Is it time to bring back the death penalty?
Discussion
Today’s prisons are no deterrent to crime, but rather a training camp to instruct the incarcerated on how to commit more crime! To site examples such as those mentioned is to illustrate just how ‘unhinged’ they were in the first place.
I accept the death penalty alone would not necessarily stop all murderers but isn’t that like saying ‘prison for knife offenders,’ is a waste of time? They are off the streets and murderers are no longer a burden on the tax payer.
As for ‘more expensive’ following appeals that says more about our poor legal systems than it does about the death penalty.
I accept the death penalty alone would not necessarily stop all murderers but isn’t that like saying ‘prison for knife offenders,’ is a waste of time? They are off the streets and murderers are no longer a burden on the tax payer.
As for ‘more expensive’ following appeals that says more about our poor legal systems than it does about the death penalty.
andymadmak said:
freecar said:
andymadmak said:
Yes, because it would save an awful lot of innocent lives.
The death penalty is only a deterrent if Crim boy thinks there is a real risk he'll be caught, convicted and duly sentenced...
Based upon what data?The death penalty is only a deterrent if Crim boy thinks there is a real risk he'll be caught, convicted and duly sentenced...
As the data we have from countries with the death penalty doesn't back up your fantasy.
No, the only data you need is to compare the murder rate in the UK per million head of population in the periods before and after the abolition of the death penalty and the liberalistaion of of police/criminal justice system.
The data is available from the home office. And for all the apologists protestations of "post hoc fallacies" and the like the simple fact is that in the 60 years before abolition the murder rate per million head of population in the UK had held remarkably steady at around 6. This despit 2 world wars, major civil unrest, times of great poverty, social and cultural change. Within a few years of abolition the rate had doubled. Do the maths. Thats an awful lot of extra innocents dying for the liberal hand wringers cause.
The death penalty has been abolished since 1964 yet 1952 saw a much higher murder rate than the ten years following abolition, see statistics aren't black and white. What caused the 1952 murder spree? The 2002 figs were skewed by Harold Shipman, what caused the rise in 1952?
Simply put the death penalty does little for the crime rate and much for public perception.
Or to put it even more simply, if the death penalty had been available, this boy would still have killed his ex girlfriend as he wouldn't have believed himself likely to be caught.
freecar said:
andymadmak said:
freecar said:
andymadmak said:
Yes, because it would save an awful lot of innocent lives.
The death penalty is only a deterrent if Crim boy thinks there is a real risk he'll be caught, convicted and duly sentenced...
Based upon what data?The death penalty is only a deterrent if Crim boy thinks there is a real risk he'll be caught, convicted and duly sentenced...
As the data we have from countries with the death penalty doesn't back up your fantasy.
No, the only data you need is to compare the murder rate in the UK per million head of population in the periods before and after the abolition of the death penalty and the liberalistaion of of police/criminal justice system.
The data is available from the home office. And for all the apologists protestations of "post hoc fallacies" and the like the simple fact is that in the 60 years before abolition the murder rate per million head of population in the UK had held remarkably steady at around 6. This despit 2 world wars, major civil unrest, times of great poverty, social and cultural change. Within a few years of abolition the rate had doubled. Do the maths. Thats an awful lot of extra innocents dying for the liberal hand wringers cause.
The death penalty has been abolished since 1964 yet 1952 saw a much higher murder rate than the ten years following abolition, see statistics aren't black and white. What caused the 1952 murder spree? The 2002 figs were skewed by Harold Shipman, what caused the rise in 1952?
Simply put the death penalty does little for the crime rate and much for public perception.
Or to put it even more simply, if the death penalty had been available, this boy would still have killed his ex girlfriend as he wouldn't have believed himself likely to be caught.
You can seek to brush it off all you like, and your "the fact is your stats come from a time when society was vastly different to today" comment is risible. Did we suddenly become a more violent society in 1969? Did the value of human life take a tumble in 1969? I'd suggest the answer to both those is No! But what did happen was that criminals learned very quickly that sanctions and consequences were nowhere near as harsh. The risks associated with capture became more acceptable. Indeed, as the Police detection rates fell through the 70s and 80s, and our courts became ever softer, and our prisons ever cushier, the actual risk of being captured, convicted or severly sanctioned for a serious crime became so low as to make criminality a positive career choice for some, and an acceptable career risk for many.
Bulletscost less than a pound each. Where I am it costs circa £32.0000,00 to house one prisoner per year. Sure appeals cost money but if it is a cut and shut case where there is plenty of evidence that it "Was you that did murder/rape" the appeal would only be for sentence rather than conviction. The maths is simple. The more normal prisoner, shoplifters, drug pushers and the like could then be held for longer to rid the streets of them.
Andy..
Andy..
andymadmak said:
I'd suggest the answer to both those is No! But what did happen was that criminals learned very quickly that sanctions and consequences were nowhere near as harsh. The risks associated with capture became more acceptable. Indeed, as the Police detection rates fell through the 70s and 80s, and our courts became ever softer, and our prisons ever cushier, the actual risk of being captured, convicted or severly sanctioned for a serious crime became so low as to make criminality a positive career choice for some, and an acceptable career risk for many.
There's your answer. If the death penalty were an effective deterrent, no-one would ever get shot for tax evasion in China.
CommanderJameson said:
andymadmak said:
I'd suggest the answer to both those is No! But what did happen was that criminals learned very quickly that sanctions and consequences were nowhere near as harsh. The risks associated with capture became more acceptable. Indeed, as the Police detection rates fell through the 70s and 80s, and our courts became ever softer, and our prisons ever cushier, the actual risk of being captured, convicted or severly sanctioned for a serious crime became so low as to make criminality a positive career choice for some, and an acceptable career risk for many.
There's your answer. If the death penalty were an effective deterrent, no-one would ever get shot for tax evasion in China.
He calls my assertion that society changes with time risible but then tells us that you can't compare countries. Why, does the USA have a completely different attitude to human life?
Apparently the UK has unique inhabitants.
andymadmak said:
Oh please. You started out by referencing the stats from other countries. How do you think stats are compiled? Answer: Over time! The only stats relevant to the UK are the UKs own stats. And they are REMARKABLY consistent up to abolition in 1969 - and equally the inexorable rise post abolition is hardly statistically irrelevant!
You can seek to brush it off all you like, and your "the fact is your stats come from a time when society was vastly different to today" comment is risible. Did we suddenly become a more violent society in 1969? Did the value of human life take a tumble in 1969? I'd suggest the answer to both those is No! But what did happen was that criminals learned very quickly that sanctions and consequences were nowhere near as harsh. The risks associated with capture became more acceptable. Indeed, as the Police detection rates fell through the 70s and 80s, and our courts became ever softer, and our prisons ever cushier, the actual risk of being captured, convicted or severly sanctioned for a serious crime became so low as to make criminality a positive career choice for some, and an acceptable career risk for many.
At the risk of sounding as if I agree with Freecar (I resoundingly do not!) around the late sixties the natural demographics of the UK came under a considerable pressure to change, as we imported zillions of people to take on jobs we didn't want to do. (oh the irony)You can seek to brush it off all you like, and your "the fact is your stats come from a time when society was vastly different to today" comment is risible. Did we suddenly become a more violent society in 1969? Did the value of human life take a tumble in 1969? I'd suggest the answer to both those is No! But what did happen was that criminals learned very quickly that sanctions and consequences were nowhere near as harsh. The risks associated with capture became more acceptable. Indeed, as the Police detection rates fell through the 70s and 80s, and our courts became ever softer, and our prisons ever cushier, the actual risk of being captured, convicted or severly sanctioned for a serious crime became so low as to make criminality a positive career choice for some, and an acceptable career risk for many.
But I would vote to bring back hanging, let those who kill die.
I have no further use for them, they do not enrich my life and have destroyed other's lives.
And yes I'd pull levers or point guns, not trained to find a vein.
Whilst the argument has been done to death and people quote stats solely to prove their point of view, in talking with a judge - who, fair enough was not a judge when hanging was permitted but merely a barrister - I was told that juries are much more willing to convict for murder when there is no death penalty. He reckoned that if there had been degrees of murder, one with a variable sentence, another with a compulsory life sentence and one with the death penalty as an option, then juries would have been far happier.
I have not experience but the judge never told me anything that wasn't spot on.
So stats are of absolutely no use whatsoever.
Further, my father reckoned that the reason there was less personal violent crime immediately after the war was that people were sated.
There are loads of possible reasons for any statistical differences between then and now. Simple statistical theory shows that. It's the old case of tomatoes being poisonous.
I have not experience but the judge never told me anything that wasn't spot on.
So stats are of absolutely no use whatsoever.
Further, my father reckoned that the reason there was less personal violent crime immediately after the war was that people were sated.
There are loads of possible reasons for any statistical differences between then and now. Simple statistical theory shows that. It's the old case of tomatoes being poisonous.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
It would certainly stop the 'person' from committing a similar act again in the future though.
If we remove the 'possibility of doubt' from the equation, which I believe is the biggest argument against the death penalty, what 'benefit' would there be to keeping someone in prison for life, rather than executing them? Assuming said 'person' committed the act in 'cold blood' and showed no remorse (i.e.: no chance to rehabilitate said 'person'.......since rehabilitation rarely works, if ever, in such cases)
Freecar;If we remove the 'possibility of doubt' from the equation, which I believe is the biggest argument against the death penalty, what 'benefit' would there be to keeping someone in prison for life, rather than executing them? Assuming said 'person' committed the act in 'cold blood' and showed no remorse (i.e.: no chance to rehabilitate said 'person'.......since rehabilitation rarely works, if ever, in such cases)
Forget stats, graphs, etc, showing 'trends' associated with the death penalty in various countries. Forget how effective the death penalty is as a deterrent, etc.
Can you answer the question I asked in my previous post quoted above RE: the 'benefits' of keeping someone in prison for life over executing them.
If there are no 'benefits', surely it reduces the risk to society (escape, etc) & cost to society to execute them?
Bearing in mind we're talking about the most serious offenses here.
The only benefits I can see is if we made our prisoners 'work' for society (chain gangs, etc). I personally think this is a good use of the prison population, and makes the 'cost' of imprisoning them more justifiable.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 23 June 15:04
freecar said:
He wont listen, he's seen one graph with an upward trend and that is enough for him.
He calls my assertion that society changes with time risible but then tells us that you can't compare countries. Why, does the USA have a completely different attitude to human life?
Apparently the UK has unique inhabitants.
Could you be a little less insulting? He calls my assertion that society changes with time risible but then tells us that you can't compare countries. Why, does the USA have a completely different attitude to human life?
Apparently the UK has unique inhabitants.
You have no idea what data I have seen on this subject. I'll make you a small bet that it's a darn sight more than you've taken the trouble to research before you floated your "it was a different time then, and oohhh, it doesn't work in the USA" diatribes. (and altogether a whole lot more than one graph!)
If society changes with time is the answer, tell me what happened in 1969 that changed society so much at that point in time? The data is clear. 6 murders per million head of popiulation in the DECADES up to 69, near as doubled within a short period thereafter.
Perhaps that "change in society" was the abolition of the death penalty and softening of our criminal justice system that signalled to criminals that the risks to them of their actions had been significantly diminished?
Is it thus unreasonable to assume that if you could somehow convince modern crims that the chances of their being caught after committing a major crime were very high, that the chances of them being convicted were equally high, and that the ensuing punishment was likely to be harsh and long in tough prisons, or terminal under certain circumstances, that you would find, over time, a reduction in violent crime?
Of course, I'd welcome your alternate view on just what happened in the late 60s in the UK that was so cataclysmic for society that made so many more people decide "lets go a-murdering" I have my theory, as set out above but which you clearly snear at and find so easy to refute. OK, so share with us your views on the reasons please?
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
It would certainly stop the 'person' from committing a similar act again in the future though.
