Is it time to bring back the death penalty?
Discussion
Spiritual_Beggar said:
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!!)
You're not confused, I am against the death penalty. I wasn't but that was before researching it.
freecar said:
OK where is the graph, as the one I've seen does not reflect your post.
Don't keep all your data secret.
My data comes direct from the Home Office website. Some of the older data (pre 1940s) is now much harder to access but you used to be able to access the murder rate per million head of population stats all the way back to 1906! Don't keep all your data secret.
I'm in a hurry now, but some stats can be found here : http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/res... - look at page 11
There are little peaks (1952 for example) but on average the number pre abolition is around 6-7.5
After 1967 the rise is inexorable...
More recent stats are also available but I cant get to them at this time (although the trend in most recent times has I believe been very slightly downwards)
Edited by andymadmak on Thursday 23 June 15:21
andymadmak said:
freecar said:
OK where is the graph, as the one I've seen does not reflect your post.
Don't keep all your data secret.
My data comes direct from the Home Office website. Some of the older data (pre 1940s) is now much harder to access but you used to be able to access the murder rate per million head of population stats all the way back to 1906! Don't keep all your data secret.
I'm in a hurry now, but some stats can be found here : http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/res... - look at page 11
There are little peaks (1952 for example) but on average the number pre abolition is around 6-7.5
After 1967 the rise is inexorable...
More recent stats are also available but I cant get to them at this time (although the trend in most recent times has I believe been very slightly downwards)
Edited by andymadmak on Thursday 23 June 15:21
For instance juries are more likely to convict if there is no death penalty, so logic would state that the "murder" rate would rise as the jurors would be happier giving a guilty verdict.
andymadmak said:
freecar said:
OK where is the graph, as the one I've seen does not reflect your post.
Don't keep all your data secret.
My data comes direct from the Home Office website. Some of the older data (pre 1940s) is now much harder to access but you used to be able to access the murder rate per million head of population stats all the way back to 1906! Don't keep all your data secret.
I'm in a hurry now, but some stats can be found here : http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/res... - look at page 11
There are little peaks (1952 for example) but on average the number pre abolition is around 6-7.5
After 1967 the rise is inexorable...
More recent stats are also available but I cant get to them at this time (although the trend in most recent times has I believe been very slightly downwards)
Edited by andymadmak on Thursday 23 June 15:21
freecar said:
One other benefit is that you would catch more murderers. It is a well known fact that juries are less likely to convict for murder of the defendant would be killed.
You're not confused, I am against the death penalty. I wasn't but that was before researching it.
I understand that. And again, that is one of the reasons why I too am not fully in support of the death penalty (and therefore since I do not fully support it I would not like to see it reintroduced).You're not confused, I am against the death penalty. I wasn't but that was before researching it.
But, coming at it from a very simplistic angle for the sake of the argument;
Let's say we have a man that has killed several people in cold blood for no reason whatsoever.
He has confessed as such, shows no remorse, we have video evidence showing him committing the acts, and he is sane. He is guilty, been convicted as such and is serving 'life in jail' (the rest of his life, not the 15 years or so associated with 'life' in our judicial system) without chance of parole ever!
Why wouldn't it be more beneficial to society to execute him?
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 23 June 15:28
freecar said:
Similar to the graph I've seen. It isn't conclusive though, there are many factors to look at.
For instance juries are more likely to convict if there is no death penalty, so logic would state that the "murder" rate would rise as the jurors would be happier giving a guilty verdict.
Um, thats not the point. The stats refer to the number of crimes RECORDED as murder. It makes no mention of convictions or otherwiseFor instance juries are more likely to convict if there is no death penalty, so logic would state that the "murder" rate would rise as the jurors would be happier giving a guilty verdict.
andymadmak said:
freecar said:
Similar to the graph I've seen. It isn't conclusive though, there are many factors to look at.
For instance juries are more likely to convict if there is no death penalty, so logic would state that the "murder" rate would rise as the jurors would be happier giving a guilty verdict.
Um, thats not the point. The stats refer to the number of crimes RECORDED as murder. It makes no mention of convictions or otherwiseFor instance juries are more likely to convict if there is no death penalty, so logic would state that the "murder" rate would rise as the jurors would be happier giving a guilty verdict.
