[Banishingboredom]

Only in extreme cases and when there is no doubt over the guilt. Acts of terrorism or mass murder warrant it in my opinion.

[Lady Maleficent]

(Original post by -Neuro-)
When we kill someone for killing someone we are doing the same as them, it is murder!

So, your logic is that the state shouldn't lawfully 'kill' someone for unlawfully killing another person.

Should the state also not lawfully imprison someone who commits false imprisonment?

[Lady Maleficent]

(Original post by ArtGoblin)
30 years in prison is a slap on the wrist? I would hate to know what you think a punch in the face is.

In the context of murder - taking another person's life away - 30 years is not a slap on the wrist.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
I'm pretty much 100% sure Ian Huntley actually did commit the crime he was jailed for

I want selective capital punishment back

I wasn't using any specific examples, it's just that I couldn't support it because there would inevitably be some people who are put to death when they didn't commit the crime.

[OU Student]

(Original post by gazzagoalie)
Life sentences should mean until the convict dies, and this should be the very bare minimum sentence for murder.

The most dangerous prisoners will remain in prison until they die. There's the criteria here

[Emaemmaemily]

No we don't.
I do think that a lot of sentencing isn't harsh enough, but that is no reason to jump to the extreme and bring back barbaric punishments. What if someone is wrongly convicted, which happens more often than people seem to realise?

Someone here said that 30 years is a slap on the wrist. While I agree that it's not enough, I don't think I'd equate losing 30 years of my life to a slap on the wrist, that is a long time to lose. Yes, it should be more, but it shouldn't be death.

[dj1015]

Still not convinced. Just hearing the normal arguments..

"what if their innocent"

"its barbaric" blah blah blah......

Well, capital punishment doesn't have to be barbaric, not that it is in these modern civilised times.

And when someone's guilt is not in doubt, as it is the case much of the time. Then there is no reason not to.

and do I need to remind anyone about the kind of people we are talking about?

[Harmonic Minor]

The justice system is broke; we need much harsher sentences (which I think could entail the death penalty) to act as deterrents, less emphasis on 'rehabilitation' and more on punishment, and I also think we should make prisoners work for their keep.

[Pensivedore]

No, just no. Wrongful convictions/ miscarriages of justice happen far too often and it's just not worth it. And anyway, killing them is such an easy way out, don't you think? It's much better to have them actually suffer in prison.

[confusedexcited]

(Original post by dj1015)
I favour this purely from the economic benefits. A system that is designed save money can only be good for society.

So, any system designed to save money is good for society? Better start killing the elderly, infirm and disabled.

There's no economic benefit, it costs more to execute a death-row prisoner than keep them incarcerated because of the cost of a lengthy appeals process.

(Original post by Sabertooth)
A good number of US studies show that capital punishment does have a deterrent effect so I'm not sure why you would discount that argument from the start.

As for executing an innocent person, you could set the bar higher than the US. But also, let's use Ehrlich's study, by executing 10 guilty people you've saved 80 lives. You then execute 1 innocent person, well that's too bad but you're still 79 innocent lives up.

Eh? Why has 10 executions saved 80 lives? You can only execute a criminal once they've committed the crime, otherwise they're not a criminal If we're going by the assumption that those who would be executed would be awful serial killers, by the time they're released they're unlikely to be able to reoffend even if they wished to.

Murder be murder be murder.

[dj1015]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
So, any system designed to save money is good for society? Better start killing the elderly, infirm and disabled.

There's no economic benefit, it costs more to execute a death-row prisoner than keep them incarcerated because of the cost of a lengthy appeals process.

Now your putting words in my mouth. But a penny saved is a penny gained.

Besides the system could be brought back in, without the lengthy appeals. So it would save money on the cost of a life sentence.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
No it doesn't happen. For example if a camera see's someone murder someone it's beyond reasonable doubt.

You haven't heard of video editing then?
Or the fact that a camera only captures part of an event (eg it could be self defence etc).

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by gazzagoalie)
Also, think about this; if someone murdered a member of your family, would you be happy to pay for them to have a warm comfortable bed, 3 hot meals a day, sculpture lessons or whatever else they do in prison? Would you be happy to then pay for them to recieve every benefit under the sun when they are released after 10 years?

Talk about a false argument.
You seem to be suggesting the only alternative to what you say is the case now (which of course in many cases is bull****) is the death penalty. That is total rubbish.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
The justice system is broke; we need much harsher sentences (which I think could entail the death penalty) to act as deterrents, less emphasis on 'rehabilitation' and more on punishment, and I also think we should make prisoners work for their keep.

So make it more likely they will become further pushed away from soceity and so making it even more likely they will reoffend when they are released? Yes because that is such a fantastic idea

[Emaemmaemily]

People seem to think it would be cheaper, but it isn't at all. The amount of time that those sentenced to the death penalty in places like the USA is very long, they wait on death row for years, and the cost of executing them is very dear as well. It can actually cost more.

This aside, my reasoning for being against it in general are in my post higher on the page.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by dj1015)
I favour this purely from the economic benefits. A system that is designed save money can only be good for society.

1 - It is likely it would not save money. Especially if you actually want to do it fairly so innocent people have at least a decent chance at not being killed.

2 - So anything that saves money is good? Really?

(Original post by Sabertooth)
A good number of US studies show that capital punishment does have a deterrent effect so I'm not sure why you would discount that argument from the start.

As for executing an innocent person, you could set the bar higher than the US. But also, let's use Ehrlich's study, by executing 10 guilty people you've saved 80 lives. You then execute 1 innocent person, well that's too bad but you're still 79 innocent lives up.

1 - Where are these studies?

2 - Wrong. If 1 innocent person is executed, then that makes the whole thing worthless. Imagine you are that one person about to be killed, or maybe its your wife / husband. Somehow I doubt you would feel the same then.

[Sabertooth]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
Eh? Why has 10 executions saved 80 lives? You can only execute a criminal once they've committed the crime, otherwise they're not a criminal If we're going by the assumption that those who would be executed would be awful serial killers, by the time they're released they're unlikely to be able to reoffend even if they wished to.

Murder be murder be murder.

I take it you've never heard of deterrence?

Ehrlich 1975 used econometric methods to analyze how many murders are avoided by executing murderers. He found that for every person executed 8 innocent lives were saved (ie. 8 murders were deterred).

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
1 - Where are these studies?

2 - Wrong. If 1 innocent person is executed, then that makes the whole thing worthless. Imagine you are that one person about to be killed, or maybe its your wife / husband. Somehow I doubt you would feel the same then.

1. Look in any Criminology or economics journal and you shall find (my masters dissertation is on deterrence and I had no trouble finding articles).

2. Imagine you're the family of one of the innocent 80 people saved, or indeed one of those people who are still alive thanks to deterrence. I'm not sure how you can say certain lives are more important than others.

[Emaemmaemily]

These people mentioning deterrence - The USA (which has the death penalty in the majority of its states) has an intentional homicide rate of 4.7 per capita, compared to 1.23 in the UK.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Sabertooth)
1. Look in any Criminology or economics journal and you shall find (my masters dissertation is on deterrence and I had no trouble finding articles).

2. Imagine you're the family of one of the innocent 80 people saved, or indeed one of those people who are still alive thanks to deterrence. I'm not sure how you can say certain lives are more important than others.

1 - Yet the figures just do not agree (as in the above post).
2 - And yet it is still simply wrong. Executing innocent people is simply not acceptable.

[dj1015]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
These people mentioning deterrence - The USA (which has the death penalty in the majority of its states) has an intentional homicide rate of 4.7 per capita, compared to 1.23 in the UK.

they also have a massive problem with weapons.....