Capital Punishment

[Ulysses]

Because there's a huge immigrant population and easy access to guns.

Not a good combination.

 

Do you mean "immigrant" or "not white"? Almost the entire population of the United States are immigrants or descended from immigrants.

[felix]

About 67% of the British population are in favour of the return of capital punishment too, funnily enough. Fortunately though, the European Court of Human Rights ensures it can't be brought back. Because sometimes democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority - and if we ever brought back hanging, we would instantly cease to be able to call ourselves a civilised country.

 

Therefore the USA, Japan, Bahamas. India , St Lucia and Singapore ...aren't civilised ?

[Ulysses]

...personally I'm not advocating the death penalty for non fatal violent crime, however, surely if it was on the law books it would make some people think twice about carrying weapons and the like.

 

The death penalty didn't prevent knife gangs from operating in the 1930s.

 

If you want to tackle the problem of people carrying weapons you need to tackle it directly. The death penalty won't help. Only a tiny percentage of the people who carry weapons will ever end up killing someone - so the risk from the death penalty would seem too remote for the average knife-carrying ned.

 

One study I read showed that the biggest factor that would stop someone carrying a weapon was the fear of of being stopped and searched by the police and the consequences that would follow from that. If that is the case, the logical way to get people to think twice about carrying weapons is to increase the level of searches and to increase the penalties for carrying.

[Konrad von Carstein]

About 67% of the British population are in favour of the return of capital punishment too, funnily enough. Fortunately though, the European Court of Human Rights ensures it can't be brought back. Because sometimes democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority - and if we ever brought back hanging, we would instantly cease to be able to call ourselves a civilised country.

 

Says who Shaun? You and the remaining 33%? Democracy should be about the settled will of the majority not pandering to a vocal minority.

[shaun.lawson]

Therefore the USA, Japan, Bahamas. India , St Lucia and Singapore ...aren't civilised ?

 

All are full of civilised people - but none can be considered civilised countries (or, in the case of the US, no state which enforces capital punishment can be considered civilised).

 

And why? Not just because it doesn't work, because innocent people are murdered by the state, or because any criminal justice system in a civilised country must by necessity involve an element of rehabilitation...

 

... But because capital punishment isn't about justice at all. It's about revenge.

[Maximus]

Give the police guns and a licence to kill while you're at it! Look how well they use that power.

[felix]

Do you mean "immigrant" or "not white"? Almost the entire population of the United States are immigrants or descended from immigrants.

 

We're all immigrants to an extent howeve huge influxes of permanent workers coupled with lax gun laws is a recipe for disaster. Nothing to do with skin tone.

[shaun.lawson]

Says who Shaun? You and the remaining 33%? Democracy should be about the settled will of the majority not pandering to a vocal minority.

 

Not in certain cases, it shouldn't. If 67% of people believed, say, that we should kill all children, should we do it?

[felix]

All are full of civilised people - but none can be considered civilised countries (or, in the case of the US, no state which enforces capital punishment can be considered civilised).

 

And why? Not just because it doesn't work, because innocent people are murdered by the state, or because any criminal justice system in a civilised country must by necessity involve an element of rehabilitation...

 

... But because capital punishment isn't about justice at all. It's about revenge.

 

Japan is one of - if not THE - most civilised countries in the world. FACT

[shaun.lawson]

Japan is one of - if not THE - most civilised countries in the world. FACT

 

Japan is an incredibly polite country, full of civilised people. But because it continues to practice state sponsored murder, it cannot be considered a civilised country.

[Konrad von Carstein]

The death penalty didn't prevent knife gangs from operating in the 1930s.

 

If you want to tackle the problem of people carrying weapons you need to tackle it directly. The death penalty won't help. Only a tiny percentage of the people who carry weapons will ever end up killing someone - so the risk from the death penalty would seem too remote for the average knife-carrying ned.

Perhaps but it MAY dissaude a proportion of the Show off element of this group.

One study I read showed that the biggest factor that would stop someone carrying a weapon was the fear of of being stopped and searched by the police and the consequences that would follow from that. If that is the case, the logical way to get people to think twice about carrying weapons is to increase the level of searches and to increase the penalties for carrying.

 

Agree with the above, however this whole debate is hypothetical and and personal viewpoints are unlikely to change no matter what opinions presented as facts by some appear here.

I have stated previously that I respect the opposite viewpoints on this topic and you have consistantly presented thought out and sensible points in a non inflammatory style and I'd like to thank you for that. (God that sounds wanky now I've re-read it)

[Konrad von Carstein]

Not in certain cases, it shouldn't. If 67% of people believed, say, that we should kill all children, should we do it?

