Bring Back Death Penalty

[Pothole]

andymadmak said:

Twincam16 said:

Murder rate has been dropping steadily for the last 30 years:

http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-murder-rate-falls-...

So if there was a case for the death penalty, it held greater resonance in 1982 than it does today.

Also dropped in the USA, so I am not sure what your point is. In any event, it still does not alter the fact that after 60 years of staility the murder rate doubled in a very short time- straigjt after the abolition of the death penalty. By my reckoning, based on say 60 million people, thats approx 400 extra innocents dying each year so that the liberal elite can feel groovy

'innocents'. Do give over with the emotive claptrap. Why would you think all murder victims are innocent?

[kuzushi]

Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-2911428.html

"Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14)."

"Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor."

[nickbee]

kuzushi said:

Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

Well, I'm convinced. Clearly it's time for all the places with low murder rates to take advice, from the places with high murder rates, on how to lower murder rates.

[andymadmak]

otolith said:

I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but it does occur to me that you have to ask whether those states have a high murder rate because they have retained the death penalty or whether they have retained the death penalty because they have a high murder rate.

Now I am not on the worlds bumpiest train line I can be a little more expansive in my arguments.

My view is Yes to the DP, but as part of a wide ranging shake up of our whole police and criminal justice system.
At the bottom of the system should be a well trained, focussed and highly professional police force, equipped with the technology and expertise necessary to catch criminals. Its my view that fear of being caught should be the major deterrent to most criminal activity. At the present time, many criminals simply do not think the law will catch up with them. This needs to change. Whilst I understand the reasons for PACE, some of the baby went out with the bath water when that came in.
Zero tolerance works once the crims realise that it really does mean zero.

On the second stage of deterrence should be a courts system that is rigorous and somewhat more sympathetic to the victims of crime, and less so to the perpetrators. If you are guilty of a crime you should be concerned that the courts will establish that and that you will be found guilty. I am not sure that this is the current situation! Sadly, trial by Jury may no longer be the best way in certain types of case. I further believe that sentences should be tougher in any case of repeat offending. I could say lots on this, but basically many crims, especially young ones do not fear the courts and being found guilty for the umpteenth time does not fill them with dread as to the consequences. It should.

On the third stage should be a prisons regime that any sane person would not want to spend any time in. Hard, uncomfortable, unrelenting and disciplined. - in other words a far cry from what we have today. Too many crims see prison terms as a cushy number between criminal episodes. That HAS to stop.

And lastly, at the peek of the pile should be the ultimate sanction. For those who are undettered by an efficient police force that will catch them, and by a court that would be willing to find you guilty and sentence you accordingly and by the thought of prison life too awful to enjoy, for these people who despite this are willing to murder people for their own selfish, evil ends, then the DP should apply.

And yes I WOULD pull the lever.

Safeguards should be in place - for example maybe its life imprisonment for one murder, DP for more than one? That way the incidence of someone being caught walking from the woods covered in blood (an example from earlier, but you get my drift) would not trigger such a risk of ultimate misscarriage of justice?
Perhaps the burden of proof is higher for DP? Perhaps the process is subject to separate expert review?
I'm not looking to lower my taxes here (as some buffoon accused me of yesterday) What I want is for the Police and criminal justice system to be set up to deter crime and to protect the general population from the worst excesses of human nature.
We lost something in the 1960s with the combined loss of the DP and the liberalisation of the courst and prison systems. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that that loss has cost the lives of thousands of innocent people over the past 46 years. We made the consequences of their actions less challenging for the criminals and they have rewarded society accordingly.

[Ozzie Osmond]

andymadmak said:

My view is Yes to the DP

What a surprise.

andymadmak said:

And yes I WOULD pull the lever.

What a surprise.

andymadmak said:

Safeguards should be in place - for example maybe its life imprisonment for one murder, DP for more than one?

You've completely destroyed your own argument.

[andymadmak]

Pothole said:

innocents'. Do give over with the emotive claptrap. Why would you think all murder victims are innocent?

Well thanks for that helpfull contribution. Use of the word innocent appears in the third post on this thread, so blame me not for the "emotive claptrap"

And to answer your question, since you seem incapable of grasping the broader point, what percentage of murder victims in your view deserved it?

[andymadmak]

Ozzie Osmond said:

andymadmak said:

My view is Yes to the DP

What a surprise.

andymadmak said:

And yes I WOULD pull the lever.

What a surprise.

andymadmak said:

Safeguards should be in place - for example maybe its life imprisonment for one murder, DP for more than one?

You've completely destroyed your own argument.

Eh? Can't you read? I gave a structured response to the question. That structure does not destroy my position. Quite the contrary old chap

[Kermit power]

otolith said:

I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but it does occur to me that you have to ask whether those states have a high murder rate because they have retained the death penalty or whether they have retained the death penalty because they have a high murder rate.

OK, that's a fair point. How about it it was the exact same state? Let's take New York's murder rates as an example.

New York abolished the death penalty in 1963. In 1965, when the above statistics started, they had a murder rate of 4.6 per hundred thousand.

By 1990, this had risen to a peak of 14.5. Clear evidence, then, that removing the death penalty removes a deterrent to murder?

And that might be where the story finished, except that by the time New York briefly (and without ever actually using it) reinstated the death penalty in 1996, the murder rate had already fallen back to 7.4, and since the final removal of all execution equipment from the state under gubernatorial decree in 2004, the murder rate has remained under the 1965 rate for all but 2006, and even then it only made it to 4.8.

[marcosgt]

Wow - Who'd have though that - A majority AGAINST!

