PDA

View Full Version : Is the death penalty effective? [ENDS 27/03/2011]



Grig
27-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Is the death penalty effective?

ENDS: 27/03/2011

The death penalty is becoming less commonly used for crimes within legal systems across the world, with it being phased out with life in prison. But many question whether it is an effective deterrent for others. Some argue that it is, for it places a sense of fear in the consequences of his and her actions. Also, if they killed many people, why should they be allowed to live. It is also believed that by using it the crime rates drop significantly. Furthermore, others argue why the tax payer should pay for prisoners to spend their whole like in prison.

On the other hand, some say that it is not effective and should not be used at all due to the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. They claim that it has little effect on crime and does not deter anyone. It is also said to be a barbaric act that should not be practiced in any modern day society. Also, although we may convict someone to a crime, no one is ever 100% sure that the person has committed that crime, sure, the justice system could be 99% sure, but there is always this net where things can pass through.

All in all an interesting topic that can be debates from various perspectives for a long time.

GommeInc
27-02-2011, 04:40 PM
People will always commit crimes, including ones where the death penalty is the punishment. Why? Because when you commit murder, the last thing going through your mind is "I wonder what I'd get for doing this?" Actions tend to be on the spot, with little to no rational thought.

I never want to see it in the civilised Western World, where murder can be legalised and hints that a life is worth nothing in the eyes of the state. It isn't effective, just look at countries considered "barbaric" in comparison to ours where a legal system barely exists - they kill their own people for little to no reason, and the standard quality of life is incredibly low - living in constant fear. Life imprisonment, or prison in general, may not be perfect, but it's better than proving that man is a violent creature in a suit. If anything, we should be making prisons harsher - make life on earth hell for them, not let them out the easy way :P

Eoin247
27-02-2011, 04:53 PM
I'm going to be making a similar argument here to the one i made in the debate on torture. I used to think that the death penalty should be used in some cases. However as i got older i realised that it is morally wrong to have a death penalty. The main reason though i would have for not having a death penalty would be that it's impossible to be 100% sure a person commited the crime. I saw a great film about this a while back "The life of David Gale". At least if a person didn't commit a crime and they are in prison, all is not lost for them in the end.

If it was possible for a person to be 100% definately guilty, then i would be a lot more likely to support the death penalty. However even then there is something morally wrong with killing people "legally" in a modern western society.

Conservative,
27-02-2011, 06:22 PM
The death penalty is probably the best idea the world of Criminal Justice invented - and they're not using it.

Obviously people will commit crime regardless, but the majority of people will be scared of the consequences and will therefore not commit crime.

I think that "tough sentences" simply aren't enough. As "life" can become 20 years, or even 10 with good behaviour. LIFE should mean LIFE. Sorry, but it's appalling how the public are mislead that a murderer will be sentenced "for life" and then he is released 15 years later on "good behaviour".

I think the American legal system is far better than our own. Ours is based on forgiveness and rehabilitation. Some people are so ****** you CANNOT rehabilitate them, and you SHOULD just help the planet by killing them.

In my view crimes that should get death are: (mass) murder, terrorism/treason, and attempted murder. As long as the jury & judge are 100% sure. That is my only thing. I think the judge should be 100% sure they are guilty, and the offender be able to appeal and take it to a higher court if necessary.

But I agree 110% with the death penalty.

Another point Grig said - "life" sentences cost the tax payer money. Our prisons are already overflowing and it costs a fortune to run. Rid our country of some of the disgusting murderers that are in there and save us money at the same time by introducing the death penalty.

All in all, the death penalty does no harm. It saves us money, keeps the jails emptier, lowers crime levels and rids the world of horrible people who do not deserve to live, but somehow do in a stupid and idiotic justice system.

-:Undertaker:-
27-02-2011, 06:49 PM
People will always commit crimes, including ones where the death penalty is the punishment. Why? Because when you commit murder, the last thing going through your mind is "I wonder what I'd get for doing this?" Actions tend to be on the spot, with little to no rational thought.

I never want to see it in the civilised Western World, where murder can be legalised and hints that a life is worth nothing in the eyes of the state. It isn't effective, just look at countries considered "barbaric" in comparison to ours where a legal system barely exists - they kill their own people for little to no reason, and the standard quality of life is incredibly low - living in constant fear. Life imprisonment, or prison in general, may not be perfect, but it's better than proving that man is a violent creature in a suit. If anything, we should be making prisons harsher - make life on earth hell for them, not let them out the easy way :P

So you are against abortion and euthanasia then?

FlyingJesus
27-02-2011, 07:00 PM
when you commit murder, the last thing going through your mind is "I wonder what I'd get for doing this?" Actions tend to be on the spot, with little to no rational thought

I'm not a murderer so I don't know this first hand, but a huge number of murders are found to be premeditated - that's why there's a legal distinction between a planned murder and killing in "hot blood"


It isn't effective, just look at countries considered "barbaric" in comparison to ours where a legal system barely exists - they kill their own people for little to no reason, and the standard quality of life is incredibly low - living in constant fear

Not sure how to approach this part as it's worded rather odd. Do you mean that in our country a legal system barely exists or in those countries considered barbaric? Furthermore, what does that have to do with the death penalty? Parts of America still use capital punishment and that's not generally considered a barbaric country or one where the standard of living is extremely low, nor do their citizens live in constant fear. That's another point I don't quite get, as surely introducing the death penalty would only cause "constant fear" if every single illegal activity was punished in that way - I can't imagine people consciously thinking "oh my, I'd best not murder anyone today" and choosing a sheltered life just in case

Conservative,
27-02-2011, 07:34 PM
I'm not a murderer so I don't know this first hand, but a huge number of murders are found to be premeditated - that's why there's a legal distinction between a planned murder and killing in "hot blood"



Not sure how to approach this part as it's worded rather odd. Do you mean that in our country a legal system barely exists or in those countries considered barbaric? Furthermore, what does that have to do with the death penalty? Parts of America still use capital punishment and that's not generally considered a barbaric country or one where the standard of living is extremely low, nor do their citizens live in constant fear. That's another point I don't quite get, as surely introducing the death penalty would only cause "constant fear" if every single illegal activity was punished in that way - I can't imagine people consciously thinking "oh my, I'd best not murder anyone today" and choosing a sheltered life just in case

You said it. People won't live in constant fear. Only those who are criminals would? If you're a law-abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about - tbh you should be happy that dangerous criminals are being killed rather than being let out of jail after 10 years.

GommeInc
27-02-2011, 11:21 PM
I'm not a murderer so I don't know this first hand, but a huge number of murders are found to be premeditated - that's why there's a legal distinction between a planned murder and killing in "hot blood"
So when planning they calculate how many years they will be in prison? It is still the last thing going through their minds :P Criminal Psychology suggests that the planning process completely misses out the punishment, as the only thing they care about is seeking revenge or killing someone for the sake of it. Afterall, if you're crazy enough to want to kill someone (or seriously injure someone, but it results in death), then you're probably lacking a few cogs in the old brain department to even comprehend what happens after the attack. In recent years, the number of murders has died down, adding capital punishment to what is now becoming a non-problem seems all too much, especially when premeditated attacks will always exist.


Not sure how to approach this part as it's worded rather odd. Do you mean that in our country a legal system barely exists or in those countries considered barbaric? Furthermore, what does that have to do with the death penalty? Parts of America still use capital punishment and that's not generally considered a barbaric country or one where the standard of living is extremely low, nor do their citizens live in constant fear. That's another point I don't quite get, as surely introducing the death penalty would only cause "constant fear" if every single illegal activity was punished in that way - I can't imagine people consciously thinking "oh my, I'd best not murder anyone today" and choosing a sheltered life just in case
Depends on your prospective. America is quite barbaric when you look at any statistics about gun crime, capital punishment and any other crimes. To be fair, allowing "the right to bare arms" in that country is bound to cause trouble anyway. The constant fear analogy revolves around the idea that if the state considered legal murder appropriate then the country itself must be a relatively unpleasant one. I'd hate to live in a country where murder becomes justified, even if it is to punish (albeit, a small number of) wrong doers.

