Capital punishment

This is based on an inefficient system. There is no guarantee that we will use that particular system. We would most likely improve the system we used to use.

This is based on an inefficient system. There is no guarantee that we will use that particular system. We would most likely improve the system we used to use.

In my opinion, the world cannot benefit from people who are murderers and criminals. They are literally a waste of space and money and it is kinder and cheaper than letting them rot in prison. However, it should only be done if there is absolute evidence and no doubt that the person is guilty.

Yes.

It saves hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be spent having to keep the savages and the filth of humanity in jail cells for the rest of their miserable lives.

Yes.

It saves hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be spent having to keep the savages and the filth of humanity in jail cells for the rest of their miserable lives.

Our legal system is similar to the US therefore using statistics from the US on cost is the most reliable evidence that exists. At the moment nobody has any evidence to conclude that capital punishment wouldn't be vastly more expensive that life imprisonment.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But do you have any evidence that constructing such a system is plausible (or even possible)? No matter what system you use, you can't escape the fact that defendants will exhaust every possible avenue of escape when faced with the possibility of death, and that some will go through the system and not end up being executed at all.

You can't argue that capital punishment is cheaper, then when faced with the fact that it isn't simply wave your hands and say 'we'll make it so that it is!' That's not an argument!

I can see you are both using the US system as a basis for costs. The problem with this is that whilst there are some similarities between the British and US legal system there are also differences. The main reason for the increased costs in the USA are due to appeals. That is based on the US Constitution. This results in the process taking many years to complete. The flaw in your arguement is that the British legal system is not based on a constitution, certainly not the US constitution. Now for the UK to be able to introduce capital punishment it would not be able to be in the EU. This would reduce the options of a criminal to appeal. I believe when the chances to appeal are reduced the cost of the process would also be greatly reduced.

In China, when someone is convicted - once, with no appeals! - of a crime for which capital punishment is applicable, they take the convict out behind the courthouse, shoot them neatly in the back of the head, and bill the convict's family for the bullet. And you know what, that's a hell of a lot cheaper than the American system, so why don't we just do that?

My point is, appeals are necessary for capital punishment to have a shred of a semblance of humanity. You can't possibly institute capital punishment without a system that makes absolutely sure that the person you're going to execute is guilty, and that takes multiple appeals, and that takes a lot of money.

That is BS, I am in China at this very moment. The office I am working in is next to a court. You will find that they do have an appeals system. I agree that the system is incredably flawed though I have never seen anyone executed behind the courthouse (I have a great view from my office window).

Your point is an extreme like most of the examples in this thread. There is such a thing as middle ground.

Our legal system is similar to the US therefore using statistics from the US on cost is the most reliable evidence that exists. At the moment nobody has any evidence to conclude that capital punishment wouldn't be vastly more expensive that life imprisonment.




Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, 100% for capital punishment. There would need to be sufficient evidence for the punishment to go ahead. But yes, our prisons are overcrowded with murderers and scum who just live royally inside prisons these days, they get fed 3 times a day, have a roof over their head, have all their hobbies in prison. It's a waste of the tax payers money keeping them in prison for life.

For very henious crimes where there is overwhelming proof the defendant is guilty

I can see you are both using the US system as a basis for costs. The problem with this is that whilst there are some similarities between the British and US legal system there are also differences. The main reason for the increased costs in the USA are due to appeals. That is based on the US Constitution. This results in the process taking many years to complete. The flaw in your arguement is that the British legal system is not based on a constitution, certainly not the US constitution. Now for the UK to be able to introduce capital punishment it would not be able to be in the EU. This would reduce the options of a criminal to appeal. I believe when the chances to appeal are reduced the cost of the process would also be greatly reduced.

That is BS, I am in China at this very moment. The office I am working in is next to a court. You will find that they do have an appeals system. I agree that the system is incredably flawed though I have never seen anyone executed behind the courthouse (I have a great view from my office window).

Your point is an extreme like most of the examples in this thread. There is such a thing as middle ground.

Beyond all reasonable doubt? It still can be wrong.

I can see you are both using the US system as a basis for costs. The problem with this is that whilst there are some similarities between the British and US legal system there are also differences. The main reason for the increased costs in the USA are due to appeals. That is based on the US Constitution. This results in the process taking many years to complete. The flaw in your arguement is that the British legal system is not based on a constitution, certainly not the US constitution. Now for the UK to be able to introduce capital punishment it would not be able to be in the EU. This would reduce the options of a criminal to appeal. I believe when the chances to appeal are reduced the cost of the process would also be greatly reduced.

No it isn't. This is straight up wrong. First, in the UK it is innocent until proven guilty, in America, it is guilty until proven innocent. Second, in the UK we have different rules and rights around court cases, a lot of our defence and prosecution are private. Third, our courts are not jury based unless it is crown court, else a magistrate will hear the case. The US system is nothing like the UK system and cannot be used as a guideline .