Because currently, they live in prisons that are better than many people's homes that cost billions a year. If they were executed by means of public burning/fire squad/hanging/stoning or whatever method chosen, this would eradicate the cost and serve as a deterrent.

Reply 63

DrawTheLine

22

Original post by TheBirder

The death penalty should only be for people who wear jeans that have been deliberately made to have holes in them. In all other cases, no.

(Seriously: no under all circumstances)

All jeans have holes.

Reply 64

GovernmentEarner

14

Original post by DrawTheLine

To an extent I agree, however with point number one, in my opinion, a murderer decided to take the life of someone so why should they get to keep their life? They made that decision for someone else, someone helpless and unable to save themselves. They decided to stop someone existing. Why can't someone make the same decision about their life? In my opinion, if you take a life, you don't deserve to get to live yours - whether that's in prison, in therapy or elsewhere.

As Ghandi said ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind’. It is dangerous for the state to stoop to the level of the murder, killing should not be treated with killing. It also limits rehabilitation, and as I have already made a biblical reference I shall again, it stops the virtue of a second chance. I personally believe our current system of deterrence should be strengthened, to avoid crimes being committed in the first place, to not have to punish as many.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 65

username1175401

15

Original post by Bosnia

Because currently, they live in prisons that are better than many people's homes that cost billions a year. If they were executed by means of public burning/fire squad/hanging/stoning or whatever method chosen, this would eradicate the cost and serve as a deterrent.

First of all, as I have already stated, capital punishment has never been proven to be a deterrent to crime

Second, prisons only occupy a significant government budget because the government prefers to send people to prison over rehabilitating them in the community or supported housing, due to the Tory promise to be 'tough on crime'. There are also minimum standards prisons have to reach, and many of the old Victorian prisons are being rebuilt or have closed due to not being fit for purpose anymore.

Also, capital punishment in the USA is actually more expensive than maintaining those individuals in prison. This is mainly due to the appeals process, which should be in place to prevent as few innocent people being executed as possible. It would therefore cost MORE money to execute people than to keep them in prison (Source:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty)

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 66

RF_PineMarten

18

There is always the risk of a totally innocent person being executed for a crime they didn't commit. If you have the death penalty, innocent people will die. Miscarriages of justice will happen, it is simply not a question of if.

It baffles me how anyone can support the death penalty given those circumstances. The risk to innocent people should be enough to completely settle the argument.

Reply 67

Charles III

21

Original post by Bosnia

Because currently, they live in prisons that are better than many people's homes that cost billions a year. If they were executed by means of public burning/fire squad/hanging/stoning or whatever method chosen, this would eradicate the cost and serve as a deterrent.

Actually, in modern times and in our civilised society, executing someone is monstrously expensive. So it would save absolutely nothing and would actually cost the state MORE money.

Reply 68

Bosnia

OP

6

Original post by GovernmentEarner

As Ghandi said ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind’. It is dangerous for the state to stoop to the level of the murder, killing should not be treated with killing. It also limits rehabilitation, and as I have already made a biblical reference I shall again, it stops the virtue of a second chance. I personally believe our current system of deference should be strengthened, to avoid crimes being committed in the first place, to not have to punish as many.

And yet Ghandi was assassinated

Reply 69

Bosnia

OP

6

Original post by Paracosm

Actually, in modern times and in our civilised society, executing someone is monstrously expensive. So it would save absolutely nothing and would actually cost the state MORE money.

All you need is a couple of logs and a match

Reply 70

Captain Jack

20

Original post by Bosnia

Personally, I would advocate the use of the death penalty for drug smuggling, treason, rape, murder, paedophilia, war crimes and fraud. Maybe this is a cultural thing (check my username) as I'm generally not so liberal towards these issues. What are your thoughts?

Absolutely not. Killing people is barbaric and means someone has to be a murderer themselves to kill people.

Reply 71

username3615968

7

i could really only support the death penalty for rich ppl tbh :/

Reply 72

Charles III

21

Original post by Bosnia

All you need is a couple of logs and a match

That's not how it works.

Reply 73

mojojojo101

17

Original post by Bosnia

If I was Muslim my views would probably be respected, but the lgbt multi-culti loving doormats of the UK would rather bash its own state religion. What a mess your developed, wealthy country is compared to my developing and relatively poor one!!!

I dont care if you are Muslim or not, Religion is a method of systemmatic oppression of working people and holds us back from our spiritual, moral and ethical evolution as a species.

Im the words of Bakunin;
'As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.'

Reply 74

Roxirin

15

Original post by Chaz254

Brave move defending pedophiles!

I'm not sure some dad whose 12 yr old daughter had a bad experience with a 50 yr old man would say the same.

There is a different between those who experience a sexual attraction to children and those who actually act upon it, you know. The person you are replying to undoubtedly means the former. Some people go their entire lives without finding a partner because they cannot be with those they are attracted to. You can get therapy for that. The people that rape/sexually assault children and ACT on their attraction, those people are the ones who cannot be excused from their actions.

Reply 75

Bosnia

OP

6

Original post by RF_PineMarten

There is always the risk of a totally innocent person being executed for a crime they didn't commit. If you have the death penalty, innocent people will die. Miscarriages of justice will happen, it is simply not a question of if.

It baffles me how anyone can support the death penalty given those circumstances. The risk to innocent people should be enough to completely settle the argument.

Innocent people dying would only account for less than 2% of deaths. In that regard, the death penalty is fully warranted and should be reinstated

Reply 76

Charles III

21

Original post by thetoebeans

i could really only support the death penalty for rich ppl tbh :/

Why? What distinction is there between a poor person being allowed to commit a crime and a rich one? They're both human and so should both be punished equally - unless you are advocating for a society in which nobody is equal, thus undermining the very nature of the judicial system for which the death penalty would exist.