It says itself that around 15% of the cases would be reclassified after court action so I'd rather see a graph of after court action not before. In some years that 15% could be as many as 100 cases which is rather significant.
andymadmak said:
CommanderJameson said:
What's gone up? The actual murder rate, or the detected murder rate?
the body count! 
and support?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in...
edit
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back...
Edited by Halb on Thursday 23 June 15:39
Whilst we have an imperfect judicial system whereby it takes years for miscarriages of justice to be discovered no sane rational person can advocate the death penalty whereby it's inevitable that some innocent people will be murdered by the state.
If you say that is acceptable then by deduction you are saying you are happy to be that person who is killed for a crime you didn't commit, if you aren't then you cannt support it.
If you say that is acceptable then by deduction you are saying you are happy to be that person who is killed for a crime you didn't commit, if you aren't then you cannt support it.
freecar said:
andymadmak said:
freecar said:
Similar to the graph I've seen. It isn't conclusive though, there are many factors to look at.
For instance juries are more likely to convict if there is no death penalty, so logic would state that the "murder" rate would rise as the jurors would be happier giving a guilty verdict.
Um, thats not the point. The stats refer to the number of crimes RECORDED as murder. It makes no mention of convictions or otherwiseFor instance juries are more likely to convict if there is no death penalty, so logic would state that the "murder" rate would rise as the jurors would be happier giving a guilty verdict.
It says itself that around 15% of the cases would be reclassified after court action so I'd rather see a graph of after court action not before. In some years that 15% could be as many as 100 cases which is rather significant.
vixen1700 said:
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.
‘We're not a nation of murderers!’ Try telling that to the parents of the child who was brutally murdered as per the news item. It appears some people are quite happy to commit murder especially as the consequences are simply if found guilty a dry cell, with a games console 3 square meals and a vote every four years! 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.
vxr8mate said:
‘We're not a nation of murderers!’ Try telling that to the parents of the child who was brutally murdered as per the news item. It appears some people are quite happy to commit murder especially as the consequences are simply if found guilty a dry cell, with a games console 3 square meals and a vote every four years!
and out on licence after less than 15 years..........I think death is appropriate for multiple murderers like Bellfield, who has been convicted in multiple trials of the murder of three people.
Castration for multiple rapists, paedos etc.
It is proved that a handful of innocent people get convicted for 1 serious offence.
But no innocent people get convicted for the same serious offence twice.
Castration for multiple rapists, paedos etc.
It is proved that a handful of innocent people get convicted for 1 serious offence.
But no innocent people get convicted for the same serious offence twice.
vxr8mate said:
‘We're not a nation of murderers!’ Try telling that to the parents of the child who was brutally murdered as per the news item. It appears some people are quite happy to commit murder especially as the consequences are simply if found guilty a dry cell, with a games console 3 square meals and a vote every four years!
That's part of what I mean about appropriate sentences, life sentences in proper prisons, not glorified youth centres. I think the pathetic sentences handed out for some of the scum of society have made this knee-jerk reaction calling for the death penalty, whereas in a civilised society the state doesn't kill its citizens whatever their crimes. But proper, stiffer sentences are needed in proper prisons, offshore if needed for these people.
Do you lot shout along with the fishwives, calling for people to be strung up outside courts too?
Spiritual_Beggar said:
I understand that. And again, that is one of the reasons why I too am not fully in support of the death penalty (and therefore since I do not fully support it I would not like to see it reintroduced).
But, coming at it from a very simplistic angle for the sake of the argument;
Let's say we have a man that has killed several people in cold blood for no reason whatsoever.
He has confessed as such, shows no remorse, we have video evidence showing him committing the acts, and he is sane. He is guilty, been convicted as such and is serving 'life in jail' (the rest of his life, not the 15 years or so associated with 'life' in our judicial system) without chance of parole ever!
Why wouldn't it be more beneficial to society to execute him?
How many murderers would fall into this category with such a level of proof? I would imagine that it would be a vanishingly small proportion, so the "benefit to society" as you put it would also be vanishingly small. But, coming at it from a very simplistic angle for the sake of the argument;
Let's say we have a man that has killed several people in cold blood for no reason whatsoever.
He has confessed as such, shows no remorse, we have video evidence showing him committing the acts, and he is sane. He is guilty, been convicted as such and is serving 'life in jail' (the rest of his life, not the 15 years or so associated with 'life' in our judicial system) without chance of parole ever!
Why wouldn't it be more beneficial to society to execute him?
In the last 30 years of the death sentence leading up to 1964, 302 people were hanged in England & Wales, excluding the likes of treason & espionage during WW2.