If we remove the 'possibility of doubt' from the equation, which I believe is the biggest argument against the death penalty, what 'benefit' would there be to keeping someone in prison for life, rather than executing them? Assuming said 'person' committed the act in 'cold blood' and showed no remorse (i.e.: no chance to rehabilitate said 'person'.......since rehabilitation rarely works, if ever, in such cases)
Freecar;If we remove the 'possibility of doubt' from the equation, which I believe is the biggest argument against the death penalty, what 'benefit' would there be to keeping someone in prison for life, rather than executing them? Assuming said 'person' committed the act in 'cold blood' and showed no remorse (i.e.: no chance to rehabilitate said 'person'.......since rehabilitation rarely works, if ever, in such cases)
Forget stats, graphs, etc, showing 'trends' associated with the death penalty in various countries. Forget how effective the death penalty is as a deterrent, etc.
Can you answer the question I asked in my previous post quoted above RE: the 'benefits' of keeping someone in prison for life over executing them.
If there are no 'benefits', surely it reduces the risk to society (escape, etc) & cost to society to execute them?
Bearing in mind we're talking about the most serious offenses here.
To the same token can you give me advantages to the death penalty, don't go believing it to be cheap either data shows that to be false unless you're China and don't allow proper legal procedure.
For the record, I used to support the reintroduction of the death penalty before I started to research it. I am now disgusted at myself for allowing my emotions to rule over my brain and allowing me to make a knee-jerk decision a-la daily mail!
CommanderJameson said:
The Daily Mail is strong in this one, hmm!
Post of the day. 
No, of course it shouldn't be brought back, we're not a nation of murderers.
More appropriate sentences for sure, especially for murder i.e. life sentences with a minimum of 30 years, but not the death penalty.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Freecar;
Forget stats, graphs, etc, showing 'trends' associated with the death penalty in various countries. Forget how effective the death penalty is as a deterrent, etc.
Can you answer the question I asked in my previous post quoted above RE: the 'benefits' of keeping someone in prison for life over executing them.
If there are no 'benefits', surely it reduces the risk to society (escape, etc) & cost to society to execute them?
Bearing in mind we're talking about the most serious offenses here.
It doesn't reduce the cost to society in the US where there are countless mandatory appeals etc. Juries would be less likely to convict with a mandatory death penalty. If I was supreme dictator then they would be left in prison with no possibility of release, if the hopelessness of their situation leads them to take the easy way out for themselves then they can but it isn't our place to make it easier for them by allowing them to escape 40 odd years of thinking about how sForget stats, graphs, etc, showing 'trends' associated with the death penalty in various countries. Forget how effective the death penalty is as a deterrent, etc.
Can you answer the question I asked in my previous post quoted above RE: the 'benefits' of keeping someone in prison for life over executing them.
If there are no 'benefits', surely it reduces the risk to society (escape, etc) & cost to society to execute them?
Bearing in mind we're talking about the most serious offenses here.
t their life is.andymadmak said:
Could you be a little less insulting?
You have no idea what data I have seen on this subject. I'll make you a small bet that it's a darn sight more than you've taken the trouble to research before you floated your "it was a different time then, and oohhh, it doesn't work in the USA" diatribes. (and altogether a whole lot more than one graph!)
If society changes with time is the answer, tell me what happened in 1969 that changed society so much at that point in time? The data is clear. 6 murders per million head of popiulation in the DECADES up to 69, near as doubled within a short period thereafter.
Perhaps that "change in society" was the abolition of the death penalty and softening of our criminal justice system that signalled to criminals that the risks to them of their actions had been significantly diminished?
Is it thus unreasonable to assume that if you could somehow convince modern crims that the chances of their being caught after committing a major crime were very high, that the chances of them being convicted were equally high, and that the ensuing punishment was likely to be harsh and long in tough prisons, or terminal under certain circumstances, that you would find, over time, a reduction in violent crime?
Of course, I'd welcome your alternate view on just what happened in the late 60s in the UK that was so cataclysmic for society that made so many more people decide "lets go a-murdering" I have my theory, as set out above but which you clearly snear at and find so easy to refute. OK, so share with us your views on the reasons please?
