This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Return of the death penalty? No. No-one is 'evil'

Poll

Should we reinstate the death penalty?

Conservative MP for the IoW Andrew Turner says the death penalty is the "proper punishment" for some serious crimes, this in the same week that Labour Councillor for Leicestershire Barbara Potter says that she believes in an 'eye for an eye' as an appropriate way to run a country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-14372659

I am sickened that such people have ever been able to attain positions of authority. An eye for an eye is a potential recourse in Islamic Justice, and I'm sure everyone who read of a man sentenced to be blinded by acid in Iran after committing such an attack didn't support such a cruel punishment. Perhaps the British public would sentence rapists to be raped as part of their punishment? Honestly. An eye for an eye means stooping to the levels of criminals, and means that society is no better than the people who have committed crimes. The primary purposes of justice should be reformation and protection of the public alongside deterrence, not retribution and punishment.

It's not a pleasant truth, but no-one commits a crime for 'no reason'. No-one is inherently evil, only in movies do people really enjoy causing their fellow man harm unless they are psychopathic or sociopathic - both of which we all accept as very serious mental illnesses, not as a trait to be punished. People who commit crimes have reasons for committing crimes, the more serious the crime, the more compelling the reason. I'm not saying criminals shouldn't be punished - punishment creates a deterrence effect that helps prevent crime by changing the balance of factors potential criminals weigh up in their heads. However, there doesn't exist people of entirely sound mind who kill lots of people for no reason. That reason may be wrong. But I'm not sure that people who do something for what, to them, is a perfectly valid reason - however twisted - really ought to be killed, in cold blood, by a government. In fact, the more twisted the reason, and hence the worse the crime, the more likely they are to deserve psychiatric treatment. Fine, lock them up, throw away the key (this has a greater deterrence effect anyway!) but I am firmly of the opinion that there is never a case in which it is acceptable for a government to execute someone - even discounting the possibilities of executing innocent people. After all, just look at the sentences people have been pardoned after in this country. Society ought to be better than criminals, to punish them justly and humanely, not to brutally murder them.

Edit: I am really quite shocked that the poll on this thread is on such a knife edge...a 50:50 split (at time of writing) is completely at odds with most research, and most theories suggest public opinion ought to be most strongly against capital punishment in the younger generations, since they are both most liberal and have never lived under it. (Getting rid of capital punishment is initially normally unpopular, but comes to be seen as a good choice within about 5 years.) Obviously this is very unscientific, but even so...

(edited 12 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Sabrinified

The UK will never bring back the death penalty, because if it does, it can no longer be part of the EU. And we pretty much rely on trade...

Having said this, the current sentences for the most vile and vicious crimes should be made more brutal. Life should actually mean life.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 2

bramz19

All that makes sense, it's well argued. But I'd still bring the death penalty back. If you step outside of the bounds of the law, you shouldn't get the protection of the law. That's how I see it. The problem I see with the state nowadays is that it isn't feared by crims enough to protect law-abiding citizens properly. I know I'm going to incur the wrath of all the lefties, but meh, it's an opinion, deal with it.

Reply 3

Dreizhen

Don't make me invoke Godwin's Law

Reply 4

Seasick Steve

Original post by Sabrinified

The UK will never bring back the death penalty, because if it does, it can no longer be part of the EU. And we pretty much rely on trade...

So you mean that, before we joined the EU, we were unable to trade with the Continent?

I hope capital punishment is brought back for murderers. These politicians are talking some sense at last. In reply to OP, just because someone can justify killing another person, should never result in lesser sentencing.

Reply 5

Reformed2010

No one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt some one is guilty on every single occasion. One innocent death is too many and I don't want to give politicians and judges the power to kill their own citizens.

Reply 6

Vinchenko

Original post by Sabrinified

The UK will never bring back the death penalty, because if it does, it can no longer be part of the EU. And we pretty much rely on trade...

As far as I'm aware, we could still be in the EEA with the death penalty, but yes. Lots of trade is outside the EU, though, and it wouldn't stop us doing trade with them in any case, just means there could be border tariffs and import restrictions, which would work both ways. I had intended this as more of a moral debate, but yeah, I guess that would be a significant negative effect.

Reply 7

Shaun1991

Aye, if it wasn't for the death penalty we wouldn't get Easter eggs.

Reply 8

Vinchenko

I am fully aware, thank you....! I was pointing out that in Iran it is still an option for victims in Sharia courts, as I was reading last week when a man was pardoned by his victim as he was being strapped to the trolley at a Tehran hospital to be blinded by acid. Fortunately, most nations - Christian, Islamic and Secular - have moved on from this now, it was just an example of how unacceptable Britons would find eye for an eye as measured by the outcry there was in this country over this case. There is no need to be quite so defensive!

Reply 9

Sabrinified

Original post by Vinchenko

Oui, sorry; I realised after that my post was a little irrelevant so added my moral two cents.

Reply 10

hao362

I think the reason he wants it back is to cut down on prison numbers, as these people would normally be spending 25 to life sentences

Reply 11

Doughnuts!!

There needs to be a serious deterrent and a "life" sentence doesn't seem to be enough.

Besides, the death penalty could help deal with the problem of overcrowded prisons. :p:

Reply 12

Circadian_Rhythm

Original post by Vinchenko

Nice to see someone with similar views :smile:

Reply 13

Vinchenko

Original post by Sabrinified

Oui, sorry; I realised after that my post was a little irrelevant so added my moral two cents.

No problem! I agree, though as you may or may not be aware there is now a punishment available to judges of a whole-life tariff, though this has been awarded about 20 times in about 10 years, which I think is about right. Taking someone's freedom away from them indefinitely ought to require awful crimes, so I think this is about right.

Reply 14

Reformed2010

Original post by Doughnuts!!

There needs to be a serious deterrent and a "life" sentence doesn't seem to be enough.

Besides, the death penalty could help deal with the problem of overcrowded prisons. :p:

Find me the evidence that the death penalty is a better deterrent to crime than life imprisonment.

Reply 15

Aj12

There is no reason for it other than revenge, and a justice system should not be based on revenge

Reply 16

Vinchenko

Original post by hao362

I think the reason he wants it back is to cut down on prison numbers, as these people would normally be spending 25 to life sentences

Original post by Doughnuts!!

There needs to be a serious deterrent and a "life" sentence doesn't seem to be enough.

Besides, the death penalty could help deal with the problem of overcrowded prisons. :p:

If it's only child & police killers, it would only be a maximum of about 10 people a year if that - hardly going to make a significant dent in our prison population of about 90,000! Also I would point out that in the US, one execution costs roughly the same as 20 whole life sentences on the basis of the extra security and solitary on death row, and the never-ending series of appeals. More people died on death row last year than were executed, some after spending about 25 years there.....

Reply 17

Picnic1

Original post by Vinchenko

It's not a pleasant truth, but no-one commits a crime for 'no reason'.

You're right about this- and yet I'd say not necessarily right in your overall conclusion.

All crime is committed for a reason, even if it's just boredom. But there's usually no good reason for someone who has a loving partner to commit a crime. A union (often through marriage) is supposed to complete a person, or at least they should feel that it completes them and make it so by feeling that. A single person, on the other hand, has much more reason to feel disenfranchised and incomplete by life.

But, if there is a God, the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' does not necessarily refer to punishment by the government. After all, that would also stop governments waging any wars. If they were executed, in as humane a way as possible, they would still have the chance to convert to a religion and repent all sins beforehand, which is more than their unfortunate victim might have had the chance to do. Sure, the murderer could themselves be a good and brilliant person in some respects but they'll find more peace exercising that in heaven than on an earth that will not necessarily, and perhaps should not, indulge this gift when a dead man has no further chance to indulge any potential gifts that they had to give.

And if there is no God then there's no particular reason why an eye for an eye should not necessarily apply for murder. It's the very least , in fact, that should be demanded for the murder could have huge repercussions on the family and acquaintances of the deceased as well. It could even have huge repercussions on the whole world if the deceased was a particularly brilliant mind or particularly benevolent.

Reply 18

Prime Minister

i think we need it

a man could plan a massive bomb, killing 100s of people, and still live, for free, in jail?

if we can 100% prove they are guilty, if its for a serial killer or terrorist and if we only 1 maybe 2 a year then im for it

Reply 19

Meekayashi

I know its 'insensitive' but to be honest who actually cares if you kill some criminal, if they killed people or did something equally punishable and there was proof (yes, obviously it would have to be GOOD proof), but the issue of proof aside, I don't have the least bit of a problem with human scum being executed, its not like I'm gonna feel bad for some Afghan terrorist being killed somewhere because he blew up a building with 40 people inside, kill him slowly for all i care...