I thought it was all of us. Personally I wouldn't feel a sense of closure over anger, as it would be permanently overshadowed by the possibility that an innocent person had been executed. If someone I cared for was murdered, I would certainly take closure and satisfaction from the knowledge that their killer was going to spend the rest of their lives locked in a small, bare room with nothing to do but think about what might have been if they hadn't killed. I think this would arguably be worse than death, and more importantly it is easier to reverse if we got it wrong.
I'm no more or less "the public" than you are. Plenty of people do support the death penalty, and plenty don't. I believe it should be there as an option in extreme cases.How can you reverse taking 25 years of someone's life for a crime they didn't commit? No more than you can reverse the death penalty. They are still alive, but they have most likely lost the best years of their life.
Kermit power said:
Most murderers kill for emotional, financial or substance-altered reasons. Is that really the opposite of killing because it gets you some extra votes? Too many people either have been (or would have been subsequent to abolition) executed after what was at the time viewed as a fair trial and right of appeal for any sort of civilised human being to think that this could possibly be a fair and just activity.
It's very different, in my view. One is a split second decision by one man to end someone else's life to satisfy his anger or greed. The other is reached in court in front of a jury over a trial which must show that this individual behaved in such a way as to make him unfit for civilised society as set out by the law.turbobloke said:
Rather than perpetuate a misunderstanding I'll focus on this.
The mention of 'loved ones' is irrelevant.
How I would 'feel' is irrelevant.
Being 'willing to have' is irrelevant.
Also I don't have to pick one of the above as they involve an emotive diversion which is irrelevant.
If a death sentence is or isn't justified - and you can think one thing, others will disagree - it doesn't depend on who the accused is, nor does it depend on what their relatives feel or are willing to have.
The mention of 'loved ones' is irrelevant.
How I would 'feel' is irrelevant.
Being 'willing to have' is irrelevant.
Also I don't have to pick one of the above as they involve an emotive diversion which is irrelevant.
If a death sentence is or isn't justified - and you can think one thing, others will disagree - it doesn't depend on who the accused is, nor does it depend on what their relatives feel or are willing to have.
.... 
Okay, I'm clearly not getting anywhere with that line of reasoning. How about these 2 questions in all their simplicity:
1) do you accept that if you have a system of capital punishment you run the risk of executing an innocent person?
2) do you accept that any justice system will be flawed on some level and innocent people will be found guilty of crimes they didn't commit and the conviction not found to be wrong for years, if ever?
Can you answer those with yes/no?
I've done a lot of jury duty (for some reason they call me every few years) and served on a lot of cases.
I've seen other jurors struggle to convict people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, for minor offences where prison would be highly unlikely, because of 'the effect it will have on their (the defendant's) life.'
So I'm pretty confident that bringing back the DP would actually lead to more murderers walking free than in the current system, due to Jurors' reticence to send someone to their death.
Conversely, (and you need to watch '12 Angry Men' to get this), I'd worry that, given the power of 'life or death', there may be some twisted individuals on juries more likely to send an innocent man down, 'just to see him swing'.
I've seen other jurors struggle to convict people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, for minor offences where prison would be highly unlikely, because of 'the effect it will have on their (the defendant's) life.'
So I'm pretty confident that bringing back the DP would actually lead to more murderers walking free than in the current system, due to Jurors' reticence to send someone to their death.
Conversely, (and you need to watch '12 Angry Men' to get this), I'd worry that, given the power of 'life or death', there may be some twisted individuals on juries more likely to send an innocent man down, 'just to see him swing'.
Mario149 said:
.... Okay, I'm clearly not getting anywhere with that line of reasoning. How about these 2 questions in all their simplicity:
1) do you accept that if you have a system of capital punishment you run the risk of executing an innocent person?
2) do you accept that any justice system will be flawed on some level and innocent people will be found guilty of crimes they didn't commit and the conviction not found to be wrong for years, if ever?
Can you answer those with yes/no?
Besides, without DP we simply lock up innocent people for the rest of their natural life, or have a victim’s family and friends suffer when the likes of Sutcliffe and Co decide ‘Oh, its time for another appeal!’
