This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
We need capital punishment back.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by dj1015
I have not changed my mind at all about the economics of it. I suggested that it be introduced in a way that would save money. Such as less appeals and shorter stay on death row. No messing around, once someone is convicted just get on with it.
That would result in the deaths of innocent, wrongly convicted people, you can let them out of prison but you can't bing them back to life.
Original post by Emaemmaemily
It's actually not cheaper to have capital punishment, as has been pointed out.
Otherwise, I agree with your post.
Otherwise, I agree with your post.
Well in that case there is no benefit whatsoever to capital punishment.
Apparently 65% of the UK want it back though, according to a survey last year
Original post by unclej
That would result in the deaths of innocent, wrongly convicted people, you can let them out of prison but you can't bing them back to life.
So the evidence is good enough to send them to jail for life but not good enough to put them down?
You don't support harsher sentences for convicted criminals, yet you question the validity of our justice system.
Shall we let Mr Huntley out of his cell today or tomorrow?
Original post by DorianGrayism
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf
I am talking about the work by Peter Passell and John Taylor, where they changed the time period and found no correlation.
There is a section dedicated to Ehrlich's work.
I am talking about the work by Peter Passell and John Taylor, where they changed the time period and found no correlation.
There is a section dedicated to Ehrlich's work.
See my previous post.
Personally, without having read that one in particular, I would be unable to comment in detail. However, I gave it a brief look and note that they haven't actually given details of what they changed, they haven't included the econometric methods or any details at all.
That is not a published paper, I've concentrated my research on papers which are actually peer reviewed and published not someone's brief notes which do, I should add, say: "Their evidence does not prove that the death penalty is no added deterrent to murder, nor could it. It does show, I believe, that any "deterrent" effect is very small in magnitude, and it might go in either direction." It also uses articles entirely from the 80's, which is why I think you should read the Dezhbakhsh study as it uses more modern techniques of analysis.Great find.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Sabertooth
I guess we are very different people. I think of the families of all those saved by the deterrence effect rather than the single family hurt by a wrongful execution.
If miscarriages of justice are so frequent why don't you actually give some examples? People in the US on death row get many appeals and are there for many years, so please give me an example of this apparently frequent miscarriage of justice. The only example of this apparently incredibly frequent occurence given so far in this thread is from 1950, seriously that's all you Brits got?
If 1 in 1000 people is innocent, and that's a big if, that's 7999 innocent people saved with a conservative figure (some deterrence studies have found numbers far higher than Ehrlich).
I'm also unsure where you get the "without remorse" from. Personally I would show great remorse if I was responsible for executing an innocent person, so stop with the childish accusations, anyone would clearly feel remorse but that remorse is far outweighed by the amount of people we save.
If miscarriages of justice are so frequent why don't you actually give some examples? People in the US on death row get many appeals and are there for many years, so please give me an example of this apparently frequent miscarriage of justice. The only example of this apparently incredibly frequent occurence given so far in this thread is from 1950, seriously that's all you Brits got?
If 1 in 1000 people is innocent, and that's a big if, that's 7999 innocent people saved with a conservative figure (some deterrence studies have found numbers far higher than Ehrlich).I'm also unsure where you get the "without remorse" from. Personally I would show great remorse if I was responsible for executing an innocent person, so stop with the childish accusations, anyone would clearly feel remorse but that remorse is far outweighed by the amount of people we save.
I did type out a longer reply, but Safari crashed. Can't be bothered to type it out again. So I will give you a name. Sally Clark.
Original post by dj1015
So the evidence is good enough to send them to jail for life but not good enough to put them down?
Well do you want more evidence needed to put people in jail? Meaning less criminals will be put away? Thought not.
The reason why more evidence is needed for executions is that you cannot bring people back to life. Its done. That is it. At least with prison the person has some kind of a chance of having a life again.
Original post by Mazzini
And what happens when someone is wrongly convicted?
That is THE biggest reason why I am against any capital punishment coming to the UK.
That + two wrongs don't make a right! - Simple, cheesy yet stil right.
Original post by dj1015
So the evidence is good enough to send them to jail for life but not good enough to put them down?
You don't support harsher sentences for convicted criminals, yet you question the validity of our justice system.
Shall we let Mr Huntley out of his cell today or tomorrow?
You don't support harsher sentences for convicted criminals, yet you question the validity of our justice system.
Shall we let Mr Huntley out of his cell today or tomorrow?
Are you that naive to the fact that innocent people have been sentenced to life?
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php
Of course I question the validity of the justice system I don't have absolute blind faith in judges and I appreciate the potential for human error.
As for mr Huntley, I would gladly let him out this minute if new DNA evidence proves his innocence.
You would of had Sam Hallam and the americans in the link executed because of your belief in harsh punishments and faith in the judiciral system, yet they were actually innocent.
Original post by dj1015
So the evidence is good enough to send them to jail for life but not good enough to put them down?
You don't support harsher sentences for convicted criminals, yet you question the validity of our justice system.
Shall we let Mr Huntley out of his cell today or tomorrow?
You don't support harsher sentences for convicted criminals, yet you question the validity of our justice system.
Shall we let Mr Huntley out of his cell today or tomorrow?
But if you put them in prison for life you can let them out. There have been plenty of cases of people locked up for years before new evidence came to light (often DNA evidence which wasn't available at the time of the trial). False convictions are imperfect but impossible to avoid every time. At least if we only lock them up then we can release them (they lose potentially many years, but are alive); there is no undoing a killing.
I agree that some sentences are way too short, and I disagree with releasing prisoners for "good behaviour" (it should be assumed, and time added on for any bad behaviour), but these can be fixed very easily within the framework of custodial sentences, rather than murder.
Original post by WelshBluebird
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 
People need to learn to respect and fear the law. It's an age-old wisdom that weakness simply invites aggression; criminals take advantage of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the re-offending rate is appallingly high as it is.
They need to keep better tabs on criminals who are released from prison for starters; personally I think anyone released after a serious crime (rape, murderer, if they get out at all) should be tagged permanently (and discretely). Re-offenders should be tagged. And as for my idea about making prisoners work, this gives them skills so that they can find work easier when they are released, so they can reintegrate back into society.
I just think the criminal system is too soft, people don't fear it.
On the matter of wrong convictions, correct me if I'm wrong but there has been advances in science and criminal investigatory technique which has indeed overturned old convictions. My instinct tells me this is something less likely to happen with today's level of technology, and besides, criminals should be convicted only if there is zero level of doubt anyway. I have little knowledge of the specificities of the legal system so forgive me if my suggestions appear simplistic, but couldn't they have distinctions between convictions where there is zero doubt and those where the person is convicted on circumstantial evidence and maintains their own innocence (in the latter case a death penalty being ruled out)?
(edited 11 years ago)
Whilst I'm not sure whether or not I agree with capital punishment, your reasons for being an advocate of it are stupid and also show that you don't understand economics. If more criminals are killed, less officers are needed, less food is needed and less buildings are needed to house prisoners. This means that less money would be spent by the government on things that create employment. This in turn means structural unemployment would increase, thus causing a rise in expenditure on unemployment benefits and a reduction in revenue from income tax. Some public money would of course be saved, but for the aforementioned reasons and the fact that there are few murderers the savings would be trivial.
To conclude, the death penalty cannot be justified from an economic standpoint and besides, trivial savings should not be society's primary consideration anyway.
To conclude, the death penalty cannot be justified from an economic standpoint and besides, trivial savings should not be society's primary consideration anyway.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Harmonic Minor
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the re-offending rate is appallingly high as it is.
So you want to make it higher. Really clever stuff.
Original post by dj1015
I was against it until very recently for many of the same reasons most people oppose it. But it is time for a serious rethink in the UK. The justice system as well all know is soft on crime, and 30 years for murder is not enough.
These people are sick individuals. If an animal is sick and we cant afford the vet bills, its get put down. Time to apply the same logic to these terrible people.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1584745_stockport-headless-body-trial-anthony-and-joseph-jenkins-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-john-grainger
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9431941/Kiaran-Stapleton-jailed-for-30-years-for-murdering-student.html
I am not in favour of it because I think it will deter people from committing terrible crimes, because it wont. I am not in favour of it because it I believe in the eye for and eye theory. I am looking at this from the economics of the situation.
If capital punishment can be brought back. It could be introduced in a manner that is quick, and cost efficient to the British tax payer. No need for mutlipul costly appeals as one is enough, and only a short stay on death row. Thus saving money on the cost of a whole life sentence. Humane methods could also be used such as Nitrogen asphyxiation.
These people are sick individuals. If an animal is sick and we cant afford the vet bills, its get put down. Time to apply the same logic to these terrible people.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1584745_stockport-headless-body-trial-anthony-and-joseph-jenkins-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-john-grainger
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9431941/Kiaran-Stapleton-jailed-for-30-years-for-murdering-student.html
I am not in favour of it because I think it will deter people from committing terrible crimes, because it wont. I am not in favour of it because it I believe in the eye for and eye theory. I am looking at this from the economics of the situation.
If capital punishment can be brought back. It could be introduced in a manner that is quick, and cost efficient to the British tax payer. No need for mutlipul costly appeals as one is enough, and only a short stay on death row. Thus saving money on the cost of a whole life sentence. Humane methods could also be used such as Nitrogen asphyxiation.
I totally agree. It should be bought back.
Original post by stefl14
Whilst I'm not sure whether or not I agree with capital punishment, your reasons for being an advocate of it are stupid and also show that you don't understand economics. If more criminals are killed, less officers are needed, less food is needed and less buildings are needed to house prisoners. This means that less money would be spent by the government on things that create employment. This in turn means structural unemployment would increase, thus causing a rise in expenditure on unemployment benefits and a reduction in revenue from income tax. Some public money would of course be saved, but for the aforementioned reasons and the fact that there are few murderers the savings would be trivial.
To conclude, the death penalty cannot be justified from an economic standpoint and besides, trivial savings should not be society's primary consideration anyway.
To conclude, the death penalty cannot be justified from an economic standpoint and besides, trivial savings should not be society's primary consideration anyway.
So what you are saying is that crime benefits the country?
Haha.
Original post by Harmonic Minor
People need to learn to respect and fear the law. It's an age-old wisdom that weakness simply invites aggression; criminals take advantage of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the re-offending rate is appallingly high as it is.
They need to keep better tabs on criminals who are released from prison for starters; personally I think anyone released after a serious crime (rape, murderer, if they get out at all) should be tagged permanently (and discretely). Re-offenders should be tagged. And as for my idea about making prisoners work, this gives them skills so that they can find work easier when they are released, so they can reintegrate back into society.
I just think the criminal system is too soft, people don't fear it.
On the matter of wrong convictions, correct me if I'm wrong but there has been advances in science and criminal investigatory technique which has indeed overturned old convictions. My instinct tells me this is something less likely to happen with today's level of technology, and besides, criminals should be convicted only if there is zero level of doubt anyway. I have little knowledge of the specificities of the legal system so forgive me if my suggestions appear simplistic, but couldn't they have distinctions between convictions where there is zero doubt and those where the person is convicted on circumstantial evidence and maintains their own innocence (in the latter case a death penalty being ruled out)?
They need to keep better tabs on criminals who are released from prison for starters; personally I think anyone released after a serious crime (rape, murderer, if they get out at all) should be tagged permanently (and discretely). Re-offenders should be tagged. And as for my idea about making prisoners work, this gives them skills so that they can find work easier when they are released, so they can reintegrate back into society.
I just think the criminal system is too soft, people don't fear it.
On the matter of wrong convictions, correct me if I'm wrong but there has been advances in science and criminal investigatory technique which has indeed overturned old convictions. My instinct tells me this is something less likely to happen with today's level of technology, and besides, criminals should be convicted only if there is zero level of doubt anyway. I have little knowledge of the specificities of the legal system so forgive me if my suggestions appear simplistic, but couldn't they have distinctions between convictions where there is zero doubt and those where the person is convicted on circumstantial evidence and maintains their own innocence (in the latter case a death penalty being ruled out)?
Absouteley 100% agreed with you.
Original post by NewFolder
On the other hand, it costs something like £38k a year to keep someone in prison, so over 30 years it'll cost the taxpayer over £1million, whereas execution would be a lot cheaper, but this is the only benefit to capital punishment.
How would it be cheaper? this states otherwise.
There's the cost of appeals, having to house death row inmates from everyone else, carrying out the execution, etc.
Kill the lot of them in my case. If the Nazis were so successful in containing Jews and other people, then we should act exactly like this with criminals, scare them to such an extent that they won't bother doing anything by then.
That again is '' nonsense.'' I can bring you the facts right and now tell you that Britain has the highest crime rates , second to the USA, everyday in the Uk, someone is either murdered or stolen. Bank thief's put cards onto atm machines so that they can steal your credit card bank details. How about the fact that if you put the words '' stolen or murdered '' You get stories about people being the victims.
.And I also point out here that more spending should go into the Police. We have got to be like other countries now if we are to kill crime. My view of a dictatorship is to be somewhat Napoleonic. No, all that stuff about free speech would be allowed. What you're doing here is diverting my argument. I said we needed a dictatorship not to rule the people, but rather have an effective police force. Look at the CIA, FBI, NSA. Crimes rates are still high as it is a big country, but they are the best of the lot. What about MI6? We generalise too much and not do much nationalization of it. We need to establish something effective as the FBI to lessen crime rates.
Britain has the highest crime rate in Europe. Including the fact that Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show: The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU. It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU. It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
And this is not only true, but if you just wrote the word ''stolen'' on Google, you would find a story about it within hours. And you say Britain has low crime rates? Nonsense. If it didn't, then we wouldn't have the BBC reporting every day about deaths!
Crime is just basically from poverty. One bully controls all the other bullies. You call for moderate measures? NO. Moderate measures are of no use. More spending on the police. One of the things that the USA has is that it shows Britian is a small country. USA is big, the FBI is used to dealing with all of this stuff. Crime can be easily eradicated in the UK as it is a small country and doesn't require much effort.
And tell me, what use has come of those community support? Nothing. Young people may as well nod to what people say but then stab them in the back. Not enough young people do not take the rules seriously and that is why we have become of a laughing stock to the world. I mean, they don't even respect the teachers! A aggressive police force that can enforce the rules can enable a safe community. Just to show you:Crime is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force.
he Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence. In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
Again as shown here. Crime is still rife in our society!
The Soviet Union has now been removed, it is useless in our topic,and I'd think that is it.
Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, has links to War Crimes, Anthony Lamberton for his sex scandal.
To show here, Amercia's crime rates despite being high, are now dropping. This may contradict my view, but it is going down for a couple of reasons:
1. American Councils have put Higher sentences, this effectively puts these people for a long time and so prevent them coming out.
2. Crime rates have been dropping since 1991. Crack of cocaine have also been dropping. Election of a Black president may have inspired even more dropping rates of crime.
3. Washington DC once used to be highest murder capital of the world two decades back, last year in 2010, only 131 deaths were reported, lowest crime rates for a city that endured muderings for a century or so.
4. More efforts made by the Amercian police to be actually a lot smarter and hunt these criminals down. For example, as shown in this source here from a newspaper: Police spokesman Joe Baeza says they introduced a scheme whereby motorists could register their car number plates into a police database and this empowered patrol cars to stop these cars if they were spotted late at night, to verify the owners. Mr Baeza adds that they also targeted car theft networks, educated the community about prevention and promoted anti-theft devices.
5.Video games keep young people away from crime rates. Thats quite a good thing actually.
6. Another increasing fact: "We now incarcerate four times as many people as we did 20 years ago," said John Roman, director of the District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, who has spent years studying crime trends in the city and the US. "Just by sheer size you've removed a lot of potential offenders from the street. I don't think that's very popular in many circles but it's very hard to argue with." This is from a source as well, and has been supported from the Walls street Journalists.
That again is '' nonsense.'' I can bring you the facts right and now tell you that Britain has the highest crime rates , second to the USA, everyday in the Uk, someone is either murdered or stolen. Bank thief's put cards onto atm machines so that they can steal your credit card bank details. How about the fact that if you put the words '' stolen or murdered '' You get stories about people being the victims.
.And I also point out here that more spending should go into the Police. We have got to be like other countries now if we are to kill crime. My view of a dictatorship is to be somewhat Napoleonic. No, all that stuff about free speech would be allowed. What you're doing here is diverting my argument. I said we needed a dictatorship not to rule the people, but rather have an effective police force. Look at the CIA, FBI, NSA. Crimes rates are still high as it is a big country, but they are the best of the lot. What about MI6? We generalise too much and not do much nationalization of it. We need to establish something effective as the FBI to lessen crime rates.
Britain has the highest crime rate in Europe. Including the fact that Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show: The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU. It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU. It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
And this is not only true, but if you just wrote the word ''stolen'' on Google, you would find a story about it within hours. And you say Britain has low crime rates? Nonsense. If it didn't, then we wouldn't have the BBC reporting every day about deaths!
Crime is just basically from poverty. One bully controls all the other bullies. You call for moderate measures? NO. Moderate measures are of no use. More spending on the police. One of the things that the USA has is that it shows Britian is a small country. USA is big, the FBI is used to dealing with all of this stuff. Crime can be easily eradicated in the UK as it is a small country and doesn't require much effort.
And tell me, what use has come of those community support? Nothing. Young people may as well nod to what people say but then stab them in the back. Not enough young people do not take the rules seriously and that is why we have become of a laughing stock to the world. I mean, they don't even respect the teachers! A aggressive police force that can enforce the rules can enable a safe community. Just to show you:Crime is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force.
he Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence. In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
Again as shown here. Crime is still rife in our society!
The Soviet Union has now been removed, it is useless in our topic,and I'd think that is it.
Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, has links to War Crimes, Anthony Lamberton for his sex scandal.
To show here, Amercia's crime rates despite being high, are now dropping. This may contradict my view, but it is going down for a couple of reasons:
1. American Councils have put Higher sentences, this effectively puts these people for a long time and so prevent them coming out.
2. Crime rates have been dropping since 1991. Crack of cocaine have also been dropping. Election of a Black president may have inspired even more dropping rates of crime.
3. Washington DC once used to be highest murder capital of the world two decades back, last year in 2010, only 131 deaths were reported, lowest crime rates for a city that endured muderings for a century or so.
4. More efforts made by the Amercian police to be actually a lot smarter and hunt these criminals down. For example, as shown in this source here from a newspaper: Police spokesman Joe Baeza says they introduced a scheme whereby motorists could register their car number plates into a police database and this empowered patrol cars to stop these cars if they were spotted late at night, to verify the owners. Mr Baeza adds that they also targeted car theft networks, educated the community about prevention and promoted anti-theft devices.
5.Video games keep young people away from crime rates. Thats quite a good thing actually.
6. Another increasing fact: "We now incarcerate four times as many people as we did 20 years ago," said John Roman, director of the District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, who has spent years studying crime trends in the city and the US. "Just by sheer size you've removed a lot of potential offenders from the street. I don't think that's very popular in many circles but it's very hard to argue with." This is from a source as well, and has been supported from the Walls street Journalists.
Original post by The Marshall
So what you are saying is that crime benefits the country?
Haha.
Haha.
No you cretin. I'm saying that the death penalty wouldn't be particularly beneficial from an economic standpoint, thus the idea that it should be implemented to help the government solve its debt problems is immaterial. I'm open to arguments in favour of the death penalty, but not when they are based on misunderstandings of economics. Learn to read before making retarded comments.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