Restores my faith in human nature

M.

[Steameh]

Bedazzled said:

I'm in favour of the death penalty. It's inevitable some mistakes will be made, even with today's technology, but I still think it's necessary; both as a punishment and a deterrent. The counter argument is always "what if the mistake is someone in your family?" but that just makes it personal and means your judgement is emotionally compromised.

One mistake is surely enough for the death penalty to not be used?

[andymadmak]

Kermit power said:

OK, that's a fair point. How about it it was the exact same state? Let's take New York's murder rates as an example.

New York abolished the death penalty in 1963. In 1965, when the above statistics started, they had a murder rate of 4.6 per hundred thousand.

By 1990, this had risen to a peak of 14.5. Clear evidence, then, that removing the death penalty removes a deterrent to murder?

And that might be where the story finished, except that by the time New York briefly (and without ever actually using it) reinstated the death penalty in 1996, the murder rate had already fallen back to 7.4, and since the final removal of all execution equipment from the state under gubernatorial decree in 2004, the murder rate has remained under the 1965 rate for all but 2006, and even then it only made it to 4.8.

Thanks for that. Genuinely interesting stuff. As a matter of interest does anyone know when NYC introduced its fabled "Zero Tolerance" approach to policing etc? Could the fall in any way be linked to that?

[thinfourth2]

For those that want to bring back the death penalty tell me the following

Why is better then life in prison?

As only the seriously unhinged would think oh goody i get to spend the rest of my days in prison.

[Kermit power]

andymadmak said:

Kermit power said:

OK, that's a fair point. How about it it was the exact same state? Let's take New York's murder rates as an example.

New York abolished the death penalty in 1963. In 1965, when the above statistics started, they had a murder rate of 4.6 per hundred thousand.

By 1990, this had risen to a peak of 14.5. Clear evidence, then, that removing the death penalty removes a deterrent to murder?

And that might be where the story finished, except that by the time New York briefly (and without ever actually using it) reinstated the death penalty in 1996, the murder rate had already fallen back to 7.4, and since the final removal of all execution equipment from the state under gubernatorial decree in 2004, the murder rate has remained under the 1965 rate for all but 2006, and even then it only made it to 4.8.

Thanks for that. Genuinely interesting stuff. As a matter of interest does anyone know when NYC introduced its fabled "Zero Tolerance" approach to policing etc? Could the fall in any way be linked to that?

Also 1996, so again it seems to be a case of bolting the stable door after the escaped horse has already trundled back in and settled down for the night.

[Ozzie Osmond]

thinfourth2 said:

For those that want to bring back the death penalty tell me the following

Why is better then life in prison?

As only the seriously unhinged would think oh goody I get to spend the rest of my days in prison.

^^^^ This

In my opinion one of the key reasons for not having a death penalty is society shows itself to be of higher moral standing than the criminal.

[Digga]

Kermit power said:

andymadmak said:

Kermit power said:

OK, that's a fair point. How about it it was the exact same state? Let's take New York's murder rates as an example.

New York abolished the death penalty in 1963. In 1965, when the above statistics started, they had a murder rate of 4.6 per hundred thousand.

By 1990, this had risen to a peak of 14.5. Clear evidence, then, that removing the death penalty removes a deterrent to murder?

And that might be where the story finished, except that by the time New York briefly (and without ever actually using it) reinstated the death penalty in 1996, the murder rate had already fallen back to 7.4, and since the final removal of all execution equipment from the state under gubernatorial decree in 2004, the murder rate has remained under the 1965 rate for all but 2006, and even then it only made it to 4.8.

Thanks for that. Genuinely interesting stuff. As a matter of interest does anyone know when NYC introduced its fabled "Zero Tolerance" approach to policing etc? Could the fall in any way be linked to that?

Also 1996, so again it seems to be a case of bolting the stable door after the escaped horse has already trundled back in and settled down for the night.

A good point - which may lead us back to andymadmak's suggestion of proper zero tolerance policing?

The anecdotals on ZT are interseting. Think of the 'sorts' you see every day, parking on double-yellows or disabled spaces, chucking litter out of their car windows, driving without insurance etc. etc. and wonder what else they're up to - a lot of them have the Crimewatch look. Seriously.

[andymadmak]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sadly not. Blair / Brown and co abolished that. (perhaps for their own protection?)

[BoRED S2upid]

thinfourth2 said:

As only the seriously unhinged would think oh goody i get to spend the rest of my days in prison.

Some people lead really really rubbish lives sometimes having a roof over your head, food, water, clothes and heat is preferable. Also if all your mates are locked up...

[TheHeretic]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Again, I refer you to the exonerations as seen in the US. Plenty of exonerations still going on, since DNA evidence has been introduced in the mid to late 80's. You say you would be OK as you don't plan on killing anyone. Well, there are people who have been on death row who thought the same thing.

[XCP]

It's not 'the rest of their days' very often.
Numerous people have been killed by convicted murderers.

[andymadmak]

XCP said:

It's not 'the rest of their days' very often.
Numerous people have been killed by convicted murderers.

And that there is at the heart of my argument. A murderer cannot re-offend if he is dead! Now, I hear people lining up to say that a murderer cannot re-offend if he is locked up for the rest of his natural life. But in reality, people are rarely locked up for life. Life does not mean life. And too many (ie, more than 1) murderers get let out 10, 15 years down the line and murder again.
The same "civilised society" arguments crop up with real full life tarrifs anyway. People bleating on about how it isn't fair to punish people for long periods.. There are even people who think Brady should be let out FFS.

I blame the Lib Dems