Turn on thread page Beta
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    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.
    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!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flozzie543)
    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.
    I think saying criminals is being a bit broad, the world can benefit from someone who, on one occasion, drives their car too fast.

    You could never prove somebody guilty of an offence with absolutely zero doubt.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    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.
    Wrong


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    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.
    Approximately twice per page in this thread someone has explained that it doesn't actually save money at all
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    (Original post by Implication)
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    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.
    China is well known for its corrupt courts and lack of human rights, only the wealthy and upper echelons would be allowed to appeal, to the best of my knowledge.

    Personally, I am against it as it doesn't prevent the crime.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    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 .
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    For very henious crimes where there is overwhelming proof the defendant is guilty
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fugey123)
    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.
    Ah yes, in that case let's get rid of benefits except for disabled then because they get 3 meals a day, a roof over their head and all their hobbies. Prison isn't some luxury, they have to work, and get some sort of education, they cannot smoke, drink or gamble. They can be searched at anytime, raped by other prisoners, stabbed, beaten up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drummerz)
    For very henious crimes where there is overwhelming proof the defendant is guilty
    Beyond all reasonable doubt? It still can be wrong.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    No, death is too easy for them; plus considering the number of false sentences that are given it's just illogical

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    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.
    The first instance trials themselves would be longer and more costly, We would also have to implement further appeals as a safeguard. It may not end up as expensive as it is for the Americans but it'd definitely wind up being more expensive than our current system. At the moment evidence of cost from the US is the best evidence we have

    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    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.
    Realistically there isn't much of a middle ground. Despite the numerous compulsory appeals the US have executed around 40 people who have later been exonerated and that's with a system that usually doesn't explore the innocence of those who have already been executed


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    Beyond all reasonable doubt? It still can be wrong.
    It could be but thats highly unlikely given the burden of proof that should be required before someone is senteced to death,but I agree even if just one innocent person is executed thats one too many..
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_hanson)
    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.
    But if you care about ensuring you get the right person, cutting down the number of chances they get to defend their innocence may not be the best approach. I'm not saying it can't be done; I'm just very sceptical.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    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 .
    What are you talking about? The US doesn't know use 'guilty until proven innocent'. Well I haven't trawled through all of the case law in the UK but I'd say public prosecutions are still more common. You're clearly not very knowledgable on the UK legal system so allow me to give you a quick lesson. All criminal trials begin at the magistrates court, more serious cases are then referred to the crown court where the case is heard in front of a jury. By 'more serious' I mean anything that isn't a summary offence.

    The two systems are very similar, next time you google something you don't know anything about to make an argument you'll need to research it a bit better.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.