OK where is the graph, as the one I've seen does not reflect your post.You have no idea what data I have seen on this subject. I'll make you a small bet that it's a darn sight more than you've taken the trouble to research before you floated your "it was a different time then, and oohhh, it doesn't work in the USA" diatribes. (and altogether a whole lot more than one graph!)
If society changes with time is the answer, tell me what happened in 1969 that changed society so much at that point in time? The data is clear. 6 murders per million head of popiulation in the DECADES up to 69, near as doubled within a short period thereafter.
Perhaps that "change in society" was the abolition of the death penalty and softening of our criminal justice system that signalled to criminals that the risks to them of their actions had been significantly diminished?
Is it thus unreasonable to assume that if you could somehow convince modern crims that the chances of their being caught after committing a major crime were very high, that the chances of them being convicted were equally high, and that the ensuing punishment was likely to be harsh and long in tough prisons, or terminal under certain circumstances, that you would find, over time, a reduction in violent crime?
Of course, I'd welcome your alternate view on just what happened in the late 60s in the UK that was so cataclysmic for society that made so many more people decide "lets go a-murdering" I have my theory, as set out above but which you clearly snear at and find so easy to refute. OK, so share with us your views on the reasons please?
Don't keep all your data secret.
As long as this country remains remotely similar to how it is today, the death penalty will never be brought back. Just imagine if it was- the youtube videos of the executions smuggled out, the exectutioners, and the death row warders suing the government for various mental disorders brought about by the stress, etc etc.
wolves_wanderer said:
It doesn't reduce the cost to society in the US where there are countless mandatory appeals etc. Juries would be less likely to convict with a mandatory death penalty. If I was supreme dictator then they would be left in prison with no possibility of release, if the hopelessness of their situation leads them to take the easy way out for themselves then they can but it isn't our place to make it easier for them.
For get the whole appeals costs, etc....even in cases of 'life' sentences there are appeals for reduced sentences. There are appeals for lots of things out in the US.As I mentioned, assume for the sake of the argument that this guy is 100% known to be guilty.
Why should we keep someone in prison for life...at a cost to the taxpayer.....instead of executing them?
Spiritual_Beggar said:
As I mentioned, assume for the sake of the argument that this guy is 100% known to be guilty.
Why assume this? I think that one of the foundations of our criminal justice system is that this assumption is invalid. (better to see a dozen guilty men walk free than one innocent man wrongly convicted, and all that jazz)
freecar said:
Simple, they could be innocent.
To the same token can you give me advantages to the death penalty, don't go believing it to be cheap either data shows that to be false unless you're China and don't allow proper legal procedure.
For the record, I used to support the reintroduction of the death penalty before I started to research it. I am now disgusted at myself for allowing my emotions to rule over my brain and allowing me to make a knee-jerk decision a-la daily mail!
But for the sake of this argument let's say it 100% known they are guilty.To the same token can you give me advantages to the death penalty, don't go believing it to be cheap either data shows that to be false unless you're China and don't allow proper legal procedure.
For the record, I used to support the reintroduction of the death penalty before I started to research it. I am now disgusted at myself for allowing my emotions to rule over my brain and allowing me to make a knee-jerk decision a-la daily mail!
I agree with you....I'm not too certain the death penalty would be a good idea purely because of the 'possibility of doubt'.
But, forgive me if I misunderstood, I got the impression that you were against the idea of 'execution' as a form of punishment no matter the circumstance, and that at the very worst someone is imprisoned for life rather than taking theirs away.
Hence the question; is there actually a benefit to imprisoning someone for life over executing them.
As I mentioned above, the only benefit I can see is if we make them 'work' for society in chaingangs and the like. But we're not allowed to do that (against their humans rights or something......if you can believe the irony!!)
The benefits of having the death penalty are quite clear...it removes that 'rabid' person from society. There is 0% chance that that person could commit that crime ever again. And it IS cheaper to flick a switch/ give an injection than it is to house & feed a prisoner for the rest of their life.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 23 June 15:19
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff