Capital punishment

Some were sent to prison, or found innocent so it was not all 'an eye for an eye'. You don't need a 'right' to terminate someone's life.

I don't understand the viewpoint that capital punishment is wrong because innocent people get convicted of murder and so on. Because does that mean it is alright for these people to spend their life in prison even though they have done nothing wrong. I know if I was in their situation, I would prefer to be given the death sentence than face a life of torment in a maximum security prison knowing that I am innocent.

None were guilty of any crime, none should have even been put on trial let alone executed.

I know your opinion cannot be changed, but thank lord we had people with a sense of right & wrong alongside a pair of 'balls' to make these decisions for us.

1) Very true. But there will be a minority that would trade liberty for food and shelter. And they could tempt themselves to commit a crime simply so they attain their so styled "basic" needs. But as long it's a tiny minority I guess it can be dealt with for the moment

Please stop being ridiculous; a simple google search will throw up multiple sources that will tell you that the burden of proof in the USA rests with the prosecution, they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

There are of course differences but the two justice systems are very similar

This malarkey of "innocent until proven guilty" is a bit of a red herring.

Prior to the prosecution being brought, the CPS and/or Police have already decided that Person A (the accused) is guilty of the crime, based on the evidence.

Conversely, the CPS may decide that the case does not meet either limb and may decline to pursue it. Furthermore, a procedural error may result in a mistrial, regardless of the other evidence indicating the defendant's guilt.

It is a misnomer phrase that the court decides if someone is guilty or not. In the adversarial system that our justice system operates, the court is an irresponsible party to assign guilt, given it's nature of an "impartial". Thus the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is non-existent within our justice system.

The present principles which our justice system is based on means that guilty men walk whilst innocents are condemned to losing their liberty, sometimes for decades.

I think you're being unnecessarily detailed over this. The notion of innocent until proven guilty simply gives juries an understanding that it is the prosecution that must convince them

The notion does not apply where the defendant has accepted a guilty plea, regardless of whether he has committed the offence or not, thus negating the need for the prosecution to prevent evidence, and in doing so, stopping a jury from sitting and hearing the prosecution make it's case.

Furthermore, the vast majority of offences are not dealt with by juries sitting in the Crown Court and our legal system has slowly started to move into the realms of jury-less trials (the abolition in fraud cases, as an example).


I have no issue with the notion "Innocent until proven guilty" but the evidence simply lends credence to the suggestion that it is not as practiced as you have made it out to be.

I don't disagree but one tends to find that such events occur over the Winter period, where nights get dark earlier and the temperature is chilly.

Like you said, it's a minority.

What would you propose?

we had this debate in our debate society ( I was on the affirmative side ) and we won the debate, I personally agree with it

no
I agree with it on the basis that the law system in the uk is based on justice and that punishment should be based on the severity of their crime therefore the death penalty is equal to murder.
Also it stops criminals from re offending such as serial killers.
Although it may sound harsh it induces fear into criminals and gives them an incentive not to commit the horrible crimes in the first place.

I understand most people on the opposing side think its inhumane and hypocritical but for some families it brings reassurance that the person responsible for their loss has been brought to justice and the fear of further murders occurring has been put to bed.

some crimes are so unforgiveable ( massacres and child killings ) that the capital punishment it self does jot sound as horrific.

Also it stops criminals from re offending such as serial killers.

it brings reassurance that the person responsible for their loss has been brought to justice and the fear of further murders occurring has been put to bed

I think whether or not it brings any sort of reassurance is extremely subjective

ahh but it is only as subjective as someone saying the saying of " an eye for an eye would make the world blind" for example which is often referred to in this topic, that is purely based on peoples moral beliefs, some believe in humanity and forgiveness, some in justice and realism, that is just as subjective as reassured families.

But what I mean is, whether or not that offers any more reassurance than a jail term is down to the individual.

Killing is wrong, in all forms.

Killing is wrong but is something that some people in our current society has embraced and as the world had developed with growing pressures etc it has lead to an outlet of anger or revenge has becoming murder. we cannot change that, its become a part of some people nature. however to deal with this we can act fair and look at justice to deem people as criminals and decide their fate, which they lost any control over when THEY committed the crime. It was their choice and capital punishment is known in the areas it applies to so their actions had known consequences.