Capital punishment

IF we went with their expensive methods then it would be more expensive but do you honestly think that the cost to incarcerate someone for 50+ years is lower than a length of rope or a bullet?

if you actually care about making sure you get the right person then yes

I don't understand your reasoning. Getting the right person would be the job of the police. It doesn't matter what punishment is given afterwards, the investigation would cost the same.

No; that's the job of the court. And you have to allow time for incarceration throughout the numerous trials, appeals etc. that need to occur if we want to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. Not to mention the actual court costs of those trials.

Such costs would exist regardless of the punishment. You are aware of this right?

- Yes, because their morality is not the only factor. I cannot justify the death penalty. It goes completely against my morals.

- I'm one of those annoying people that believes that all animal life is equal etc etc

- Of course it shouldn't be spent ineffectively. I was just addressing your emotive argument, rather than consideration of other elements.

- The same way we did with Harold Shipman before he hanged himself, chuck them in jail

Just FYI, the death penalty costs a lot more than incarceration. In a rush now but can post sources later if you're interested

- Justice is not killing another person.

What is your understanding of justice?

No; that's the job of the court. And you have to allow time for incarceration throughout the numerous trials, appeals etc. that need to occur if we want to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. Not to mention the actual court costs of those trials.

I don't agree with the 'eye for an eye' form of justice. I think people should pay for crimes, and depending on severity, with the deprivation of their freedom.

I don't disagree that convicts should pay for their crimes but it is becoming increasingly clear that, for those who have been caught, convicted prisoners view loss of liberty as an acceptable compromise for their crimes. In actual fact, for many, it is viewed as a badge of honor.

Would loss of life have more of an effect?

I'd say some of it at least would be how good our prisons are to live in. That needs changing.

As for whether loss of life would have more of an effect, imo, no. Look at American states with the death penalty vs. without. Generally speaking, US states with the death penalty have a higher serious/violent crime rate than those without.

I wouldn't say that's the case at all. I don't think anyone intentionally wants to deprive themselves of their liberty but they make a calculated risk vs reward decision and for many, it is often worth the reward because the risk is minimal.



Firstly, America is not perhaps the paradigm as it is made out to be for there are many bugs within the American justice system including, but not limited to corruption, prejudice, racism and bias.

Secondly, that statistical presentation is simply correlation which although gives a unique insight, should not be used as a substitute for qualitative factors (i.e: motivation behind why a crime is committed). Justifying the non-enactment of the death penalty based on arbitrarily held numbers will not solve the issue.


What will solve the issue of crime is looking at the underlying reasons for the commission of the offence and seeing whether there may have been merit in addressing any potential factors which have been overlooked.

A continued insistence that prisons are the best option is simply a naive manner of thinking. Whilst I hold the belief that everyone has the potential to reform, our prison system clearly isn't working, in a way that we envisioned that it would reform the criminal.

The UK prison system, as it is, is a better option for some than life on the outside. You get many, many cases of people reoffending purely to get back into prison...

I do agree that one thing we should be implementing to tackle crime is looking at the root cause, rather than dealing with it when the crime's been perpetrated, but we do already know a lot of the causes of crime (poverty, low education, high unemployment etc.) and we're not really doing much to tackle them imo.

I object to the quantification of those whom you believe do this.

Whilst I accept that it does happen, though it is not as frequent as you have made it out to be. There are actual homeless people I know of that do this, but only during the winter where the biting cold will be intolerable, and only as a last resort option. They will usually cause some kind of criminal damage and be locked up for around 3 months, coinciding with the coldest of UK nights.

There are only a handful of cases where a person intentionally seeks the loss of liberty. For the vast majority of cases, convicts are operating under a haze or illusion that they will get away with the offence as hardly anyone expects to be caught.

The potential loss of liberty is an intangible concept and as such, many people have come to rationalize it because they can't imagine what it will be like. Conversely, the loss of life, or the loss of a limb is something that can not be rationalized and I happen to think that is a more suitable and would serve more as a deterrent effect, to people intending to commit a crime.

My mum's ex-CPS.

So you're eye-for-an-eye?

Barrister or case worker?



In a system where honesty is prevalent, facts are established and guilt is accepted, then I'd say yes.

However, I am also of the opinion that in certain cases, the family of say, the murdered victim, should get a say in whether they would be willing to pardon the convicted.