I don't think there's any justifiable reason to bring back capital punishment when the majority of prisoners are involved in quite small crimes when being put infront of the idea of the ultimate punishment of death. The only people who would have it are murderers (or manslaughter cases), and seeing as that statistic is dropping in favour of theft. The costs are said to be horrific too, seeing as there has been extensive research done and in the US it takes years for someone on death row to meet their maker.

EDIT: Oh, and capital punishment isn't a deterrent - the US have had it for years and people still commit crimes that result in the death sentence, with a flux of results (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) where it goes up and down. It should only be brought back if there are huge numbers of crimes. If it starts to deter people, then what was the point brining it back for such a small number of criminals? :P Waste of money reinstigating it.

EDIT 2: Knife crime seems to be rising too, though it's rare for a case to result in death.

benjamin
27-02-2011, 11:26 PM
The death penalty is probably the best idea the world of Criminal Justice invented - and they're not using it.

Obviously people will commit crime regardless, but the majority of people will be scared of the consequences and will therefore not commit crime.

I think that "tough sentences" simply aren't enough. As "life" can become 20 years, or even 10 with good behaviour. LIFE should mean LIFE. Sorry, but it's appalling how the public are mislead that a murderer will be sentenced "for life" and then he is released 15 years later on "good behaviour".

I think the American legal system is far better than our own. Ours is based on forgiveness and rehabilitation. Some people are so ****** you CANNOT rehabilitate them, and you SHOULD just help the planet by killing them.

In my view crimes that should get death are: (mass) murder, terrorism/treason, and attempted murder. As long as the jury & judge are 100% sure. That is my only thing. I think the judge should be 100% sure they are guilty, and the offender be able to appeal and take it to a higher court if necessary.

But I agree 110% with the death penalty.

Another point Grig said - "life" sentences cost the tax payer money. Our prisons are already overflowing and it costs a fortune to run. Rid our country of some of the disgusting murderers that are in there and save us money at the same time by introducing the death penalty.

All in all, the death penalty does no harm. It saves us money, keeps the jails emptier, lowers crime levels and rids the world of horrible people who do not deserve to live, but somehow do in a stupid and idiotic justice system.

lol sorry what? just read back what you put there, lol.

i personally don't agree with the death sentence, just because i see it as morally wrong and have similar views to what gomme does on the situation.

Conservative,
27-02-2011, 11:27 PM
lol sorry what? just read back what you put there, lol.

i personally don't agree with the death sentence, just because i see it as morally wrong and have similar views to what gomme does on the situation.

I meant to society. Obviously it kills the guilty offender, but to society and in general, it doesn't harm anyone other than that guilty criminal.

-:Undertaker:-
27-02-2011, 11:34 PM
The question still stands, do you support abortion and euthanasia? if the response to that is yes, then the point you make about 'killing is wrong in a civilised country' doesn't stand up because you'd be supporting the killing, the killing of innocents as opposed to those who have been tried by a court of the land.

The United States does not in reality have capital punishment because it is hardly used hence is not really a deterrent, it remains in place (and barely used) due to the political pressues on keeping the punishment alive - but as I said, in reality the United States does not exercise the death penalty hence why it is not all that of a useful deterrent in the states.

The right to bear arms in the United States, i'm sorry but the right to bear arms is there in the consitution and cannot be broken and should not be broken. As Jesse Ventura put perfectly, that clause is there incase the people ever need to bring down the government when it gets out of control. The idea that 'America has high crime rates thus this shows the death penalty does not work' is nonsense, look into the numbers and you will find it is rarely used as a punishment.

Finally if somebody is going to carry out a murder, then they will carry out that murder - be it using a knife or a gun, just a gun is a superior weapon. In the end you end up having to arm the police (very dangerous, rather 1984-like) as we have done and you leave the innocent unarmed. The polls shows the death penalty still has around 50% of support amongst the British people and when it was abolished it was just brought in even though the people did not vote for it - lets have a referendum on the topic (under a Swiss-system of direct democracy) and let the British people decide.


i personally don't agree with the death sentence, just because i see it as morally wrong and have similar views to what gomme does on the situation.

So you are against abortion and euthanasia, yes?

benjamin
27-02-2011, 11:40 PM
I meant to society. Obviously it kills the guilty offender, but to society and in general, it doesn't harm anyone other than that guilty criminal.
yeah but, it does do harm when someone gets wrongfully convicted - which i'm pretty sure would happen from time to time.

The question still stands, do you support abortion and euthanasia? if the response to that is yes, then the point you make about 'killing is wrong in a civilised country' doesn't stand up because you'd be supporting the killing, the killing of innocents as opposed to those who have been tried by a court of the land.

The United States does not in reality have capital punishment because it is hardly used hence is not really a deterrent, it remains in place (and barely used) due to the political pressues on keeping the punishment alive - but as I said, in reality the United States does not exercise the death penalty hence why it is not all that of a useful deterrent in the states.

The right to bear arms in the United States, i'm sorry but the right to bear arms is there in the consitution and cannot be broken and should not be broken. As Jesse Ventura put perfectly, that clause is there incase the people ever need to bring down the government when it gets out of control. The idea that 'America has high crime rates thus this shows the death penalty does not work' is nonsense, look into the numbers and you will find it is rarely used as a punishment.

Finally if somebody is going to carry out a murder, then they will carry out that murder - be it using a knife or a gun, just a gun is a superior weapon. In the end you end up having to arm the police (very dangerous, rather 1984-like) as we have done and you leave the innocent unarmed. The polls shows the death penalty still has around 50% of support amongst the British people and when it was abolished it was just brought in even though the people did not vote for it - lets have a referendum on the topic (under a Swiss-system of direct democracy) and let the British people decide.



So you are against abortion and euthanasia, yes?

i am against abortion, yeah. euthanasia i see as slightly different and not as 'killing' someone, more like assisted suicide. but even with that i still have mixed feelings and can't quite make my mind up or have a set in stone opinion about it.

and what's your ultimate view on it? you haven't said much other than talking about the death penalty in the usa and the links with euthanasia and abortion.

-:Undertaker:-
27-02-2011, 11:44 PM
yeah but, it does do harm when someone gets wrongfully convicted - which i'm pretty sure would happen from time to time.

In that case we would never go to war incase of killing innocents, along with closing all prisons incase we send people to prison on false evidence.


i am against abortion, yeah. euthanasia i see as slightly different and not as 'killing' someone, more like assisted suicide. but even with that i still have mixed feelings and can't quite make my mind up or have a set in stone opinion about it.

and what's your ultimate view on it? you haven't said much other than talking about the death penalty in the usa and the links with euthanasia and abortion.

Well your views are consistent then from a moral standpoint so well done for that, just I asked because it is usually the case that rabid opponents of the death penalty are the typical pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia supporters who cannot see the hypocrisy in their views, yet still claim to care about life/morality. My personal view is pro-death penalty, pro-choice/abortion and pro-euthanasia.

I am an ardent supporter of the death penalty as I want a strong justice system which delievers justice aswell as working as a deterrent. Abortion on the other hand, I do not personally agree with it but I accept the fact that others may do and should have that choice at their disposal.

The death penalty is by far the most just, as it is down to a court and a jury and punishes those guilty of the most disgusting crimes against others. Abortion on the other hand only serves to punish the innocent who have not committed a crime against others.

GommeInc
27-02-2011, 11:50 PM
The question still stands, do you support abortion and euthanasia? if the response to that is yes, then the point you make about 'killing is wrong in a civilised country' doesn't stand up because you'd be supporting the killing, the killing of innocents as opposed to those who have been tried by a court of the land.
Completely different kettle of fish entirely, so you're kinda clutching at straws with this debate ;) In my eyes, abortion is only justified if the child will have a poor quality of life (severely disabled, illnesses) or the mother's life and wellbeing is at risk - plus you get the "when does a fetus become sentient" argument. They tend to be done privately too, rather than shouted across the airwaves - the US have their executions private, but you still ehar about them :P Having an abortion willy nilly sets a horrific precedent when a perfectly healthy baby could be born, it's down to the bad potential parent, rather than the potential baby :P Euthanasia is a tricky subject, and again completely different to state murder when euthanasia usually falls down to the individual's decision, it's not being forced onto them by the state for example. You can easily do it anyway, you just go to Sweden/Switzerland (one of the two) and I think new legislation has made it so a partner will not be in trouble for assisting it. I can see why some doctors are against it, while others are for it.


The United States does not in reality have capital punishment because it is hardly used hence is not really a deterrent, it remains in place (and barely used) due to the political pressues on keeping the punishment alive - but as I said, in reality the United States does not exercise the death penalty hence why it is not all that of a useful deterrent in the states.
It's used enough. 46 in 2010 and 8 already in 2011. Also, you've kind of backed up why the death penalty is useless, it still exists and is used.


The right to bear arms in the United States, i'm sorry but the right to bear arms is there in the consitution and cannot be broken and should not be broken. As Jesse Ventura put perfectly, that clause is there incase the people ever need to bring down the government when it gets out of control. The idea that 'America has high crime rates thus this shows the death penalty does not work' is nonsense, look into the numbers and you will find it is rarely used as a punishment.
It's a shame it isn't used for the right reason, huh? ;) The Government is unlikely to get out of control, and if it did would it really solve anything?


Finally if somebody is going to carry out a murder, then they will carry out that murder - be it using a knife or a gun, just a gun is a superior weapon. In the end you end up having to arm the police (very dangerous, rather 1984-like) as we have done and you leave the innocent unarmed. The polls shows the death penalty still has around 50% of support amongst the British people and when it was abolished it was just brought in even though the people did not vote for it - lets have a referendum on the topic (under a Swiss-system of direct democracy) and let the British people decide.
I've never seen a statistic about who wants the Death Penalty, and if there was it would be a difficult subject seeing as the reason for the death penalty is justice, and justice in any sense is never desired to be taken softly. So you'll get angry people voting yes without looking at any details. Unfortunately, asking people to vote on someone is impossible when you get people wanting something but never really understanding why. It's a shame we can't single out smart people, or force people to research a survey :P It's why the General Elections went down the pot.

-:Undertaker:-
28-02-2011, 12:13 AM
Completely different kettle of fish entirely, so you're kinda clutching at straws with this debate ;) In my eyes, abortion is only justified if the child will have a poor quality of life (severely disabled, illnesses) or the mother's life and wellbeing is at risk - plus you get the "when does a fetus become sentient" argument. They tend to be done privately too, rather than shouted across the airwaves - the US have their executions private, but you still ehar about them :P Having an abortion willy nilly sets a horrific precedent when a perfectly healthy baby could be born, it's down to the bad potential parent, rather than the potential baby :P Euthanasia is a tricky subject, and again completely different to state murder when euthanasia usually falls down to the individual's decision, it's not being forced onto them by the state for example. You can easily do it anyway, you just go to Sweden/Switzerland (one of the two) and I think new legislation has made it so a partner will not be in trouble for assisting it. I can see why some doctors are against it, while others are for it.

I'm not clutching at straws, rather i've shown you to be doing so. The fact that often when this debate rages, those who are against the death penalty always without fail come out and comment on the morality of 'killing another human being' - when all too often, the anti-death penalty side itself is the side which pushed and pushed for abortion made easier, and made legal in the first place.

Now you said abortion was justified is the baby is to be poor/have an illness/disability - so with that logic, somebody can be killed without actually doing something themselves which is wrong, something which is out of their control but somebody who knowingly takes the life of another human being without a trial is somehow worth more than the unborn child?

As for the foetus/baby debate, it is simply ridiculous. To borrow a phrase, clutching at straws.



It's used enough. 46 in 2010 and 8 already in 2011. Also, you've kind of backed up why the death penalty is useless, it still exists and is used.

46/15,000+ is supposed to deter people? If the death penalty were to be properly used you would have to apply it to most cases and it would then be a deterrent. I would also add, many are sentenced to death but never reach the table, chair or chamber because they are simply allowed to die of old age to avoid the death penalty.

It is not used as it is, therefore to dismiss it as 'not working' is nonsense.


It's a shame it isn't used for the right reason, huh? ;) The Government is unlikely to get out of control, and if it did would it really solve anything?

Oh it would, the people could then rise up against the government (look at Libya the way the army defected allowed the opposition to arm itself up in order to match the forces of Gaddafi) - the founders of the United States put it in there for a reason, that is the reason. If the sitution never arises then it never arises, if it does - then the citizens will be ready.


I've never seen a statistic about who wants the Death Penalty, and if there was it would be a difficult subject seeing as the reason for the death penalty is justice, and justice in any sense is never desired to be taken softly. So you'll get angry people voting yes without looking at any details. Unfortunately, asking people to vote on someone is impossible when you get people wanting something but never really understanding why. It's a shame we can't single out smart people, or force people to research a survey :P It's why the General Elections went down the pot.

However to deny people/dismiss their opinions on whether you agree with them is wrong. The polls are reachable via the internet, search via Google - lets have a debate on this topic in public, and let the people decide.

The same applies for our membership of the EU, i'm confident we [those who wish to withdraw] are correct - therefore I take no issue with debating it.

FlyingJesus
28-02-2011, 12:15 AM
So when planning they calculate how many years they will be in prison? It is still the last thing going through their minds :P Criminal Psychology suggests that the planning process completely misses out the punishment, as the only thing they care about is seeking revenge or killing someone for the sake of it.

Well yeah in most cases people don't plan on getting caught, but potential outcomes do have an effect on everything we do - if that wasn't the case we'd always do exactly as we pleased no matter what may happen afterwards. If action A could result in death and action B is only likely to be as harmful as a bruise, which would you do?


Depends on your prospective. America is quite barbaric when you look at any statistics about gun crime, capital punishment and any other crimes. To be fair, allowing "the right to bare arms" in that country is bound to cause trouble anyway. The constant fear analogy revolves around the idea that if the state considered legal murder appropriate then the country itself must be a relatively unpleasant one. I'd hate to live in a country where murder becomes justified, even if it is to punish (albeit, a small number of) wrong doers.

Oh, so you really WERE suggesting that people in America are constantly terrified...


I don't think there's any justifiable reason to bring back capital punishment when the majority of prisoners are involved in quite small crimes

I don't think anyone's suggesting that petty criminals should be executed, and also the number of murderers in the prison system is not small enough to be dismissed as such a minority as to not be a bother to anyone if you're suggesting that freeing up that space wouldn't be of any significance

GommeInc
28-02-2011, 01:22 AM
I'm not clutching at straws, rather i've shown you to be doing so. The fact that often when this debate rages, those who are against the death penalty always without fail come out and comment on the morality of 'killing another human being' - when all too often, the anti-death penalty side itself is the side which pushed and pushed for abortion made easier, and made legal in the first place.

Now you said abortion was justified is the baby is to be poor/have an illness/disability - so with that logic, somebody can be killed without actually doing something themselves which is wrong, something which is out of their control but somebody who knowingly takes the life of another human being without a trial is somehow worth more than the unborn child?
You assume that morals are black and white. Using death as a subject, eating meat is morally wrong as death is always considered bad, but I eat meat and am against capital punishment because there is no clear need for it. How am I clutching at straws? If anything, I've proven that Capital Punishment isn't effective, as is the debate question. Capital Punishment is useless, the US and many other countries who still have it do not appear to be countries thriving with moral stability, with the US having high crime rates than the UK, and not because of the size of the population. Abortions and capital punishment are very different, and I am fairly certain those against capital punishment are not immediately pro-abortion - that's a very black and white view. A criminal on death row, for example, is more sentient and aware of its surroundings than a foetus. So it's not clutching at straws, it's pointing out an entirely different argument (different debating styles).


46/15,000+ is supposed to deter people? If the death penalty were to be properly used you would have to apply it to most cases and it would then be a deterrent. I would also add, many are sentenced to death but never reach the table, chair or chamber because they are simply allowed to die of old age to avoid the death penalty.
Not very effective then, is it? :P Why do they not just kill them off? If it was at all useful, they would be using it left right and centre. Again, it doesn't appear to be useful.


Oh it would, the people could then rise up against the government (look at Libya the way the army defected allowed the opposition to arm itself up in order to match the forces of Gaddafi) - the founders of the United States put it in there for a reason, that is the reason. If the sitution never arises then it never arises, if it does - then the citizens will be ready.
"Shame they don't use it for the right reasons then."


However to deny people/dismiss their opinions on whether you agree with them is wrong. The polls are reachable via the internet, search via Google - lets have a debate on this topic in public, and let the people decide.
I said they're all numpties because they do not agree with my opinion, when? I said it probably wouldn't work as you'd get people who understand the subject vs. those who are angry. I'd rather have someone argue their point clearly, than to say "they done killed ma cousin, they all gonna pay" when they do not know any statistics revolving around crime, how the legal system works and how each case varies and is up for interpretation. Sae argument revolves around general elections, you get people voting for who they have always agreed with, when another party possibly better suits them. Surveys and votes are never accurately showing what a person thinks, when what they are being asked is never followed by useful information.


Well yeah in most cases people don't plan on getting caught, but potential outcomes do have an effect on everything we do - if that wasn't the case we'd always do exactly as we pleased no matter what may happen afterwards. If action A could result in death and action B is only likely to be as harmful as a bruise, which would you do?
Again, not all crimes are premeditated. Spur of the moment actions. It's likely there are more manslaughter cases where you just want to punish someone happening than planning a murder - afterall, you are going to get in trouble and not thinking of the consequences clearly shows there are cogs loose in the system.


Oh, so you really WERE suggesting that people in America are constantly terrified...
... No? The US have a completely different system than a country like Iraq, Pakistan and Iran.


I don't think anyone's suggesting that petty criminals should be executed, and also the number of murderers in the prison system is not small enough to be dismissed as such a minority as to not be a bother to anyone if you're suggesting that freeing up that space wouldn't be of any significance
The money to reinstate the death sentence could go towards changing the current prison system. It is such a non-problem that bringing it back for a small statistic seems utterly pointless. Murders are on the way down, theft is on the way up. Bringing it back will not deter people. It's basic (criminal) psychology, if you want to kill someone you would probably go do it if you were so angry and lacked any rational thought when undertaking your actions.

FlyingJesus
28-02-2011, 01:40 AM
Aside from the fact that being off your rocker shouldn't really be an excuse (does being MORE dangerous to people mean you should go free? :S) it's already been mentioned that manslaughter and "hot blood" murder cases aren't judged exactly the same as premeditated lethal attacks. Also you never before said anything about Iraq, Pakistan and Iran, just went on about America being a barbaric place where people are scared to live - you are aware that parts of America still have the death penalty, yes?

GommeInc
28-02-2011, 01:51 AM
Aside from the fact that being off your rocker shouldn't really be an excuse (does being MORE dangerous to people mean you should go free? :S) it's already been mentioned that manslaughter and "hot blood" murder cases aren't judged exactly the same as premeditated lethal attacks. Also you never before said anything about Iraq, Pakistan and Iran, just went on about America being a barbaric place where people are scared to live - you are aware that parts of America still have the death penalty, yes?
You begun the America debate, I just followed suit. They still have it, but rarely use it, despite a huge back log of inmates on death row - although it's probably because the lethal injection is now being considered inhumane with a case a few years ago proving an inmate suffered considerable amounts of pain.

You've picked out a flaw with capital punishment and how murder cases vary. How can you determine a premeditated attack? How can you determine an accidental murder/manslaughter? Too much debate makes it difficult to find an appropriate punishment. If they (the courts) play this "we have to find a reason to kill them" game, you find money burning away in the corner with all the time being spent to find evidence, when having them rot in prison is a lot cheaper because there a lot less resources involved - especially when the court and prison system is the only one in use. When you bring in executions, you find different sectors coming in, particularly the medical sector who have to administer the injection and check they are dead. It's a costly process. It just doesn't seem effective or useful in modern day society :/

What are your views on it anyway, you seem to not have mentioned them :P

Conservative,
28-02-2011, 07:49 AM
yeah but, it does do harm when someone gets wrongfully convicted - which i'm pretty sure would happen from time to time.


i am against abortion, yeah. euthanasia i see as slightly different and not as 'killing' someone, more like assisted suicide. but even with that i still have mixed feelings and can't quite make my mind up or have a set in stone opinion about it.

and what's your ultimate view on it? you haven't said much other than talking about the death penalty in the usa and the links with euthanasia and abortion.

If you have appeals, hearings and extra trials, and rules saying the judge must be 100% sure - then no, it won't.

GirlNextDoor15
28-02-2011, 08:54 AM
First, Grig's question was whether the death penalty effective. From my opinion, I think Grig's question is not complete. Is the death penalty effective? The death penalty is effective/ineffective on who? The guilty ones or the innocent ones? Or is it on the citizens? That is why I think Grig's question is not complete. Therefore, I would love to elaborate about the impacts on different sides.
To me, death penalty is illogical and merciless to the guilty ones. This is because everybody will make mistakes. You cannot simply judge on the mistakes they made; be it huge or small. Although I understand doing crimes is not a small mistake, but one should give a chance to the guilty one to change his life. For example, crimes like robbing and killing innocent citizens might be due to the robbers not having a chance to change their lives as you know we are having economic turmoils. They might rob a bank because they could not afford paying their family living. You might say that it is hypocrite but one's suffering is another's happiness. Therefore, you cannot just sentence the guilty ones to a death penalty because you do not the whole story. All you can do is give them time in the prison to realize their mistakes and remind them of not repeating it again. Plus, if you accidentally sentence someone innocent but was known guilty to death, I'm sure you've heard of karma. Karma will get you back with or without your belief.
In the citizens' side, I would confidently say that death penalty is effective. This is because death penalty will at least tell them that this is what you get if you did this. Lastly, death penalty on certain crimes will raise awareness among citizens when the impact of death penalty takes place.

Conservative,
28-02-2011, 03:56 PM
First, Grig's question was whether the death penalty effective. From my opinion, I think Grig's question is not complete. Is the death penalty effective? The death penalty is effective/ineffective on who? The guilty ones or the innocent ones? Or is it on the citizens? That is why I think Grig's question is not complete. Therefore, I would love to elaborate about the impacts on different sides.
To me, death penalty is illogical and merciless to the guilty ones. This is because everybody will make mistakes. You cannot simply judge on the mistakes they made; be it huge or small. Although I understand doing crimes is not a small mistake, but one should give a chance to the guilty one to change his life. For example, crimes like robbing and killing innocent citizens might be due to the robbers not having a chance to change their lives as you know we are having economic turmoils. They might rob a bank because they could not afford paying their family living. You might say that it is hypocrite but one's suffering is another's happiness. Therefore, you cannot just sentence the guilty ones to a death penalty because you do not the whole story. All you can do is give them time in the prison to realize their mistakes and remind them of not repeating it again. Plus, if you accidentally sentence someone innocent but was known guilty to death, I'm sure you've heard of karma. Karma will get you back with or without your belief.
In the citizens' side, I would confidently say that death penalty is effective. This is because death penalty will at least tell them that this is what you get if you did this. Lastly, death penalty on certain crimes will raise awareness among citizens when the impact of death penalty takes place.

1. You wouldn't get death penalty for robbing a bank.
2. What has the economic situation (which is actually recovering and therefore has no reason to be mentioned) got to do with murdering someone.
3. If I killed your relative, would you want me dead? Yeah, thought so.

GommeInc
28-02-2011, 04:07 PM
1. You wouldn't get death penalty for robbing a bank.
2. What has the economic situation (which is actually recovering and therefore has no reason to be mentioned) got to do with murdering someone.
3. If I killed your relative, would you want me dead? Yeah, thought so.
Everyone and their grandmother wishes someone dead in a random outburst of anger, even in times where no-one has been murdered or injured e.g. during a robbery. Heck, loads of people in bursts of anger say "they should have their fingers cut off", or in rape circumstances, "their balls chopped off". Doesn't mean they should do :P It depends on the reason behind the actions, the individuals state of mind etc. One murder, although horrific, doesn't justify killing off someone, especially when it will be cheaper to lock them up and make them think of their actions. The death penalty is incredibly expensive, and a drain on resources :/

Conservative,
28-02-2011, 04:13 PM
Everyone and their grandmother wishes someone dead in a random outburst of anger, even in times where no-one has been murdered or injured e.g. during a robbery. Heck, loads of people in bursts of anger say "they should have their fingers cut off", or in rape circumstances, "their balls chopped off". Doesn't mean they should do :P It depends on the reason behind the actions, the individuals state of mind etc. One murder, although horrific, doesn't justify killing off someone, especially when it will be cheaper to lock them up and make them think of their actions. The death penalty is incredibly expensive, and a drain on resources :/

okay, let me get this straight. You think 1 bullet, or 1 piece of rope and a bit of scaffolding, costs more than 7,300+ days in prison? If we spent (example) 20 a day on basic things for prisoners such as food, water, lighting etc. then that's 146,000. Probably more knowing prisons these days. Compared to what...1 bullet (firing squad)...maybe.. 100? Hmm...
And it's proven that pre-meditated killers, when released, are 80% more likely to re-offend than any other prisoner. Js.

