Turn on thread page Beta

A perfect example of a crime that should attract the death penalty. watch

  • View Poll Results: What should the sentence be
    Life but with a tarrif set by a judge
    40
    16.88%
    natural life in prison without parole
    93
    39.24%
    Death by hanging
    25
    10.55%
    Death by lethal injection
    38
    16.03%
    Death by firing squad
    17
    7.17%
    Death by electric chair
    9
    3.80%
    Death in a gas chamber
    15
    6.33%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather let a hundred murderers escape the death penalty than risk executing one innocent man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LukeWz)
    And only those who are 100% guilty, should be subject to it.
    And how are you going to prove this? Our legal system works on reasonable doubt, because there is no such thing as 100% proof or 100% guilty. This is why we do not execute criminals anymore. That and becoming, one hopes, a slightly more civillised society...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    The ECHR regards life without possibility of parole as barbaric also.
    Really? what case says that? (genuinely interested as I am studying human rights law)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think when we debate this, we always assume that killing someone is more 'barbaric' or exerting a worse revenge on someone who has committed such a crime. To be honest, I think that if I killed someone now - first degree murder - and was sentenced to life without chance of parole - I.e, I was sentenced to die in prison like Mrs Hindley, I think after five or ten years I'd be begging for the electric chair.

    But, I do agree with this sentencing structure:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Any first-degree murder should be an automatic and non-negotiable life sentence with no possibility of parole or early release. Second-degree murder and rape should be an automatic and non-negotiable 30-year sentence with no possibility of early release, but possibility for parole (second-degree murder being driven by passion rather than pre-meditation).

    Same with war crimes, crime against humanity, crimes against peace, etc.

    Justice is about sending a message, but that message must also occupy the moral high ground. State-sanctioned murder does not do that.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by x8Charlotte8x)
    all capital punishments are barbaric. i think that the 'eye for an eye' mentality is archaic, and hypocritical. So the man may have killed this young woman, but would that justify gassing or electrocuting him?

    And as Aphotic Cosmos said, the death penalty does not act as a deterrant. we can't have a reason for capital punishment as 'the prisons are at full capacity'. It's less than one year sentences etc that are the real problem with prison crowdedness.
    Care to justify the subjective moral statement that it's "barbaric"?

    It would justify gassing him because someone who can do something like that will never fully be reformed, and it's better to spend tax money on life saving cancer drugs than on keeping him locked up for years.

    There is substantial evidence that the DP DOES act as a deterrent - you just need to ignore the nonsensical comparisons of homicide rates in DP/non-DP US states and instead look at something more concrete, like a comparison of what happened when the DP was suspended or reintroduced in various states:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...that-it-works/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    why aren't i surprised that your source is from the daily mail?
    what, are you saying that the daily mail is making this story up? if it was from the guarding, i'm pretty sure the op would hold the exact same views. what is it with you people, do you make these comments to fish for rep or something?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The daily mail did it!!!!!!!



    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miraclefish)
    And how are you going to prove this? Our legal system works on reasonable doubt, because there is no such thing as 100% proof or 100% guilty. This is why we do not execute criminals anymore. That and becoming, one hopes, a slightly more civillised society...


    except that britain has become infinitely more uncivilised since it was abolished in 1955 for commoners. as can been seen here with the dramatic increase in crime:








    house of commons source:


    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...9/rp99-111.pdf
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent.

    The death penalty is unfair upon the family of the criminal.

    The death penalty isn't adequate punishment for serious crimes like this.



    Basically, only idiots think it should be brought back for normal crimes. The only time it should be used is for people like religious and political leaders that would likely have their followers trying to free them, causing needless harm to other people.



    Really, if you don't hold these views, you're wrong.



    (Original post by humanrights)
    except that britain has become infinitely more uncivilised since it was abolished in 1955 for commoners. as can been seen here with the dramatic increase in crime:








    house of commons source:


    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...9/rp99-111.pdf

    Yeah. The only thing that has changed over the past semicentury is that we abolished the death penalty. This has nothing to do with rising population or urbanization, or any other socio-economic factors.


    Seriously. How simples can you get?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hangin, thats how it was done in the olden days! let the scum either have their neck broken or strangle to death!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ive-death.html

    That fat lump of excrement should swing ,sounds like he jacked off on her dead body as well the freak.

