Do you support-reintroduction of death penalty for murder in England and Wales?
Scroll to see replies
No, but then I'm exactly a fan of life incarceration either with the way some prisoners are treated.
Original post by ice_man
Your claims are outrageous. You want to replace judges and fair court systems by police men?! Well we can see how well policemen handle that much power in america, so sure, you have an amazing point...
I think you should learn to read. What I actually said was in incidents like the Raoul Moat case and the Lee Rigby case, whereby it was perfectly well known that they had committed the crimes, the police should be at the scene allowed to shoot on sight. They did in the Raoul Moat case because he had a gun and was a threat. They should have also shot the guys who killed Lee Rigby. There was no denying they had committed the crime.
I did not advocate a situation like America where all police are armed and are free to use their weapons whenever it suits or whenever they 'feel' threatened.
Further, haven't you seen how mental illness comes to light in a court hearing frequently, anyway, with the current judicial system...
Yes I have. However, if you alter the system then it would only get worse.
Original post by driftawaay
No, because
- the death penalty is murder. you cannot tell someone it was wrong of them to murder someone therefore you will murder them, it's highly problematic and hypocritical...
- the death penalty is murder. you cannot tell someone it was wrong of them to murder someone therefore you will murder them, it's highly problematic and hypocritical...
You could then say it is hypocritical for the government to imprison people, when it is illegal for citizens to imprison other citizens.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
You could then say it is hypocritical for the government to imprison people, when it is illegal for citizens to imprison other citizens.
No, we have already discussed this...
People like deranged sociopaths needs to be executed.
Gang leaders need to be executed.
Mobsters included.
Terrorists need to be executed.
Serial killers.
Basically people who have done such heinous things like from what I've studied, people who randomly kill others have often been sentenced to death, even if pardoned to life afterwards. It's because they killed without motive but they are not sorry for it; they are seen as the worst and incurable and often are sentenced to death.
Gang leaders need to be executed.
Mobsters included.
Terrorists need to be executed.
Serial killers.
Basically people who have done such heinous things like from what I've studied, people who randomly kill others have often been sentenced to death, even if pardoned to life afterwards. It's because they killed without motive but they are not sorry for it; they are seen as the worst and incurable and often are sentenced to death.
In principle, I agree with the death penalty; it is no more murder than having an armed forces who kills people who are a threat to our security. Serial killers, rapists, paedophiles etc are a serious threat to our safety, and so I would have no qualms with the reintroduction of the death penalty from a moral standpoint. In practice though, I would oppose it because the fact is the judiciary sometimes gets it wrong. People face accusations for crimes, are found guilty and are sometimes proven innocent years and years down the line when new evidence shows up, or technological advances allow new forensic techniques.
I can't remember the exact case, but there was one where a man had been in jail for years for murdering his girlfriend(?) because the blood splatter pattern on his shirt was consistent with that of someone who had struck the woman with a bat. Years and years later, the ruling was overturned because he proved that this could also have happened if she'd essentially 'sneezed' up the blood onto him. The magazine 'Private Eye' has covered plenty such cases where longstanding guilty verdicts are overturned. In a country with the death penalty, this means in practice, we're accepting that some innocent people are going to be killed. A very well respected study in the USA (it was published in 'the proceedings of the national academy of sciences') estimated that more than 4% of death row inmates were/are innocent. So whilst I'm morally comfortable with the idea of the death penalty, until we can 100% guarantee that all our verdicts are correct, I'm opposed to it in practice.
I can't remember the exact case, but there was one where a man had been in jail for years for murdering his girlfriend(?) because the blood splatter pattern on his shirt was consistent with that of someone who had struck the woman with a bat. Years and years later, the ruling was overturned because he proved that this could also have happened if she'd essentially 'sneezed' up the blood onto him. The magazine 'Private Eye' has covered plenty such cases where longstanding guilty verdicts are overturned. In a country with the death penalty, this means in practice, we're accepting that some innocent people are going to be killed. A very well respected study in the USA (it was published in 'the proceedings of the national academy of sciences') estimated that more than 4% of death row inmates were/are innocent. So whilst I'm morally comfortable with the idea of the death penalty, until we can 100% guarantee that all our verdicts are correct, I'm opposed to it in practice.
No, but I support tougher sentences. Our justice system is an absolute joke. The idea that you can murder someone and be out in 10 years is ridiculous
Original post by mobbsy91
Actually, the definition is as follows:
A.
n.1 1. The action or an act of killing.
a. The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, esp. in a premeditated manner; (Law) criminal homicide with malice aforethought (occas. more fully wilful murder); an instance of this.
If we re-introduced the death penalty, then using it would be lawful, and therefore it isn't murder.
A.
n.1 1. The action or an act of killing.
a. The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, esp. in a premeditated manner; (Law) criminal homicide with malice aforethought (occas. more fully wilful murder); an instance of this.
If we re-introduced the death penalty, then using it would be lawful, and therefore it isn't murder.
I would argue that it wouldn't be lawful. We've bound ourselves to comply with the rules of the European Union and in the charter of fundamental rights it clearly states the death penalty is banned in the EU. We also enacted the the Human Rights Act 1998 which binds us to at least try and read our legislation to come in line with the European Convention on Human a Rights which also explicitly bans the death penalty.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
In principle, I agree with the death penalty; it is no more murder than having an armed forces who kills people who are a threat to our security. Serial killers, rapists, paedophiles etc are a serious threat to our safety, and so I would have no qualms with the reintroduction of the death penalty from a moral standpoint. In practice though, I would oppose it because the fact is the judiciary sometimes gets it wrong. People face accusations for crimes, are found guilty and are sometimes proven innocent years and years down the line when new evidence shows up, or technological advances allow new forensic techniques.
I can't remember the exact case, but there was one where a man had been in jail for years for murdering his girlfriend(?) because the blood splatter pattern on his shirt was consistent with that of someone who had struck the woman with a bat. Years and years later, the ruling was overturned because he proved that this could also have happened if she'd essentially 'sneezed' up the blood onto him. The magazine 'Private Eye' has covered plenty such cases where longstanding guilty verdicts are overturned. In a country with the death penalty, this means in practice, we're accepting that some innocent people are going to be killed. A very well respected study in the USA (it was published in 'the proceedings of the national academy of sciences') estimated that more than 4% of death row inmates were/are innocent. So whilst I'm morally comfortable with the idea of the death penalty, until we can 100% guarantee that all our verdicts are correct, I'm opposed to it in practice.
I can't remember the exact case, but there was one where a man had been in jail for years for murdering his girlfriend(?) because the blood splatter pattern on his shirt was consistent with that of someone who had struck the woman with a bat. Years and years later, the ruling was overturned because he proved that this could also have happened if she'd essentially 'sneezed' up the blood onto him. The magazine 'Private Eye' has covered plenty such cases where longstanding guilty verdicts are overturned. In a country with the death penalty, this means in practice, we're accepting that some innocent people are going to be killed. A very well respected study in the USA (it was published in 'the proceedings of the national academy of sciences') estimated that more than 4% of death row inmates were/are innocent. So whilst I'm morally comfortable with the idea of the death penalty, until we can 100% guarantee that all our verdicts are correct, I'm opposed to it in practice.
Why is it necessary to kill them? If you put a dangerous criminal in jail for the rest of their life they're no threat to the public
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by arfah
Will have to do an assignment on this soon
Yes or No? and explain why you think so
Yes or No? and explain why you think so
Of course. I would extend it to other crimes including burglary.
Original post by Underscore__
Why is it necessary to kill them? If you put a dangerous criminal in jail for the rest of their life they're no threat to the public
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's less about whether it's necessary to kill them, and more about whether it is just. It's a hugely personal thing of course, but I would not consider it unjust for someone who took someone else's life, to pay with their own. But that's purely my view on the morality of the debate, I certainly wouldn't claim any absolute truth on whether or not the death penalty is 'moral' or not; it's obviously hugely subjective. But the issue of incorrect sentencing isn't subjective. It's perfectly clear, I'd like to think, that the thought of sentencing to death and then executing someone who had actually committed no crime is pretty reprehensible. So it is from that view that I oppose it.
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
It's less about whether it's necessary to kill them, and more about whether it is just. It's a hugely personal thing of course, but I would not consider it unjust for someone who took someone else's life, to pay with their own. But that's purely my view on the morality of the debate, I certainly wouldn't claim any absolute truth on whether or not the death penalty is 'moral' or not; it's obviously hugely subjective. But the issue of incorrect sentencing isn't subjective. It's perfectly clear, I'd like to think, that the thought of sentencing to death and then executing someone who had actually committed no crime is pretty reprehensible. So it is from that view that I oppose it.
Well yes I would agree the argument on whether an eye for an eye is morally acceptable is a completely subjective argument. My view is that you send out a message that if you know someone is guilty of a murder killing them is fair and that would increase vigilante justice.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
Why is it necessary to kill them?
As revenge and retribution for what they have done.
Original post by KvasirVanir
As revenge and retribution for what they have done.
So if you condone revenge why not let the victims family kill the murderer?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
Well yes I would agree the argument on whether an eye for an eye is morally acceptable is a completely subjective argument. My view is that you send out a message that if you know someone is guilty of a murder killing them is fair and that would increase vigilante justice.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not sure it would necessarily. Just because you have a death penalty, doesn't mean we do away with things like 'innocent until proven guilty'. If anything, you'd hope (even if it probably isn't the case) that countries which do impose the death penalty would have even stricter requirements on finding someone guilty, for fear of falsely condemning someone to death.
Original post by Underscore__
So if you condone revenge why not let the victims family kill the murderer?
Because while we all accept that revenge and retribution is essential in the interests of justice, we also accept that victims are the least able to either decide on, or carry out a fair punishment. They would almost certainly select a punishment far exceeding what is reasonable or fair. So to solve this problem we developed courts so we'd have a system that could dole out revenge but do so in a way that is fair to both victim and criminal.
Original post by KvasirVanir
Because while we all accept that revenge and retribution is essential in the interests of justice, we also accept that victims are the least able to either decide on, or carry out a fair punishment. They would almost certainly select a punishment far exceeding what is reasonable or fair. So to solve this problem we developed courts so we'd have a system that could dole out revenge but do so in a way that is fair to both victim and criminal.
I don't think courts are there to issue "revenge"; more to "punish" and "compensate". What matters is that common law has been broken so the victim must be compensated and the criminal taught that it was wrong and why.
Though, wouldn't it be better to preemptively exterminate those who are likely to commit such crimes, rather than wait for it to happen and then have to deal with it?
I support the Norwegian system where you get an xbox and TV for mass murder. Can chill and play games, get a university degree and be pretty well off by the time you're done eating all the state's food etc.
Original post by KvasirVanir
Because while we all accept that revenge and retribution is essential in the interests of justice, we also accept that victims are the least able to either decide on, or carry out a fair punishment. They would almost certainly select a punishment far exceeding what is reasonable or fair. So to solve this problem we developed courts so we'd have a system that could dole out revenge but do so in a way that is fair to both victim and criminal.
We don't all accept revenge is an essential part of justice. One of the main things the criminal justice system is in place to do is reform offenders and protect the public, by imprisoning someone you achieve both objectives. If the government sponsors the use of revenge killing and starts taking an 'eye for an eye' approach what sort of message does that send out? It condones violence and teaches people it's a reasonable way to solve problems
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ChickenMadness
I support the Norwegian system where you get an xbox and TV for mass murder. Can chill and play games, get a university degree and be pretty well off by the time you're done eating all the state's food etc.
Do you genuinely think educating prisoners is such a ridiculous idea?
Their system works. They have less crime in the first place and less re-offending after people have been to prison. That's surely the entire point.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 ?