I think it's a case by case thing and you can't judge "murder" because there are different types of murder - eg; Pre-meditated, vengeful, passionate. Etc. But the death penalty still is FAR cheaper, FAR better, and FAR more logical than locking people up, only to re-release them to re-offend.

FlyingJesus
28-02-2011, 04:43 PM
You begun the America debate, I just followed suit. They still have it, but rarely use it, despite a huge back log of inmates on death row - although it's probably because the lethal injection is now being considered inhumane with a case a few years ago proving an inmate suffered considerable amounts of pain.

I brought up America to show how daft your argument was, as I didn't think anyone would genuinely call America a barbaric place yet you suggested it by saying that places with the death penalty in effect are places where people are scared to live and have terrible quality of life. Either your original statement needs revising or your perception of life in America compared to many other countries does.
Not particularly on the main topic here but about the injection and such, apparently the most quick and painless form of execution is through the use of a precision guillotine, but I can't imagine people being particularly happy about that coming back :P


You've picked out a flaw with capital punishment and how murder cases vary. How can you determine a premeditated attack? How can you determine an accidental murder/manslaughter? Too much debate makes it difficult to find an appropriate punishment.

Do you then suggest that we treat all crime the same, to save on the hardships of working out what someone's done and why? Courts already have to do these things as sentencing isn't the same for all killing, there are plenty of ways of working out if a murder is premeditated and the courts have been using such methods for centuries without people saying "this is too hard, let's just give up and lock him away until he says sorry"


What are your views on it anyway, you seem to not have mentioned them :P

I'm not out on the streets picketing for the death penalty to come back but I wouldn't be opposed to it either if it was decided upon - but this isn't a debate about ethics and opinions, it's one of pragmatics and (as per the title) effectiveness

Inseriousity.
28-02-2011, 05:05 PM
Obviously people will commit crime regardless, but the majority of people will be scared of the consequences and will therefore not commit crime.

The majority of people already are scared of the consequences. That's why the vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens, despite the scaremongering that ALL papers do who seems to think we're all going to be murdered in our beds/blown up by terrorists/robbed by yobs etc. No-one actually wants to go to jail. The only people I can see who'd want to go in jail are the homeless as it'd give them a roof over their head.

Whether a crime is premeditated or not, the death penalty won't be a deterrent. In fact, all premeditated crimes would be trying to avoid getting caught and therefore the death penalty wouldn't deter them and opportunist crimes are so caught up in the moment to worry about the consequences.

I don't agree with the death penalty because I'm of the opinion that they should rot in jail for the rest of their lives rather than having the easy route out.

Conservative,
28-02-2011, 05:10 PM
The majority of people already are scared of the consequences. That's why the vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens, despite the scaremongering that ALL papers do who seems to think we're all going to be murdered in our beds/blown up by terrorists/robbed by yobs etc. No-one actually wants to go to jail. The only people I can see who'd want to go in jail are the homeless as it'd give them a roof over their head.

Whether a crime is premeditated or not, the death penalty won't be a deterrent. In fact, all premeditated crimes would be trying to avoid getting caught and therefore the death penalty wouldn't deter them and opportunist crimes are so caught up in the moment to worry about the consequences.

I don't agree with the death penalty because I'm of the opinion that they should rot in jail for the rest of their lives rather than having the easy route out.

If that was the case, there would be no need for the death penalty, unfortunately our crappy, easy-going justice system frees those on "life sentences" after 15 or 20 years. It's ludicrous. If we want to punish them, we have to either make sure they serve their full sentence, or heighten the punishment.

GommeInc
28-02-2011, 05:14 PM
okay, let me get this straight. You think 1 bullet, or 1 piece of rope and a bit of scaffolding, costs more than 7,300+ days in prison? If we spent (example) 20 a day on basic things for prisoners such as food, water, lighting etc. then that's 146,000. Probably more knowing prisons these days. Compared to what...1 bullet (firing squad)...maybe.. 100? Hmm...
And it's proven that pre-meditated killers, when released, are 80% more likely to re-offend than any other prisoner. Js.

I think it's a case by case thing and you can't judge "murder" because there are different types of murder - eg; Pre-meditated, vengeful, passionate. Etc. But the death penalty still is FAR cheaper, FAR better, and FAR more logical than locking people up, only to re-release them to re-offend.
So we've discovered you know nothing of the legal system and the cost behind each case :rolleyes: A rope may cost a fiver from B&Q, but you've completely overlooked the cost of each execution beyond that of the tools used e.g. hiring people to perform, different departments, changing the legal system, court costs, prison cost, the time it takes to come to the verdict of the case, the validity of evidence and the cost involved and the necessity of punishment...

Giving someone the death penalty takes years of research into the evidence to find out they are 100% guilty of the crime. These years include a great deal of cost for forensics, years in prison(s), court cases, court investigations, police investigations, medical professionals looking at the accused(s) and the victim(s), monetary and psychological cost for the relatives of the accused and the victims, establishing the execution venues, medical experts needed for the aftermath of the execution, hiring people to execute the accused and then you get the joys of working out death certificates for the bodies and the cost to change the legal system to accomodate executions, which we've already discovered is a non-problem.

Oh, and the made up fact of 80% is incorrect. It's 67% for one statistic, but overall 39% of criminals reoffend during the first year of freedom.


If that was the case, there would be no need for the death penalty, unfortunately our crappy, easy-going justice system frees those on "life sentences" after 15 or 20 years. It's ludicrous. If we want to punish them, we have to either make sure they serve their full sentence, or heighten the punishment.
That's what I'm for too, make it hell on earth rather than give them the easy way out with the death sentence. That way you'd at least see crimes like theft and buglaries having similar punishments (for less time, naturally - give them a taster of what they're in for when it comes to serious crimes).


I'm not out on the streets picketing for the death penalty to come back but I wouldn't be opposed to it either if it was decided upon - but this isn't a debate about ethics and opinions, it's one of pragmatics and (as per the title) effectiveness
And do you believe it is effective? Granted, there appears to be evidence of it becoming less effective in countries that already have it. Your example of the US sort of proved that, seeing as it's rarely used yet crimes that sometimes result in the death penalty haven't fallen. The US have a different prison system though, which we can't really adopt here since anti-slavery is a big thing here :P

Conservative,
28-02-2011, 11:07 PM
So we've discovered you know nothing of the legal system and the cost behind each case :rolleyes: A rope may cost a fiver from B&Q, but you've completely overlooked the cost of each execution beyond that of the tools used e.g. hiring people to perform, different departments, changing the legal system, court costs, prison cost, the time it takes to come to the verdict of the case, the validity of evidence and the cost involved and the necessity of punishment...

Giving someone the death penalty takes years of research into the evidence to find out they are 100% guilty of the crime. These years include a great deal of cost for forensics, years in prison(s), court cases, court investigations, police investigations, medical professionals looking at the accused(s) and the victim(s), monetary and psychological cost for the relatives of the accused and the victims, establishing the execution venues, medical experts needed for the aftermath of the execution, hiring people to execute the accused and then you get the joys of working out death certificates for the bodies and the cost to change the legal system to accomodate executions, which we've already discovered is a non-problem.

Oh, and the made up fact of 80% is incorrect. It's 67% for one statistic, but overall 39% of criminals reoffend during the first year of freedom.


That's what I'm for too, make it hell on earth rather than give them the easy way out with the death sentence. That way you'd at least see crimes like theft and buglaries having similar punishments (for less time, naturally - give them a taster of what they're in for when it comes to serious crimes).


And do you believe it is effective? Granted, there appears to be evidence of it becoming less effective in countries that already have it. Your example of the US sort of proved that, seeing as it's rarely used yet crimes that sometimes result in the death penalty haven't fallen. The US have a different prison system though, which we can't really adopt here since anti-slavery is a big thing here :P

Okay, fair enough the legal costs etc. But then all that happens in murder inquiries anyway...? The only big change which would cost a lot is the change of the legal system. Which will be covered within a few years if we cleared our prisons of the scum that are murderers.

We are both agreed on the fact the legal system needs to be tougher, yes? As I said - if the "life" sentences WERE "LIFE" - ie; you're never leaving, then there is no need for Capital punishment. However, this is not the case and therefore we need Capital punishment to strike fear into serious criminals - even stupid criminals won't risk their life.

GommeInc
01-03-2011, 12:28 AM
Okay, fair enough the legal costs etc. But then all that happens in murder inquiries anyway...? The only big change which would cost a lot is the change of the legal system. Which will be covered within a few years if we cleared our prisons of the scum that are murderers.

We are both agreed on the fact the legal system needs to be tougher, yes? As I said - if the "life" sentences WERE "LIFE" - ie; you're never leaving, then there is no need for Capital punishment. However, this is not the case and therefore we need Capital punishment to strike fear into serious criminals - even stupid criminals won't risk their life.
Not entirely, with an execution you have more legal costs because more effort has to go into deciding the evidence found is 100% accurate and that the accused is completely guilty - read my post for all the details :P And the cost to change a system which only needs tweaking, not re-writing, is a waste of money, when it is a non-problem. Again, murders are on the down, theft and "petty" crime is on the up. Re-offending has only recently rised, by a tiny amount, and that's mostly for petty crime or crime that would not result in the death penalty. Violent crime incl. murder, manslaughter and GBH only has a tiny percentage of re-offended which I think was 39%, and 39% of a tiny number of murderers isn't a lot.

We do not need capital punishment as an excuse for the Government to strike fear into the populace - guilty or not guilty of any crime - when there is such a low number of people committing crimes that would result in the death penalty, if it existed. If anything, we should be dealing with the ever rising "petty" crimes, such as theft and serious (but not serious enough for execution) crimes such as knife crime - although the latter I think was falling in numbers, and was being committed by minors in city areas. We should be pushing for a better prison system, rather than capital punishment, because the prison system is for all sorts of people who have committed a variety of crimes. Heck, build a prison out in the middle of the North Sea for all the serial killers, and make the living standards inside horrific, that would learn them :P

Conservative,
01-03-2011, 12:46 AM
May I say, the only reason we got rid of it in the first place was a poor decision by a poor jury.

Derrick Bentley was the last man hung in Britain - for something he didn't do. Fair enough it shows the flaws, but it was an AWFUL decision given the evidence.

He was accused of breaking & entering, and assissting in a murder if a policeman. However, at the time of the murder - he had already surrendered and was being arrested. He shouted "let him have it Chris" - most logic would point to him meaning "let him have the gun" (remember - he had mental difficulties) but the jury decided he meant "shoot him".

This DOES show flaws - however, these flaws are easily ironed out. If they have an obvious mental difficulty - they need to be imprisoned for life and treated. If there is any doubt (like there was with the "let him have it") it should not be carried forward.

However, someone like, for example, the Lockerbie bomber or Boxing day (or was it Xmas, cant remember) bomber should be killed - there is evidence for the jury to be sure beyond all doubt they did it, and it is a crime worthy far more than a spell in prison.

Your final idea is interesting, maybe they should.

But anyway, there are not more legal costs if you have a good judge and jury in the first place. It's all the same - surely the judge should be 100% when sentencing anyone?

GommeInc
01-03-2011, 12:55 AM
But anyway, there are not more legal costs if you have a good judge and jury in the first place. It's all the same - surely the judge should be 100% when sentencing anyone?
You get an array of different outcomes - suspended sentence, chucked in prison until further notice, x amount of years until you can argue your case again etc. It keeps whoever committed the crime off the street, something often overlooked by many as they assume they're still allowed to walk free until the evidence is 100% (which takes years with some crimes).

I've never really looked into the Lockerbie Bomber, embarassingly, but I got the general jist when he was released. As far as I see it, he killed hundreds of people but to be let free at his age isn't going to cause much trouble, especially when he was in there for too long and I do not remember that many protests about his release - many people didn't seem to know about it from what I remember, but I do need to research into it.

Inseriousity.
01-03-2011, 08:11 AM
Not entirely, with an execution you have more legal costs because more effort has to go into deciding the evidence found is 100% accurate and that the accused is completely guilty - read my post for all the details :P And the cost to change a system which only needs tweaking, not re-writing, is a waste of money, when it is a non-problem. Again, murders are on the down, theft and "petty" crime is on the up. Re-offending has only recently rised, by a tiny amount, and that's mostly for petty crime or crime that would not result in the death penalty. Violent crime incl. murder, manslaughter and GBH only has a tiny percentage of re-offended which I think was 39%, and 39% of a tiny number of murderers isn't a lot.

We do not need capital punishment as an excuse for the Government to strike fear into the populace - guilty or not guilty of any crime - when there is such a low number of people committing crimes that would result in the death penalty, if it existed. If anything, we should be dealing with the ever rising "petty" crimes, such as theft and serious (but not serious enough for execution) crimes such as knife crime - although the latter I think was falling in numbers, and was being committed by minors in city areas. We should be pushing for a better prison system, rather than capital punishment, because the prison system is for all sorts of people who have committed a variety of crimes. Heck, build a prison out in the middle of the North Sea for all the serial killers, and make the living standards inside horrific, that would learn them :P

lolol we could put a few Dementors on the gates and call it Azkaban. okay geeky harry potter fan here :P I agree with you, the petty crime is imo a more realistic crime that we should be focusing our efforts on

-:Undertaker:-
01-03-2011, 09:21 AM
You assume that morals are black and white. Using death as a subject, eating meat is morally wrong as death is always considered bad, but I eat meat and am against capital punishment because there is no clear need for it. How am I clutching at straws? If anything, I've proven that Capital Punishment isn't effective, as is the debate question. Capital Punishment is useless, the US and many other countries who still have it do not appear to be countries thriving with moral stability, with the US having high crime rates than the UK, and not because of the size of the population. Abortions and capital punishment are very different, and I am fairly certain those against capital punishment are not immediately pro-abortion - that's a very black and white view. A criminal on death row, for example, is more sentient and aware of its surroundings than a foetus. So it's not clutching at straws, it's pointing out an entirely different argument (different debating styles).

The difference being that we do not eat humans, if we did kill other humans for meat then we would go to prison for it and it would be treated as murder. What an utterly ridiculous example, with that logic a farmer killing a chicken is just as bad as Ian Huntley killing Jessica and Holly. I would like to clarify and get this established before this example goes on for much longer; I am talking about the justice system which applies to human beings, yes? animals do not come into the equation.

You have not proven capital punishment is not effective, first you said that 'oh look, the U.S. has it and it still has high crime rates' and now i've stated the truth (which is that the United States barely uses it) you've backtracked and come into line with that fact by saying now that its true, we dont really use it. So again, how can you dismiss it as 'not working' when we do not use it? As for feelings on death row, so? a punishment is not supposed to feel nice, a punishment is supposed to be just that, punishing.

The very fact the prisons and justice system is not working coupled with the fact we do not have the death penalty should send alarm bells ringing.


Not very effective then, is it? :P Why do they not just kill them off? If it was at all useful, they would be using it left right and centre. Again, it doesn't appear to be useful.

Its not effective because it is not used therefore is not seen as a deterrent, which is what I keep repeating.


"Shame they don't use it for the right reasons then."

Indeed, but it is there for a reason and should remain there. It does not make supporters of the consitution 'gun crazy fools' which is the picture people such as yourself all too often try to paint.


I said they're all numpties because they do not agree with my opinion, when? I said it probably wouldn't work as you'd get people who understand the subject vs. those who are angry. I'd rather have someone argue their point clearly, than to say "they done killed ma cousin, they all gonna pay" when they do not know any statistics revolving around crime, how the legal system works and how each case varies and is up for interpretation. Sae argument revolves around general elections, you get people voting for who they have always agreed with, when another party possibly better suits them. Surveys and votes are never accurately showing what a person thinks, when what they are being asked is never followed by useful information.

Why does anger make an opinion less worthwhile? I am angry concerning the way our civil liberties are trashed, I am angry concerning the fact that our sovereignty is being destroyed everyday and that our people are paying for a bloated government that is utterly hopeless - that does not make my opinions any less worthwhile.

All I see from that response is, 'I do not think I would like the outcome so stuff their opinions'. This is proven by the fact you've tried to paint (again) supporters of the death penalty as simple minded rednecks, shown by your 'example'.


Again, not all crimes are premeditated. Spur of the moment actions. It's likely there are more manslaughter cases where you just want to punish someone happening than planning a murder - afterall, you are going to get in trouble and not thinking of the consequences clearly shows there are cogs loose in the system.

And thats why we have courts with a jury which decide on a case by case basis.


The money to reinstate the death sentence could go towards changing the current prison system. It is such a non-problem that bringing it back for a small statistic seems utterly pointless. Murders are on the way down, theft is on the way up. Bringing it back will not deter people. It's basic (criminal) psychology, if you want to kill someone you would probably go do it if you were so angry and lacked any rational thought when undertaking your actions.

It'll change the system we have now? good, bring it back as soon as possible then please because we are fed up of criminals rights coming first over the rights of ordinary people. See now, the problem with you (and most others who have studied subjects such as psychology and sociology) is that you do not view crime as an action taken by somebody with sound mind who has to suffer the consquences of his actions - you view it as a sort of 'disease' which is influenced by backgrounds, race and so forth. The ultimate idea that people are not responsible for their actions.

Interesting enough, those who are not of sound mind and genuinely are not in control of themselves - left liberal opinions such as yours said many years ago that we should allow these people out (thus closing down the asylums) to 'integrate' with the community, this has been a disaster and now we have people who are genuinely not in sound mind being sent to prison when they belong in an asylum not also forgetting the damage that has already been inflicted on others by this time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl9l-mQJHV0

Rehabilitation and 'being nice' do not work as shown by our present system, you commit the crime and you suffer the consquences. I'd also add, your point on the Lockerbie bomber (leaving aside whether he did it or not) you said that because people were not protesting, its alright then to release him? You obviously do not believe in punishment just as the likes of Ken Clarke do not, most likely because you yourself have never really faced crime like many of the poorest in our country face day in, day out.


Unrepentant serial killers and soft MPs

THE conviction of Steve Wright once again raises the obvious need for a death penalty for unrepentant murderers.

Most sensible people can see this without difficulty.

But the politicians' trade union stands against it, and you will notice that MPs of all parties claim that this is unthinkable, impossible in the modern world – as if the modern world were somehow kinder than the recent past, which is the reverse of the truth.

The political class dislike the death penalty because it makes them directly responsible for protecting the gentle.

They make the most pitiful excuses for being against it, which don't stand up to a moment's examination.

Absurdly, they claim to be worried about the deaths of innocent people, as if every murder victim was not innocent.

They want the power, and the plump privileges of office, but they shy away from the hard duties of government.

Well, in that case, they must be removed to make way for people who are ready to defend civilisation, even at the cost of a few sleepless nights.

So we've established you do not believe in punishment and thats our clear disagreement which I think is absurd but which you think is rational.

GommeInc
01-03-2011, 05:17 PM
The difference being that we do not eat humans, if we did kill other humans for meat then we would go to prison for it and it would be treated as murder. What an utterly ridiculous example, with that logic a farmer killing a chicken is just as bad as Ian Huntley killing Jessica and Holly. I would like to clarify and get this established before this example goes on for much longer; I am talking about the justice system which applies to human beings, yes? animals do not come into the equation.
You brought up the pointless discussion. Both are different, we are agreed (even though you somehow didn't know there was a difference :S)


You have not proven capital punishment is not effective, first you said that 'oh look, the U.S. has it and it still has high crime rates' and now i've stated the truth (which is that the United States barely uses it) you've backtracked and come into line with that fact by saying now that its true, we dont really use it. So again, how can you dismiss it as 'not working' when we do not use it? As for feelings on death row, so? a punishment is not supposed to feel nice, a punishment is supposed to be just that, punishing.
The amazing thing is you proved it wasn't effective by providing such a fact. It is ineffective, a waste of money and has been deemed useless in the US with so many debates about it that it's pretty much gone quiet. So you proved it was ineffective yourself :P Also, I did prove it has high crimes rates, you just proved the fact it wasn't used often. Now that we've established crime srates are not dropping and that it's rarely used, we can conclude it is ineffective.


The very fact the prisons and justice system is not working coupled with the fact we do not have the death penalty should send alarm bells ringing.
It's a non-problem in the UK. We do not need it, we need an improved justice and prison system - capital punishment is like bring nukes to a war where the only weapon is a slap with a hand. Again, murder and other crimes that would possibly result in execution are decreasing.


Its not effective because it is not used therefore is not seen as a deterrent, which is what I keep repeating.
Debate over then, you also agree it's not effective.


Indeed, but it is there for a reason and should remain there. It does not make supporters of the consitution 'gun crazy fools' which is the picture people such as yourself all too often try to paint.
I repeat, it's a shame it's not used for the correct purpose. Whether or not it should remain there to protect citizens from a Government unlikely to attack its own citizens is irrelevant. It's the actiosn it having now, not in the unseen future.


Why does anger make an opinion less worthwhile? I am angry concerning the way our civil liberties are trashed, I am angry concerning the fact that our sovereignty is being destroyed everyday and that our people are paying for a bloated government that is utterly hopeless - that does not make my opinions any less worthwhile.

All I see from that response is, 'I do not think I would like the outcome so stuff their opinions'. This is proven by the fact you've tried to paint (again) supporters of the death penalty as simple minded rednecks, shown by your 'example'.
Never said anything, so do not put words into a debate that have no place. We've already established that Capital punishment is ineffective. They are quite possibly simple minded, they'll be voting for something that doesn't need to exist because they're not going to look into their facts. Again, look at the General Election. Crimes that would result in execution are dropping in favour of theft and robbery. It isn't needed, and won't be needed.


It'll change the system we have now? good, bring it back as soon as possible then please because we are fed up of criminals rights coming first over the rights of ordinary people. See now, the problem with you (and most others who have studied subjects such as psychology and sociology) is that you do not view crime as an action taken by somebody with sound mind who has to suffer the consquences of his actions - you view it as a sort of 'disease' which is influenced by backgrounds, race and so forth. The ultimate idea that people are not responsible for their actions.
Words are being chucked into the argument again, I never said anything like this so won't walk into a pointless argument. We established it's ineffective with you agreeing it is.

The rest was also stuff that was never said but you like planting information and putting words into people moves to justify yourself. So I have simply deleted it.

Capital Punishment is ineffective, it seems to be a total agreement between you, myself and a few others. There is proof it won't be used and will be unnecessary in modern day society

An argument is also invalid when someone plants false information and starts putting words into someones mouth, and as you've started doing that I've decided the argument is now over, as it's incredibly frustrating when someone who begins to show signs of losing an argument (and actually agrees that it is ineffective) begins this behaviour.

-:Undertaker:-
01-03-2011, 06:06 PM
No hang on, we are just going around in circles here. Firstly you said that it was ineffective by giving the example of the United States and its high crime rates - I then pointed out that the U.S. barely uses the death penalty and therefore it can't be dismissed on the basis that 'it doesn't work' because in reality the example of the United States does not prove that even though you tried using it earlier on.

So again, without the death penalty being used at all/to a proper extent - why is the death penalty 'not effective'? I also see the typical 'modern day society' which is nothing more than a typical trendy soundbyte used to dismiss an argument.


The rest was also stuff that was never said but you like planting information and putting words into people moves to justify yourself. So I have simply deleted it.

I haven't planted anything, your stance on the death penalty and on the Lockerbie bomber shows clearly to me that you do not believe in punishment.


Never said anything, so do not put words into a debate that have no place. We've already established that Capital punishment is ineffective. They are quite possibly simple minded, they'll be voting for something that doesn't need to exist because they're not going to look into their facts. Again, look at the General Election. Crimes that would result in execution are dropping in favour of theft and robbery. It isn't needed, and won't be needed.

No we have not established that capital punishment is ineffective.


I repeat, it's a shame it's not used for the correct purpose. Whether or not it should remain there to protect citizens from a Government unlikely to attack its own citizens is irrelevant. It's the actiosn it having now, not in the unseen future.

A tiny few use guns to commit murder, that does not mean that it should be abolished on that merit. Ever since the abolition of the death penalty in this country for example, we've seen a massive increase with the use of guns and firearms as people no longer fear the consquences and it also shows that criminals will and can get hold of firearms regardless of whether they are legal or not.


Debate over then, you also agree it's not effective.

Because it is not used, use it and it will become effective as people will fear it as a punishment.


The amazing thing is you proved it wasn't effective by providing such a fact. It is ineffective, a waste of money and has been deemed useless in the US with so many debates about it that it's pretty much gone quiet. So you proved it was ineffective yourself :P Also, I did prove it has high crimes rates, you just proved the fact it wasn't used often. Now that we've established crime srates are not dropping and that it's rarely used, we can conclude it is ineffective.

Do you not understand the fact that because it is not exercised as a punishment often, that people henceforth do not fear it - use it often and it does become a real fear for those committing crime as they will then face a real chance of being sent to the hangmans noose.

Criminals/potential criminals will not fear something when there is nothing to fear.


You brought up the pointless discussion. Both are different, we are agreed (even though you somehow didn't know there was a difference :S)

I never brought animals into it, I brought abortion into it which you attempted to back up your conflicting stance between abortion and the death penalty by bringing the fact we eat animals into it when animals i'm afraid are not on the same moral lines as human beings.

So again, how can you support the killing of the innocent (without a jury) but are against the execution of the guilty (with a jury)?

karter
02-03-2011, 09:50 AM
Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being

Yes , Death Penalty is much effective , In A Strict Country like China , Crime rates are going down.
Why? Because the criminals fear consequence of their actions.
If there is no Death Sentence , You Indirectly 'encourage' people to commit crimes
Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to go through an event such as murder.

ChickenFaces
04-03-2011, 11:48 AM
Well it depends.

You can completely eradicate a potential problem, or you can attempt to rehabilitate it.

The death penalty is cut and dry. You kill them, they're done. The problem with this is, there have been a lot of innocent lives that have been taken because of stupid mistakes made by the court system. There isn't any clear way to know that someone did a crime that is punishable by death.
Leaving a person in jail of course is a long process. You don't know if a person will be able to change by the time they get out, or if they're in jail for life what they will do during that time.

There's too much gray matter in between the two extremes, although I believe that the death penalty should be removed from my country.

Fiendly
06-03-2011, 09:11 AM
Having the death penalty is the easy way out..
It's like having a person going on a killing massacre and finding out all they get is a simple and humain death.

20 people killed and the killer loses their life.

I'd rather them be tortured than having them killed.

DannLea
06-03-2011, 08:11 PM
I used to be all for the death penalty.. until I really took a look at it.

Look at the sentences that are laid out to people today. The jury gets to decide whether the offender is right or wrong, and then the offender gets to die. Great fun for everybody. But think about it.. 5 minutes after the serum is injected, the lawyer runs in with evidence proving the sentence wrong. OOPS!

I don't know about places like the UK and US, but Canada definitely screws up. A lot.

I know, bagging on my own country, shame on me, but really, look at it. I guarantee that if you look into it deep enough, someone, sometime was sentenced to whatever given punishment, and then everyone realizes "We screwed up!". I mean, spending 25 years in prison and getting millions of dollars to reimburse the time they lost because of the wrong sentence is shameful enough (Living life known as an offender, living in everyones shadow, etc), but what if they got the death penalty? Think about the families of the offender (Who is now technically the victim.. Not of any given person, but of the system), what do they do? Get a call telling them "Yeah, by the way. We were wrong! Whoops! Here's 20 million to cover it up!"? That's wretched. I know if I was in this situation, no amount of money would cover the stain on my heart from an unlawful punishment. Death is forever, there's no getting them back when it's too late.

On the other hand, I do understand where the people who currently support the death penalty's point of view as well, but I just don't agree with it. Sure, you can argue "What if they know 100% that is was them?", but how can anyone know 100%? Video cameras have sometimes projected an image looking like one person, when in reality it's a whole other person altogether. People have had "their eyes play tricks on them", so on and so forth. And don't get me wrong, if someone murdered my father, I'd wanna go give 'em something to remember, too, but isn't it much more satisfying knowing that instead of dying and just being done, they're going to live the rest of their days in an old smelly concrete building under lock and key, most likely surviving a few beatings along the way? Sounds cruel, but that's what jail is. That's what jail is for. The reality is mistakes happen. We're human, no one's perfect. We make error in judgement, we make error in our views, we make errors every single day in every aspect of our life. Killing someone to realize it was an "Opps" moment is much worse than sending them to jail where they can get out and see the people they love again if the sentence is wrong.

I hope I've given you something to think about, I realize this is my view, and some reject it, but like I said, I understand your views as well, I just don't support them. Mistakes happen..


What if they happened to you?

That's my three cents. Keep the change :D.

-:Undertaker:-
06-03-2011, 09:29 PM
So you are against war on all grounds? being against war for the fact that its very likely that innocents will die in the process?

Conservative,
06-03-2011, 11:00 PM
I used to be all for the death penalty.. until I really took a look at it.

Look at the sentences that are laid out to people today. The jury gets to decide whether the offender is right or wrong, and then the offender gets to die. Great fun for everybody. But think about it.. 5 minutes after the serum is injected, the lawyer runs in with evidence proving the sentence wrong. OOPS!

I don't know about places like the UK and US, but Canada definitely screws up. A lot.


That can be prevented if you have a thorough system. The UK currently doesn't have it after they messed up with Derrick Bentley, however that was just the jury being naive and if they had actually looked at the evidence they would've found him not guilty.

Mistakes do happen, but you can prevent them.

DannLea
07-03-2011, 01:44 AM
So you are against war on all grounds? being against war for the fact that its very likely that innocents will die in the process?
War and capitol punishment are two TOTALLY different matters. Another debate for another day, but all in all, I'm 'fine' with war. It serves a purpose and makes us the free nation we are today. War serves its purpose, capitol punishment serves a death penalty that is uncalled for. See the difference?


That can be prevented if you have a thorough system. The UK currently doesn't have it after they messed up with Derrick Bentley, however that was just the jury being naive and if they had actually looked at the evidence they would've found him not guilty.

Mistakes do happen, but you can prevent them.

You're right, mistakes can be prevented... If you see them coming. Do you think the executioner is thinking "I wonder if this guy is innocent" when he's about to rip the neck off some guy? I seriously doubt that. For that fact, no one is. Everyone is thinking "Yay! We caught the bad guy, and he's going to get killed! We're all safe!". Sure, there may be a few people wondering, but it's obviously not a majority. If a majority of people were thinking this guy is innocent, then the poor innocent fella wouldn't be in the mess he's in. And as soon as the case is reopened and everyone starts questioning the verdict, and all the sudden the same person(s) who was a hero 20 years ago is suddenly a murderer.

My point is this, you can prevent mistakes, but, in my opinion, many mistakes have already been prevented because of the removal of capitol punishment. There are several cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#Specific_examples) where people have been executed innocently, and those are only a few cases. If there were one or two people who had a "Whoops!" execution, then maybe capitol punishment wouldn't be so frowned upon today. But in reality, the stakes are high, we're playing with life here. There is a 90% chance of the verdict being right.. but that's 90%. There's a 10% chance that that person is innocent. That person who has a wife at home, a middle-class job, friends by the boatload, a great family to live with just got killed because of that 10% chance. So what does that mean? To me, it means that 10% is too high. The person dying knows he's innocent, but because he pleads innocent, he looks like a remorseless murderer, and it's all because of a "Whoops!" mistake.

Falling down the stairs in front of your friends is a mistake you can fix,
Hitting someone's car is a mistake you can fix,
Someone wrongfully sentenced to jail can be fixed,
Someone innocently being murdered? That's one mistake that can't be fixed.

If they ever develop a time machine that will allow them to let all those wrongfully murdered people live again, then I'll be all for capitol punishment. It's used more as a scare anyways. But for now? When they're gone, they're gone, and I don't want to be caught in that net.

I do agree with you on one thing, though. The people who sentenced Derek Bentley were complete idiots. He should have been tried as a mentally challenged offender at the very least.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!