    If the death penalty was brought back we would have a special homicide act which would stipulate which murders would qualify for it. Then the judge would apply the law. Instead I propose a system similar to the US where there is a death penalty hearing involving a jury after a guilty plea. Where the jury decides on either life imprisonment , natural life imprisonment or death. Although I wouldn't have a death row, one appeal within 5 years where everything including forensic evidence, the trial etc etc done by a different police force,a special independent home office unit that investigates the evidence and police performance in the investigation , decided by a different judge If it fails he/she dead within a week.
    Yes, state-sponsored human sacrifice is precisely what a healthy, progressive society needs. Oh, wait...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    But revenge isn't the only motivation,it is not for me. I am hugely pro life and I believe anyone who takes a life in such a horrific way and the defiles the corpse should lose theirs because they have shown society they don't value other peoples lives like we all should. And the death penalty can save lives, studies on states in the US that brought back the death penalty in the seventies suggest that for certain types of murders it does have a deterrent effect. But you won't find that study quoted by amnesty and by extension the BBC or the guardian. A professor from cambridge university quoted this study when arguing with someone saying the death penalty is not a deterrent.
    In other words, revenge.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Any first-degree murder should be an automatic and non-negotiable life sentence with no possibility of parole or early release. Second-degree murder and rape should be an automatic and non-negotiable 30-year sentence with no possibility of early release, but possibility for parole (second-degree murder being driven by passion rather than pre-meditation).

    Same with war crimes, crime against humanity, crimes against peace, etc.

    Justice is about sending a message, but that message must also occupy the moral high ground. State-sanctioned murder does not do that.
    This.
    We should be really tough on crime, but murdering people is not the answer.

    If for no other reason than that eventually our justice system will make a mistake, and then an innocent man will be put to death.
    Life meaning life, and they should work an 8-10 hour day every day except weekends like the rest of us.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    they are miserable places to be... i don't think anyone who has seen a prison would say it isn't an awful place to be.
    Yeah, sorry, they are miserable places to be - especially if inmates are allowed to watch Sky Sports.

    /sarcasm.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fallen)
    This.
    We should be really tough on crime, but murdering people is not the answer.

    If for no other reason than that eventually our justice system will make a mistake, and then an innocent man will be put to death.
    Life meaning life, and they should work an 8-10 hour day every day except weekends like the rest of us.
    Don't start being sympathetic - they should work 8-10 hours a day INCLUDING weekends.
    They're in prison - life in prison is meant to be tough.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ive-death.html

    That fat lump of excrement should swing ,sounds like he jacked off on her dead body as well the freak.

    If the death penalty was brought back we would have a special homicide act which would stipulate which murders would qualify for it. Then the judge would apply the law. Instead I propose a system similar to the US where there is a death penalty hearing involving a jury after a guilty plea. Where the jury decides on either life imprisonment , natural life imprisonment or death. Although I wouldn't have a death row, one appeal within 5 years where everything including forensic evidence, the trial etc etc done by a different police force,a special independent home office unit that investigates the evidence and police performance in the investigation , decided by a different judge If it fails he/she dead within a week.
    This is bad, yes, but there have been way more horrific murders than this. Either way, murderers should be put to death if there is strong evidence and if that is the agreed law, as there is no good reason for them to be alive, and it would send out a clear message to everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why does the article have to mention that he was tattooed? Are we supposed to think people with tattoos are more likely to be violent?

    Cheap.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    For some people, they don't care whether they get a life sentence or not, as long as they get the person killed.

    E.g. if a person really, really wanted to kill Person A, and if it meant going to prison for it - well, it's not an effective deterrent, is it?

    When someone wants to kill someone, they will kill someone regardless of the consequences.
    I'm not suggesting that it could or would be a more effective deterrent, but it's definitely more humane and allows for the possibility of judicial error in sentencing for major crimes, unlike the death penalty. I don't actually think that there's much more we could do to deter people from committing murder - you either have really determined, focused people with a clear mind and conscience who are not psychopaths, or psychopaths/sociopaths, or people committing crimes of passion - it's very hard to combat any of those. The main problem with the death penalty is not it's status as a deterrent, because there's just not much evidence to suggest that anything, even death or a full life sentence, will stop those who actually want to commit murder, but the problems it causes for the rest of society in terms of morality, cost and fairness to the wrongly accused.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    life with no parole

    i do not agree with the death penalty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miraclefish)
    And how are you going to prove this? Our legal system works on reasonable doubt, because there is no such thing as 100% proof or 100% guilty. This is why we do not execute criminals anymore. That and becoming, one hopes, a slightly more civillised society...
    Yes, there is. If CCTV captures someone shooting another person and the DNA confirms it, then how is that not 100%?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.