Had the death penalty still been in place subsequent to 1964, it would've claimed at the very least the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, two of the Bridgewater 4, the M25 3, the Cardiff 3 and at least twenty other people whose convictions for murder have subsequently been overturned.
Three of those 302 who were hanged have subsequently been granted posthumous pardons, and even allowing for the multiple accused in some of the cases I quoted above, I find it very hard to believe that the criminal justice system suddenly became so much more f
ked as to such a massive rise in miscarriages of justice, so who knows how many of those 302 were wrongly convicted?
Of course, we'll never know exactly how many people might've been sentenced to death in the last 45 years had the death penalty not been abolished, but how many would it have to be before the deaths of 40+ wrongly convicted people are worth the number of murderers taken off our streets? Personally I don't think it's worth one innocent life. I'd prefer to see convicted murderers and rapists locked up for life without possibility of parole. At least then we can do something to compensate people who are (and doubtlessly will be in future) shown to be wrongly convicted.
To those suggesting that we should bring back the death penalty, maybe you'd like to get in touch with some of these people to explain to them how their executions would've been worth it for society?
Had the death penalty still been in place subsequent to 1964, it would've claimed at the very least the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, two of the Bridgewater 4, the M25 3, the Cardiff 3 and at least twenty other people whose convictions for murder have subsequently been overturned.
Three of those 302 who were hanged have subsequently been granted posthumous pardons, and even allowing for the multiple accused in some of the cases I quoted above, I find it very hard to believe that the criminal justice system suddenly became so much more f
ked as to such a massive rise in miscarriages of justice, so who knows how many of those 302 were wrongly convicted?Of course, we'll never know exactly how many people might've been sentenced to death in the last 45 years had the death penalty not been abolished, but how many would it have to be before the deaths of 40+ wrongly convicted people are worth the number of murderers taken off our streets? Personally I don't think it's worth one innocent life. I'd prefer to see convicted murderers and rapists locked up for life without possibility of parole. At least then we can do something to compensate people who are (and doubtlessly will be in future) shown to be wrongly convicted.
To those suggesting that we should bring back the death penalty, maybe you'd like to get in touch with some of these people to explain to them how their executions would've been worth it for society?
vixen1700 said:
That's part of what I mean about appropriate sentences, life sentences in proper prisons, not glorified youth centres.
I think the pathetic sentences handed out for some of the scum of society have made this knee-jerk reaction calling for the death penalty, whereas in a civilised society the state doesn't kill its citizens whatever their crimes. But proper, stiffer sentences are needed in proper prisons, offshore if needed for these people.
Do you lot shout along with the fishwives, calling for people to be strung up outside courts too?
It’s easy to dismiss such calls as the ranting of ‘fishwives’ but I would consider myself a moderate who at one time would have been appalled at the thought of the reintroduction of the death penalty. However, while the term ‘murder’ is general in its meaning certain crimes are not and the perpetrators of said crimes deserve to be treated as we would a rabid dog. I think the pathetic sentences handed out for some of the scum of society have made this knee-jerk reaction calling for the death penalty, whereas in a civilised society the state doesn't kill its citizens whatever their crimes. But proper, stiffer sentences are needed in proper prisons, offshore if needed for these people.
Do you lot shout along with the fishwives, calling for people to be strung up outside courts too?
wolves_wanderer said:
How many murderers would fall into this category with such a level of proof? I would imagine that it would be a vanishingly small proportion, so the "benefit to society" as you put it would also be vanishingly small.
But the amount of people that would be considered for the death penalty are extremely small anyway.The amount of people considered for the death penalty in the US is extremely small compared to the total number of murderers who appear in front of a judge period (except down South....but they can be very 'backwards' in thinking down there sometimes
)The death penalty is reserved only for the most serious of crimes.
Forget the 'probabilities' and 'likelihoods' of my hypothetical scenario actually happening in real life.....
IF said scenario arose......what justification would there be for keeping someone locked up in cell over executing them.
I'm just trying to understand why some people are against the 'death penalty' period...no matter what the situation (i.e.: people who don't think it is ever right/ justifiable to execute a criminal).
Though I do not think it would be a good idea to reintroduce it to our judicial system (for various reasons), I can at least see cases where a 'death penalty' would be justifiable & fair as a punishment.
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 23 June 16:18
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 23 June 16:22
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff