Do you agree with the death penalty?

Scroll to see replies

Killers of le rigby, 100% sure who killed him

We know who did it, and they certainly deserve it.

But if you change the law to allow the death penalty, at some point there will be a case where they are "certain" of guilt at the time and the death penalty will be given, and then that judgement later turns out to be wrong and an innocent person has been executed.

There is no way to introduce it for incidents such as the Lee Rigby killing while still making sure that no innocent person is ever killed by it - it will happen at some point regardless of what safeguards are in place.

Reply 21

tebr

100% agree with the death penalty. It's fair, brings justice on those who have suffered and saves millions of pounds

Reply 22

Gears265

I very much approve of the death penalty. I hope one day to see it re-instated

Reply 23

tebr

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

No. There's no evidence it's an effective deterrent and thus serves no purpose other than that of primitive, bloodthirsty revenge.

Moreover, it is deeply hypocritical. Teaching that crimes like murder and rape are wrong by murdering (executing) someone defeats the entire purpose of trying to eradicate these behaviours. Two wrongs don't make a right, not now and not ever, as history has aptly shown.

No it is not hypocritical as two completely different types of people are being killed. One is an innocent person and one is a murderer. Killing innocent people is wrong but killing a murderer is perfectly justified.

As for "eradicating these behaviours" it's not as if sending someone to prison where they're fed three hot meals a day and have access to Playstations is the best deterrent to crime.

Reply 24

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by tebr

I don't think killing murderers is justified and it most certainly is hypocritical, employing the same measures as a punishment that you claim are wrong and want to eradicate, makes no sense whatsoever.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent so your insinuation that it would work is void.

Reply 25

15076683

The logic of those who approve of the death penalty is clearly non existent. You say punishment for committing murder is murder. To kill someone for killing is simply saying that what they did is right. It is agreeing with their actions and proving that murder is a justified way to deal with something. Why is the right to take life given to a select few who have managed to climb their way to the top of the criminal law sector? Why do they deserve to take life from a person? Why is someone allowed to have that power? Its honestly shocking this is even up for discussion

Reply 26

Bjornhattan

Punish people like this with many years in prison.

It's harsher than death.

Besides, you could end up killing an innocent. And then you would simply be a murderer.

Reply 27

jaffacake111

No and not while euthanasia is illegal in this country for all other species apart from our own. In any case it allows the state far too much control. Humans have made themselves victim to fortune. We only have ourselves to blame.

Reply 28

tebr

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

My point is that killing is not automatically wrong. It depends on the person who is killed. Employing the same measure is perfectly justified in this case as murderers do not deserve to live.

If the death penalty was reintroduced, it may well act as a deterrent and reduce crime rates. One will never know unless it is reintroduced. Even if it does not reduce crime rates, life in prison is an absolute waste of money and i can't believe how someone can be okay with their tax money being spent on keeping murderers and rapists alive.

Reply 29

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by saxsan4

but why should the tax payer pay for them to have very easy lives?

If money is the only aspect that comes into the equitation it is incredibly expensive killing people.

Reply 30

username1221160

I wonder how many people would have called for the death penalty for the Guildford four after they slaughtered people in an act of terrorism.

Problem is they were innocent. About a dozen years in jail is a terrible fate for men convicted due to probably corrupt police officers looking for a conviction. Still, they did at least have a chance of reconstructing their lives.

The British legal system is littered with too many miscarriages of justice for the death penalty. It's not worth killing innocent people in the pursuit of vengeance.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 31

tebr

Original post by Bjornhattan

Punish people like this with many years in prison.

It's harsher than death.

Sure, giving someone three hot meals a day and having access to playstations and recreational activities is so much worse that the death penalty

Reply 32

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by tebr

It wouldn't because there are already countries with the death penalty instated and they have shown no reduction in those crimes. In fact, some of the United States with capital punishment show higher crime rates than those without it.

Reply 33

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Quantex

I wonder how many people would have called for the death penalty for the Guildford four after they slaughtered people in an act of terrorism.

Problem is they were innocent. About a dozen years in jail is a terrible fate for men convicted due to probably corrupt police officers looking for a conviction. Still, they did at least have a change of reconstructing their lives.

The British legal system is littered with too many miscarriages of justice for the death penalty. It's not worth killing innocent people in the pursuit of vengeance.

Yep.

When statistics suggest innocents will always be killed if you have a death penalty that becomes the center of argument around which you discuss this. Every other moral argument is meaningless compared to that one. The first moral obstacle you have to get past is whether it is morally acceptable to kill innocents in order to kill the guilty since that is what will happen and does happen with death penalties. Most pro death penalty advocates refuse to acknowledge this exists never mind debate it.

On those ground I will always be against it regardless of what my views are on whether murders should receive the death penalty.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 34

a noble chance

Original post by saxsan4

yes or no? and why

i think for the most serious rapists, murders and paedophiles and special crimes which are truly revolting, we should bring it back
but ONLY on the most serious cases such as the woman who flushed her new born baby down the toilet. The killer of Le-Rigby as examples

No, firstly because innocent people would be killed under the death penalty, as they always are, and one innocent person killed unnecessarily is in itself too many to tolerate the use of such a system.

Secondly because there is no evidence that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. In some states the rate of serious crimes has actually gone up after its introduction.

Thirdly because it's more expensive than life imprisonment.

Fourthly because the idea of a country having the power to kill its citizens is barbaric and belongs in the Middle Ages.

As far as I am aware there is no good argument in support of the death penalty but there are certainly several against.

Reply 35

tebr

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Still doesn't prove it wouldn't act as a deterrent if were reintroduced in the UK

Reply 36

The Warsmith

Aaah, this gets me back to the day when we used to hang thieves and rapers,

And to imagine we cut off the hands and feet of servants who disobeyed us.

Reply 37

United1892

No, revenge is not the answer.

Reply 38

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by tebr

Still doesn't prove it wouldn't act as a deterrent if were reintroduced in the UK

Why wouldn't it? That's a weak argument at best and one based purely on conjecture despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Besides, the UK used to have the death penalty and the crimes it sought to eradicate still occurred...

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 39

Louisb19

I personally think that spending the rest of your life in jail is worse than death. I also think that the government being in the position to make a decision about if someone lives or dies would be a bad thing.