 

Oh for heavens sake!!

[Maximus]

If you're fecked up enough to even consider murdering someone you have pretty much given up on society and life, in fact you could say that for a lot of crims. How is the threat of death going to prevent someone who has already given up on life from committing the crime? As others have said it's about revenge rather than justice, it does not achieve any good in the end. Justice is subjective enough as it is without bringing back CP.

 

The only cases where you could really logically argue in favour of CP is for people who commit premeditated murder for personal gain. Even then who is to say you won't get the wrong guy? Is it worth running that risk just for a fleeting feeling of vindication?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reginald_Halliday_Christie

 

The justice system can't even convict people when there is evidence against them because they feck up something and they have also put people away with next to no solid evidence. Added to that the current sentencing system is a joke. No way they should be able to hand out a death sentence. Where would you draw the line as well?

[Ulysses]

(God that sounds wanky now I've re-read it)

 

[Konrad von Carstein]

Japan is an incredibly polite country, full of civilised people. But because it continues to practice state sponsored murder, it cannot be considered a civilised country.

 

By whom...sorry to keep trolling you but you keep throwing in this type of statement as if its an accepted fact...it isn't believe it or not.

[shaun.lawson]

Oh for heavens sake!!

 

Alright then: here's a more reasonable question. If the majority of the population believed abortion should be made illegal, do you think it should be?

[felix]

Japan is an incredibly polite country, full of civilised people. But because it continues to practice state sponsored murder, it cannot be considered a civilised country.

 

Japan & Singapore are many things - but they're not unncivilised.

[Patrick Bateman]

State sponsored murder doesn't reduce crime rates and does not repair society. It merely enforces the idea that killing people is acceptable. Should the state kill people "because it's cheaper than letting them live"? What an absurd idea.

 

I'm awaiting someone using the terms "PC handwringer" and "Right on! Brigade" btw.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

It's easy for us to sit and say that the death penalty is wrong because it is just a form of revenge or it is uncivilised.

 

BUT ....

 

You can't even begin to imagine the hatred families of a murdered 5 year old must feel for the guilty party.

[shaun.lawson]

By whom...sorry to keep trolling you but you keep throwing in this type of statement as if its an accepted fact...it isn't believe it or not.

 

By me, and many like me. In my opinion, you can judge how civilised a country or people is by what they're prepared to tolerate; how far and how deep they are prepared to understand; how aware they are of humankind's limitations and fallibility; how holistic their criminal justice system may be; and how based on reason, not emotion, their laws are. Because emotive law is not good law.

[Tazio]

The thing about capital punishment is that to me it is a gut instinct thing. I occasionally read something in the paper and think "that **** doesn't deserve to live". I don't actually believe this and realise it later.

[shaun.lawson]

It's easy for us to sit and say that the death penalty is wrong because it is just a form of revenge or it is uncivilised.

 

BUT ....

 

You can't even begin to imagine the hatred families of a murdered 5 year old must feel for the guilty party.

 

I agree completely. How can any of us understand what that must be like? But somehow, however callous it might seem, legislators have to remain rational and detached: otherwise, you'd end up with anarchy, and injustice everywhere.

[Maximus]

And what about the families of those who are wrongly sent to their death?

[Patrick Bateman]

It's easy for us to sit and say that the death penalty is wrong because it is just a form of revenge or it is uncivilised.

 

BUT ....

 

You can't even begin to imagine the hatred families of a murdered 5 year old must feel for the guilty party.

 

Absolutely, but justice isn't there to serve the individual, it's there to repair/improve society as a whole. The rise of "Victim Culture" where people incessantly complain about criminal sentencing is almost embarrassing if you ask me.

 

Besides, existence is suffering

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

And what about the families of those who are wrongly sent to their death?

 

I never said I was for or against ... just putting across another point of view.

 

It's obviously a very tricky situation but I believe in some cases it could be appropriate.

 

Obviously they would have to be 100% certain though.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Absolutely, but justice isn't there to serve the individual, it's there to repair/improve society as a whole. The rise of "Victim Culture" where people incessantly complain about criminal sentencing is almost embarrassing if you ask me.

 

Besides, existence is suffering

 

Says who?

 

Anyone who murders someone is obviously so far removed from the real world they wouldn't regret their actions or care about the consequences.

[Konrad von Carstein]

By me, and many like me. In my opinion, you can judge how civilised a country or people is by what they're prepared to tolerate; how far and how deep they are prepared to understand; how aware they are of humankind's limitations and fallibility; how holistic their criminal justice system may be; and how based on reason, not emotion, their laws are. Because emotive law is not good law.