Mario149 said:
Halb said:
We are imperfect, and I reckon it shall always be so. Our imperfection affects our current situation. Have you played the 'what if' game with the example I gave? A killer/rapist/paedo/torturer is released and goes onto commit more of the same, against a member of your family. A permanent solution would have denied this ever happening. I am not flippantly just throwing this back at you, but asking you to think rationally as you have asked of those who want the DP.
Definitely a good point. But releasing a killer etc who then kills again is a flaw with the current prison sentencing and/or parole system, not an argument for capital punishmentSo given all the hullabaloo in the news about the e-petition to reinstate the death penalty (or possibly just to debate it) has anyone managed to get on to the site to sign it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022147/Ca...
The site must be getting a hammering because it's not working!
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions?page=6&a...
Whenever this is discussed it always seems that the majority are for it. Bring it back I say! Bet it doesn't happen though, too much hand-wringing (instead of neck-wringing) nowadays.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022147/Ca...
The site must be getting a hammering because it's not working!
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions?page=6&a...
Whenever this is discussed it always seems that the majority are for it. Bring it back I say! Bet it doesn't happen though, too much hand-wringing (instead of neck-wringing) nowadays.
Maybe they should do a new petition about the Climate Change Policy if this one is succesful.
My thoughts on the death penalty change with the weather I'm ashamed to say. I think it should be brought back, but will need very strict controls for very serious crimes only (mass-murder etc). But it still creats a lot more problems than it possibly solves.
Editted to add, depsite what the outcome of the e-petition is or whether a debate takes place, debating something and changing it are two very different things.
My thoughts on the death penalty change with the weather I'm ashamed to say. I think it should be brought back, but will need very strict controls for very serious crimes only (mass-murder etc). But it still creats a lot more problems than it possibly solves.
Editted to add, depsite what the outcome of the e-petition is or whether a debate takes place, debating something and changing it are two very different things.
AJS- said:
I like this epetition thing - how about one for leaving the EU? Abandoning the Kyoto treaty? Suspending petrol duty?
They say anything with over 100,00 signatures has to be debated in parliamanet so feel free to start one. I suspect all 3 of those suggestions would get 100k easily.The site is working now, however it's a complete mess and there's about 20 petitions all for the same thing so not sure there's any point signing anything till they merge them and create an official one.
Wishing for the return of the death penalty is like wishing for free icecream.
Nice idea if you're into that sort of thing, but really, not going to happen.
It doesn't work and even if it did, it wouldn't matter, because we can't have it while we're in Europe, and we're not leaving Europe any time soon, no matter what flavour of politicians are actually in charge - and no, UKIP aren't ever going to get into power.
Nice idea if you're into that sort of thing, but really, not going to happen.
It doesn't work and even if it did, it wouldn't matter, because we can't have it while we're in Europe, and we're not leaving Europe any time soon, no matter what flavour of politicians are actually in charge - and no, UKIP aren't ever going to get into power.
TTwiggy said:
I've done a lot of jury duty (for some reason they call me every few years) and served on a lot of cases.
I've seen other jurors struggle to convict people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, for minor offences where prison would be highly unlikely, because of 'the effect it will have on their (the defendant's) life.'
So I'm pretty confident that bringing back the DP would actually lead to more murderers walking free than in the current system, due to Jurors' reticence to send someone to their death.
Conversely, (and you need to watch '12 Angry Men' to get this), I'd worry that, given the power of 'life or death', there may be some twisted individuals on juries more likely to send an innocent man down, 'just to see him swing'.
Agreed. When I did jury service it was quite scary hearing the views of some of the other people on the jury.I've seen other jurors struggle to convict people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, for minor offences where prison would be highly unlikely, because of 'the effect it will have on their (the defendant's) life.'
So I'm pretty confident that bringing back the DP would actually lead to more murderers walking free than in the current system, due to Jurors' reticence to send someone to their death.
Conversely, (and you need to watch '12 Angry Men' to get this), I'd worry that, given the power of 'life or death', there may be some twisted individuals on juries more likely to send an innocent man down, 'just to see him swing'.
For example one woman said she was glad she didn't have to deal with a rape case, because she would find the defendant guilty. Her reasoning was along the lines that all potential rapists are guilty. What made it all the more worrying was that of the 12 people in the jury there were only a handful of us who questioned her reasoning.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff