Death Penalty

[BRITLAND]

In America 12 were shot dead at a midnight premiere of Dark Knight Rises & its been talked about the guy could face the death penalty but i wonder why do we Brits not get justice like this & the families have a say of the punishment!?! here in UK that is like a dream come true from my knowledge. We have had events like this in UK many famious killers like Peter Sutcliffe, Danis Nelson, Steve Wright, Robert Black, Leslie Bailey, Beverley Allitt, Ian Brady & of course the Lockerbie Bomber who was released after 20 years duo to having cancer, pritty sick in my mind if we had the death penalty back in UK we would save lots of money which could be spent on good things for the country or we could just get less tax. Either way its beter to do this then look after them for 25 years in a jail cell no i mean a nice hotel room with PS3s, TVs etc if we just hung these guys we wouldnt be paying to look after them & hell crime levels may even go down here if luckly

[OchyGTA]

This should really go in the debates and discussion section although I feel like it's been discussed before.

[Mark]

Moved to D&D.

 

Oh, and the link below I feel is reason enough to not reintroduce capital punishment.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-...nt-1285402.html

[GTA36362355]

I agree with the point about how the nation incurs the cost of keeping a criminal alive when he/she actually deserves a death sentence.

 

Oh wait, even a terrorist awaiting death sentence is costing my nation a billion rupees:

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.as...umentid=4944723

[Robinski]

I could rattle on about for this for pages but I'd say my opinion boils down to this: I couldn't take a government seriously if they, supposedly made of the people and for the people, tell the general population that it's wrong to kill people, then turn around and put a bullet in a non-combatant's head.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Robinski

[DEALUX]

Capital punishment is simply immoral. Revenge doesn't justify it because revenge is never justified itself. Just because some guy killed a bunch of people it doesn't mean he deserves the same punishment, that's some medieval sh*t. He deserves to be put away for life I suppose because I don't think there's any chance of redeeming himself. Revenge might temporally give you a sense of satisfaction but it won't resurrect the dead people. Killing is only ever justified in my opinion if it's your life against someone else's and there's no other way out.

 

 

 

[GTA36362355]

The fear of death is the base for having a death sentence in the law. This fear when instilled, a person thinks again before committing a murder. One must fear his own death before killing someone and I find nothing wrong with it.

[DEALUX]

That doesn't apply to all people, it certainly doesn't apply to serial killers for example, they are not afraid of dying. There is also a risk of putting innocent people to death row, maybe it's not that big of a risk but it should matter. Also, justice is based strongly on the concept of free will, which in my opinion is illogical and illusory. You can't have responsibility for your actions if you have no free will, and I doubt anyone will be able to prove it exists.

 

Based on that, I think capital punishment will be completely abolished in the future.

[Robinski]

There's also the idea that most murders are crimes of emotion. You aren't thinking about the consequences when you commit it, and therefore capital punishment as a deterrent isn't really effective

[Finn 7 five 11]

I could rattle on about for this for pages but I'd say my opinion boils down to this: I couldn't take a government seriously if they, supposedly made of the people and for the people, tell the general population that it's wrong to kill people, then turn around and put a bullet in a non-combatant's head.

I don't think the death penalty would achieve anything, if i was going to murder someone and the penalty is already life in prison and i still did it, obviously a worse consequence (Not much worse) is not going to sway me in my decision.

 

Besides like Robinski mentioned it is the height of hypocrisy and the question will always come up as to "Were they really guilty?" There are select cases of people being in prison for 30-40 years and then being released in old age as new evidence is found.

 

Saving some money is not really a good enough reason to sacrifice sentient beings who know they are headed towards their death...unless of course the death penalty was performed randomly where the criminal gets shot in the back of the head without warning or the knowledge they are going to die, but the risks and legal problems with that i am not even going to start.

[Tyler]

 

There's also the idea that most murders are crimes of emotion. You aren't thinking about the consequences when you commit it, and therefore capital punishment as a deterrent isn't really effective

Bam. This is the reason capital punishment is an outdated and completely irrelevant form of punishment. Furthermore, punishment should not be the goal. The American prison system is a corrupted, unregulated example of what you should not be doing with your prisoners.

 

We're too antagonistic. Justice? Is justice really murdering a mentally deficient person, in this world, A world that glorifies murder constantly and even condones it as long as it's for the advancement of humanity? It doesn't ring true for me. Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, and it definitely doesn't work as rehabilitation, so what are we wasting our time for?

 

Oh, it saves money? Bullsh*t. It does nothing to help the country other than give a false sense of retribution and add to our already horrifying acceptance of murder-by-consensus. We don't need the death penalty.

 

As for the actual prisoners, how about we spend those millions of dollars actually researching ways to rehabilitate or at least house sociopaths and spurned lovers (the fact that these two are treated the same is abhorrent, btw) until we can do otherwise? Is vindication-by-murder really that important to us?

 

I won't even go into the issue of wrongfully executed inmates since that's been covered by people above. Seriously, condoning this sh*t should be despised, not accepted.

[Chunkyman]

The death penalty is barbaric and often ends up killing innocent people. The prison system in general is uncivilized, because it's based on punishment as opposed to rehabilitation. Instead of fixing things, putting people in prison can often make them more violent.

 

Also, if you give someone a life sentence and later find them to be innocent, you can release them. If you execute someone and later find them to be innocent, you can't reverse that mistake.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Chunkyman

[lil weasel]

The Argument for Life imprisonment:

Most killers only will do it the once.

The Religious believe that only a god can kill for revenge. Yet those same people scream for lynching when it’s one of their own that’s been the victim.

There is big money in building and maintaining prisons.

There can be big money to be made in the warm storage of prisoners.

Lawyers get paid for dragging out the ‘reviews of appeal’ after the trials.

 

Those found to be Guilty by a Jury should be executed two weeks after the conviction.

Those found to be guilty by a Judge should be executed a month after the conviction.

If the (no longer being paid) Lawyers on both sides find something wrong from the trial then retry the ‘suspect’. Lawyers should be paid ‘piece work’ not by the hour, that would end a lot of injustice by the ‘system’.

Tax payers shouldn’t have to be drained by further expenses in a done deal.

The argument of unconstitutionality is false regarding the execution itself, it has more to do with the uneven application. Whites get life, and minorities get death, execute them all and there won’t be a problem. A Capital Crime shouldn’t have a ‘life or lesser’ punishment, else, why bother calling it a Capital Crime?

 

[Robinski]

 

Those found to be Guilty by a Jury should be executed two weeks after the conviction.

Those found to be guilty by a Judge should be executed a month after the conviction.

You're insane. What if the only piece of evidence that could prove innocence comes to light 32 days after the judgement?

 

What do you do then?

[General Goose]

Firstly, I personally don't view the use of the death penalty as automatic hypocrisy. It can be, depending on the actions and values expressed by the government, but I don't think it is automatically a hypocritical action. I can understand the whole "it's hypocritical for a government to condemn killing but then carry it out themselves", but the whole process of law and order is to a large extent the legitimised use of force, with checks and balances, in order to protect the public and dish out repercussions for committing crimes.

 

Despite this, I am still a strong opponent of the death penalty. On a personal level, I do think it is morally wrong to execute a criminal, partially because it does demonstrate a disrespect for life and can be perceived as a legitimisation of violence (especially when it comes to popular attitudes), but mainly because I feel it is denying them the opportunity of not only an appeal but also rehabilitation. I believe very strongly that the main purpose of a judicial system should not be punishment, and it should actively avoid becoming a vehicle for hasty revenge driven by, perfectly understandable, emotions. The main purposes should be reforming those who have wronged society (and everyone, from rioters to sex offenders to murderers, should be given a chance to reform and rehabilitate) and protecting the public from those who are dangerous. Now, I can't deny the death penalty's efficiency at the latter, but no-one can deny its complete lack of usefulness at achieving the first objective. It's hard to rehabilitate a corpse.

 

The death penalty is also not that useful. If it was proven to have a strong role in reducing crime, I'd almost be willing to change my position. But as it is, I see no convincing argument. The correlation between the severity of punishments and the rate of crime is not as strong as people like to believe. Do the countries that punish drug smugglers with execution have no drug smugglers? Did the Bloody Code effectively reduce crime? Do the US states with the death penalty have the lowest crime rates? The answers to those questions are all no. In fact, nearly all of the top 10 states in the homicide rankings use the death penalty, and the Bloody Code, while a very extreme example of capital punishment due to its compulsory use for property crimes that exceeded a certain amount in costs, actually worsened the crime situation. A correlation between the severity of punishments and crime rates does exist, to some extent, but it is unreliable and nowhere near as strong and reliable as correlations involving socioeconomic factors, other laws, and the use of rehabilitation. For example, there is a prison island in Norway. Its name escapes me, but it houses all manner of criminals who have committed atrocious crimes like murder and rape who are nearing the end of their sentences. Despite the undeniable severity of their crimes, they are given a high degree of freedom, and the number of night-time guards is, if I remember correctly, in the low single digits. The reoffending rate is 18%. Pretty good by the standards of a justice system, and the prison costs are far lower than a high-security, Spartan-style prison or months on death row with countless appeals and procedures. Even if one does believe that severe punishment is the best way of preventing crime, the threat of a long time in prison should already be more than enough to deter anyone thinking rationally or cautiously.

 

As to the problem of miscarriages of justice, that alone is a deal-breaker. The risk is small, but it is there.

[lil weasel]

 

Those found to be Guilty by a Jury should be executed two weeks after the conviction.

Those found to be guilty by a Judge should be executed a month after the conviction.

You're insane. What if the only piece of evidence that could prove innocence comes to light 32 days after the judgement?

 

What do you do then?

Well, they usually take 3 to 4 years to get to the trial stage, including the Pre-Trial, and depostions phases.

Did you think they just arrest a person and step into the court room? This Ain't No TeleVision Movie we're talking about here.

 

So if it wasn't brought to trial during that period ... so what...

They have the extra weeks time to find fault with the trial, that should be enough. I'm not saying they execute the person immediatedly at trial end.

There has to be an End at some time.

[Dingdongs]

I just want to jump in and add that those claiming it saves money are wrong. The death penalty costs taxpayers more than life imprisonment due to the whole appeals process.

 

 

Furthermore, punishment should not be the goal. The American prison system is a corrupted, unregulated example of what you should not be doing with your prisoners.

 

I think this is important, too. It shouldn't be about getting revenge. People will say "go tell that to a person who had a relative murdered" but the way I see it is, that's too bad. The fact that we accept that as an argument for the death penalty (i.e. many families want it) is just the government endorsing crimes of passion. It should be about rehabilitation, and unfortunately it's not. People are not "corrected" at correctional facilities.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Irviding

[El Zilcho]

The most horrific, sadistic people in our midst deserve great punishment. 'Simple' prison time can appear light - arguably these cases deserve death. But despite the fact they deserve it, I strongly oppose any government dishing it out. Not only do we have cases of people being found innocent after execution, but I just don't feel it is righteous or just to 'return the favour' so to speak, and murder another person. I think it stoops to the level of the criminal and is simply inhumane. Utilising criminals for hard labour is not only more constructive but also morally sounder, in my opinion.

[lil weasel]

 

[...] The death penalty costs taxpayers more than life imprisonment due to the whole appeals process.

EXACTLY, we need to put a reasonable stop to these money making appeals. Stop the pay of all the lawyers make it a 'piece work job' and there need be no 'extra' expenses.

Execute the Guilty promptly.

I am glad you agree, the whole thing is just to make more money for the Lawyers.

 

[...] Utilising criminals for hard labour is not only more constructive but also morally sounder, in my opinion.

Well that's one way to leagalize Slavery. It still doesn't prove the convict is innocent, and if (s)he is then, well.... tough.

American Chain Gangs... Weee, such fun and so nice for everyone.

Edited July 24, 2012 by lil weasel

[El Zilcho]

 

[...] Utilising criminals for hard labour is not only more constructive but also morally sounder, in my opinion.

Well that's one way to leagalize Slavery. It still doesn't prove the convict is innocent, and if (s)he is then, well.... tough.

American Chain Gangs... Weee, such fun and so nice for everyone.

It's certainly not easy, but would you rather have all criminals released then? There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution. If they're proven guilty, they should serve their sentence. But at least a prison sentence is not final for someone later found innocent: execution is. Some sort of work should be done by such a large source of manpower, and payment could still be provided.

[Robinski]

Those found to be Guilty by a Jury should be executed two weeks after the conviction.

Those found to be guilty by a Judge should be executed a month after the conviction.

You're insane. What if the only piece of evidence that could prove innocence comes to light 32 days after the judgement?

 

What do you do then?

Well, they usually take 3 to 4 years to get to the trial stage, including the Pre-Trial, and depostions phases.

Did you think they just arrest a person and step into the court room? This Ain't No TeleVision Movie we're talking about here.

Did you just think that you can't appeal when new evidence, or evidence gathering techniques surface? Look at anyone who's been exonerated after DNA evidence is found that wasn't available years, or decades even, ago.

 

You can free someone and say sorry, maybe even give them a little compensation. But you can't dig up the dead, brush the dirt off their shoulders and say "My bad".

[lil weasel]

 

[...] There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution. If they're proven guilty, they should serve their sentence. But at least a prison sentence is not final for someone later found innocent: execution is. [...]

Why bother with a trial for 'Capital Crime" if you aren't going to Execute the 'Guilty' party.

 

Are we truly interested in *if someday in the distent future*. The trial has been completed the sentence is *final*, or so it should be.

I don't like the UK system of Hanging, but at least it brought the business to an End.

[Dingdongs]

 

EXACTLY, we need to put a reasonable stop to these money making appeals. Stop the pay of all the lawyers make it a 'piece work job' and there need be no 'extra' expenses.

Execute the Guilty promptly.

I am glad you agree, the whole thing is just to make more money for the Lawyers.

 

I don't agree with the death penalty though. I was pointing out that in the end, someone on death row costs taxpayers more than someone in prison for life. It's not just to make more money for lawyers though I'm sure they don't mind. The point is people who are going to be receiving the ultimate punishment need to be able to appeal every piece of their case and present every piece of evidence they can. There are tons of criminals who are sentenced to death then commuted to life imprisonment after appeals.

[lil weasel]

 

I don't agree with the death penalty though. I was pointing out that in the end, someone on death row costs taxpayers more than someone in prison for life.[...] The point is people [...] need to be able to appeal every piece of their case and present every piece of evidence they can. [...]

And, why should that be? The Cell is the same, except it's single occupency, the guards, building, food, are all the same.

So... what were they doing during the depostions, pre-trial and then during the actual trial. Didn't they have a chance to refute the evidence?

 

The Appeal isn't to find 'new' evidence, it is to find Fault with the trial procedure, especially the actions/or failure of action by the trial Judge and Prosecutor.

Edited July 24, 2012 by lil weasel

[sivispacem]

And, why should that be? The Cell is the same, except it's single occupency, the guards, building, food, are all the same.

There's far less impetus for 25 years of appeals if you have life in prison as opposed to if you are sentenced to death. You can question "why" it would be, but the statistics tell the story.

[lil weasel]

There's far less impetus for 25 years of appeals if you have life in prison as opposed to if you are sentenced to death. You can question "why" it would be, but the statistics tell the story.

All too True. That's why after these years of being subjected to 'over' appeal, there needs to be an End to it. I should think that the Lawyers have been ripping the public off, and tying up the courts.

 

Now, back to the UK. Pretty much as I've said, the Death Penalty should be reinstated. If for nothing else recidivism is curtailed.

 

 

 

 

[sivispacem]

 

There's far less impetus for 25 years of appeals if you have life in prison as opposed to if you are sentenced to death. You can question "why" it would be, but the statistics tell the story.

All too True. That's why after these years of being subjected to 'over' appeal, there needs to be an End to it. I should think that the Lawyers have been ripping the public off, and tying up the courts.

 

Now, back to the UK. Pretty much as I've said, the Death Penalty should be reinstated. If for nothing else recidivism is curtailed.

The UK is statistically far safer than the US. For that matter, so is the entirety of continental Europe. None of these nations have the death penalty. In fact, nations without the death penalty have statistically lower rates in pretty much all crime- especially violent crime- than nations that have the death penalty. And whilst the re-offending rate for petty and moderate criminal activity is generally quite high in Europe, the rate of re-offending amongst people who would have been subject to the death penalty in the United States is actually lower in Europe than in the US. So it's basically a myth that the death penalty offers a deterrent for serious violent crime.

[lil weasel]

I agree it isn't a deterrent. It actually only works to prevent recidivism. No criminally minded person actually believes a mere law will stop him/her. The Death penalty won't stop 'heat of the moment' murder either. But, as I have said, (s)he won't do it again, if the person is a would be career criminal.

[sivispacem]

I agree it isn't a deterrent. It actually only works to prevent recidivism. No criminally minded person actually believes a mere law will stop him/her. The Death penalty won't stop 'heat of the moment' murder either. But, as I have said, (s)he won't do it again, if the person is a would be career criminal.

Um, recidivism is repeat offending. Statistically, repeat offending for serious crimes is worse in nations with the death penalty than it is in ones that do not have it. So your argument is logically flawed. Unless you are advocating an arbitrary death penalty for all petty crimes too, it's not effective at reducing repeat offending generally.

[General Goose]

Even in America, the death penalty is applied to only a very small number of homicide rates, and other less-costly methods of preventing reoffending that actually allow mistakes to be reversed can do the role you are proposing the death penalty does.