 

so it is only "your opinion" just like it is my opinion (and many will agree with me) that your opinion is wrong.

It is possible to reason that capital punishment can be applied dispationatly (sp) and can be based on reason...in my opinion.

 

and as far as the abortion question goes...personally I would disagree that it should be made illegal...but thats only my opinion.

[felix]

Should the state kill people "because it's cheaper than letting them live"? What an absurd idea.

Why is it absurd ?.....isn't it absurd to lock up a serial offender with an incurable phsyciatric condition at vast expense until they die ?...or maintain someone convicted of a series of grotesque crimes ?

 

State execution is equally hideous..but can't there be some instances where this is the lesser of two evils ?

[Ulysses]

We're all immigrants to an extent howeve huge influxes of permanent workers coupled with lax gun laws is a recipe for disaster. Nothing to do with skin tone.

 

Your post sent me chasing some numbers from the United States, and they make interesting reading.

 

Black people are 6 times more likely to be homicide victims than white people, and 7 times more likely to commit homicide. Hispanics and Asians are the least likely of any racial group to murder or be murdered.

 

Most homicides are intraracial, i.e. very few murders are by white perpetrators on black victims or by black perpetrators on whites.

 

Black people are more likely to commit or be victims of homicides involving drugs. White people are more likely to commit or be victims of sex-related homicides, gang-related homicides, or killings in workplaces.

 

Finally, gun homicides account for about 68% of all homicides. However, if you exclude gun homicides, the murder rate in the United States is higher than the total murder rate for the UK (even with gun murders left in the UK figures).

[Patrick Bateman]

Says who?

 

Anyone who murders someone is obviously so far removed from the real world they wouldn't regret their actions or care about the consequences.

 

I don't know about you, but a few injections or a rope don't compare to 20-25 years (or more) living behind bars in the most mundane of environments. People obviously commit murder for a number of reasons, so I don't think you can second guess what their reckoning would be.

 

The dead do not suffer, nor can they atone or rehabilitate. If we based our justice system on the principal that NOBODY could change their ways or admit wrongdoing, then we'd live in a very damaged society.

[Ulysses]

Should the state kill people "because it's cheaper than letting them live"? What an absurd idea.

 

Arrrgggh, there's a danger that the above idea will get legs and walk. I've already pointed out that it's more expensive to pursue and enact death penalties than it is to lock people up for life. In other words, one of the arguments for not having capital punishment is that the state would save money that it could use to make other parts of the criminal justice system more effective.

[davemclaren]

I doubt there has ever been a time when the majority in the UK didn't want hanging to be available as a punishment. Saying that, the same was probably true re burning witches for the first hundred years after that was outlawed by parliament.

 

The UK is a representative democracy where the people we elect make the decisions and don't have to follow the wishes of the majority of the population, well not all the time.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I don't know about you, but a few injections or a rope don't compare to 20-25 years (or more) living behind bars in the most mundane of environments. People obviously commit murder for a number of reasons, so I don't think you can second guess what their reckoning would be.

 

The dead do not suffer, nor can they atone or rehabilitate. If we based our justice system on the principal that NOBODY could change their ways or admit wrongdoing, then we'd live in a very damaged society.

 

Would you still have the same opinion if a 50 year old perverted nut murdered and raped your five year old daughter? (god forbid!)

 

Would you want this evil guy to spend a bit of time in jail and then come back out into the real world when he may not have changed one bit?

[Patrick Bateman]

Why is it absurd ?.....isn't it absurd to lock up a serial offender with an incurable phsyciatric condition at vast expense until they die ?...or maintain someone convicted of a series of grotesque crimes ?

 

State execution is equally hideous..but can't there be some instances where this is the lesser of two evils ?

 

Because the state murdering an individual because they murdered someone else is undeniably hypocritical. Do as we say, not as we do, etc etc. Punishments based solely on retribution are archaic and impractical because society has already been improved by "withdrawing" the criminal from society until they are deemed fit to return to it.

 

What is state execution hideous when compared to? Indefinite imprisonment? I'd wager maintaining these individuals (and remember, they each have their own circumstance) costs less than people think. Not that it should matter, because if costs mattered, we wouldn't have an NHS, for example.

[Tazio]

Would you still have the same opinion if a 50 year old perverted nut murdered and raped your five year old daughter? (god forbid!)

 

Would you want this evil guy to spend a bit of time in jail and then come back out into the real world when he may not have changed one bit?

 

No I wouldn't want him back on the street. I would want him declared criminally insane and locked up for the term of his natural life. As should happen. Preferably somewhere deeply unpleasant.

[Maximus]

There will ALWAYS be miscarriages of justice, no matter what technology you use. So surely it is more logical that CP should not be used within the justice system if the system is not infallible? Afterall it's a lot more eh, final, than a jail sentence.

[Patrick Bateman]

Would you still have the same opinion if a 50 year old perverted nut murdered and raped your five year old daughter? (god forbid!)

 

Would you want this evil guy to spend a bit of time in jail and then come back out into the real world when he may not have changed one bit?

 

Of course I'd want revenge. It's only natural. But the law HAS to be pragmatic, not reactionary. This is why people bring in the "civilised society" argument.

 

The wide range of possibilities means that there are so, so many grey areas. For example, should a terrorist be executed for murdering 30 people when his dead might be considered martyrdom? I'd say no, better to let them rot in jail.

 

What would the death penalty achieve if it was introduced?

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

No I wouldn't want him back on the street. I would want him declared criminally insane and locked up for the term of his natural life. As should happen. Preferably somewhere deeply unpleasant.

 

That may be a better option but the facts are, that doesn't happen.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

We are incapable of adequately punishing people though

 

The "alleged" hitman who murdered the police officer in Leeds was originally given a whole life term.

 

This was later overturned

 

The man murdered a police officer in cold blood and was almost undoubtadly in the authorities mind, a career criminal responsible for lots of other vicous crimes and possibly murders.

 

They had the chance to keep him imprisoned and they opened the door for him to be later released, now he probably wont be released, or at least not until he is very old however it shows how useless our criminal justice system is.

 

Their justification, the crime wasnt of the most serious nature, did the guy need to sodomise him first or something? I mean wtf..

 

Whilst I dont want the death penalty we definitly need to up the prison tariffs issued and stick to them

[Konrad von Carstein]

We are incapable of adequately punishing people though

 

 

we definitly need to up the prison tariffs issued and stick to them

 

I agree with the above entirely...well said Prancer.

[BlackJAC?]

This "how would you feel if some perv killed your 5 year old child" mentality is exactly why capital punishment shouldn't be brought back. It's purely based on emotion and vengeance with no thought at all to the many parents that have been wrongly imprisoned for killing their babies/children.

 

It wasn't so long a go that a handful of mothers were wrongfully imprisoned on the back of an 'expert's" theories, theories that were eventually shown up for what they were - seriously flawed.

 

As we're using "what if's" as to cement our arguments, what if your wife was wrongfully convicted of killing your child, then was wrongly murdered by the state for a crime she never committed? After all, a child killer is, well, a child killer, and it's not as if we can start cherry picking our victims.

[Deevers]

This "how would you feel if some perv killed your 5 year old child" mentality is exactly why capital punishment shouldn't be brought back. It's purely based on emotion and vengeance with no thought at all to the many parents that have been wrongly imprisoned for killing their babies/children.

 

It wasn't so long a go that a handful of mothers were wrongfully imprisoned on the back of an 'expert's" theories, theories that were eventually shown up for what they were - seriously flawed.

 

As we're using "what if's" as to cement our arguments, what if your wife was wrongfully convicted of killing your child, then was wrongly murdered by the state for a crime she never committed? After all, a child killer is, well, a child killer, and it's not as if we can start cherry picking our victims.

 

Well if that's not cherry picking I don't know what is.

 

 

People should realise that capital punishment was only ever used in the most heinous of murders. Most sentenced to the gallows actually had their punishment commuted to a life sentence.

 

It was the deterrent factor of having this sentence available that acted as a safeguard for society.

 

The major problem today is that deterrence and safeguard appear no-where in our criminal justice system. A system that has been ravaged by woolly minded liberals over the past fifty years and is now in such a state that it does nothing to protect society at all.

[BlackJAC?]

Of course I've cherry picked my example, it was intentional as others are happy to cherry pick examples as to prove their point too.

 

The crime figures in America prove capital punishment is no more a deterrent than imprisonment.

[Deevers]

Of course I've cherry picked my example, it was intentional as others are happy to cherry pick examples as to prove their point too.

 

The crime figures in America prove capital punishment is no more a deterrent than imprisonment.

 

Yet crime figures here before abolition in 1965 prove that it was!

 

I would never take anything that happens in the USA as a standard to set against what happens anywhere else for that matter.

[BlackJAC?]

Yet crime figures here before abolition in 1965 prove that it was!

 

I would never take anything that happens in the USA as a standard to set against what happens anywhere else for that matter.

 

 

What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course the US is a valid example. You can't just omit one country from the discussion simply because it doesn't fit in with your argument.

 

As for your pre 1965 comment, that too isn't exactly the be all and end all as crime figures have risen all across the board and includes crimes that capital punishment wouldn't have been used as a deterrent anyway, so why have they risen in line with serious crime?

[Deevers]

]What a ridiculous thing to say[/b]. Of course the US is a valid example. You can't just omit one country from the discussion simply because it doesn't fit in with your argument.

 

As for your pre 1965 comment' date=' that too isn't exactly the be all and end all as crime figures have risen all across the board and includes crimes that capital punishment wouldn't have been used as a deterrent anyway, so why have they risen in line with serious crime?[/quote']

 

 

Really - I would have thought that the very fact that most homicides in the US are firearms related and the ease with which absolutely anyone can obtain a firearms makes that a very relevant point.

 

It's all just an irrelevant argument anyway - the European Human Rights Agreement that this government signed have consigned capital punishment to the annuls of history, never to return - unfortunetely.

 

The big quest should be what do we do now that this is not an option, with people who commit murder. Incidentally you're island idea (without the innocent guards) has a lot of merit in it. Leave them there to fend for themselves !!!!

[BlackJAC?]

Doesn't matter how easily fire arms can be obtained, the fact is, certain US states incorporate the death penalty into their judicial system, so no matter which way you dress it up, and because we're disscusing this very subject it's relevent.

 

As you seem so certain that society would be a better place without these people, answer me one question; How would the courts go about making sure they were 100% certain that the person they were sentencing to death was indeed the correct person?

 

Also, if you were wrongly convicted of a crime that had the death penalty attached to it, would you still be in favour of bringing back capital punishment?

[Deevers]

Doesn't matter how easily fire arms can be obtained, the fact is, certain US states interoperate the death penalty into their judicial system, so no matter which way you dress it up, and because we're disscusing this very subject it's relevent.

 

As you seem so certain that society would be a better place without these people, answer me one question; How would the courts go about making sure they were 100% certain that the person they were sentencing to death was indeed the correct person?

 

Also, if you were wrongly convicted of a crime that had the death penalty attached to it, would you still be in favour of bringing back capital punishment?

 

There is no 100% certainty about anything in life.

 

I take your point - on some of your concerns - however conversely - if you were the relative of someone who was murdered by a person who had been convicted previously for murder and was later allowed free to murder your relative - how would you feel?

 

I don't think that abolitionists or pro death penaltyist will ever agree on this subject and various scenarios will always be batted back and forward.

 

Maybe the demorcratic way would be to have it made the subject of a national referendum - seeing that it is really a "matter of conscience".

[BlackJAC?]

There is no 100% certainty about anything in life.

 

I take your point - on some of your concerns - however conversely - if you were the relative of someone who was murdered by a person who had been convicted previously for murder and was later allowed free to murder your relative - how would you feel?

 

I don't think that abolitionists or pro death penaltyist will ever agree on this subject and various scenarios will always be batted back and forward.

 

Edit: My spelling and grammar really is the pits today.

 

Maybe the demorcratic way would be to have it made the subject of a national referendum - seeing that it is really a "matter of conscience".

 

 

I'd feel let down by the judicial system. Like others have said, whilst I'll always be 100% against the death penalty, I think the current system has many flaws with the worst one being life sentences not being life sentences. I'd have these people locked away from society until their dying day.

 

One of the most poignant moments in our judicial system, and one that shows how flawed the judicial system is was when the judge sentencing the Birmingham Six said "if I could sentence you to death I would".

 

our judicial system may have many flaws, however, it's still in a position to right the wrongs that inevitably happen. Kill an innocent and we no longer have that option.

[Deevers]

I'd feel let down by the judicial system. Like others have said, whilst I'll always be 100% against the death penalty, I think the current system has many flaws with the worst one being life sentences not being life sentences. I'd have these people locked away from society until their dying day.

One of the most poignant moments in our judicial system, and one that shows how flawed the judicial system is was when the judge sentencing the Birmingham Six said "if I could sentence you to death I would".

 

our judicial system may have many flaws, however, it's still in a position to right the wrongs it does. Kill an innocent and we no longer have that option.

 

Problem is the cost involved with this.

 

The number of people currently serving life in Scottish Prison is puting the whole system under strain. That's why they are allowed back out into society again (not because there is any great belief by those in charge that these people have reformed).

 

So the question has to be posed - with the costs esculating year on year, how do we deal with these people.