Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Capital Punishment; The Question watch

  • View Poll Results: Should capital punishment be integrated into UK law?
    Yes
    30.72%
    No
    69.28%

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    An innocent person being executed is certainly a mistake though.

    Imprisonment gives the opportunity for further appeals and new evidence. You can't carry on making appeals if you're dead.
    Of course, and that's why there should be enough evidence before the death penalty is given out.

    We all know how well prison is working (!)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Serial murderers/sex offenders do not deserve a second chance
    There have been mistrials.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Of course, and that's why there should be enough evidence before the death penalty is given out.

    We all know how well prison is working (!)
    My personal belief is to move towards rehabilitation, as trying to punish people is not helping them or working.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Simes)
    If the state is only an extension of the people, and the people are not permitted to kill one another, then the state cannot be permitted to kill people either.
    This is the one argument. It's small, not based on emotion, based purely on practice. We've seen before how some of those that are pro don't actually care whether innocents are being murdered or not. But the state is just a collection of individuals, these individuals themselves wouldn't be able to kill, nor would any other individuals, but as a group they can?

    I have no doubt that there are those of us who would love to see murderers killed, but think about this, if you killed a murderer yourself, you'd then be on trial for murder even despite the disgusting nature of the crimes committed by the murderer. Once you think about why it's murder for an individual to kill a murderer, then you realise also why it's murder for the state to do it too.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    I must admit, it's a shame to see that both the TSR Conservative Party Leader and Deputy Leader both support Capital Punishment.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Practically speaking, I'd say pro purely for cases where the criminal has shown no remorse for his/her actions (serious crimes only, murder, serial rapist, etc), and is going to use up jail space/taxpayers money by being alive.

    Morally, however, I find it very hard, if not impossible, to stand by that statement for reasons other posters have already given.
    Actually a death sentence costs more than a life sentence due to the bureaucracy involved.

    I'm anti, because no justice system is perfect and some innocent people would be executed. It's also expensive and doesn't work as a deterrent. Whilst I have moral sympathy for the death penalty, it is not practical.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Again, I'm interested in seeing the sources for those claims. I'm not saying that it reduces the number of offences drastically, but even if it saves only one or two persons per year, isn't that what you strive for?
    Then alternatively not having CP could save one or two persons per year who are actually innocent, so maybe CP is not worth it after all?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Of course, and that's why there should be enough evidence before the death penalty is given out.

    We all know how well prison is working (!)
    There will never be enough evidence unless it's absolutely irrefutable, however it's very rare for that to be the case, and a guilty verdict has never relied on irrefutable evidence. A proposal to give the death penalty if and when the evidence is irrefutable blatantly undermines the justice system as it creates: "Not Guilty, Guilty and Very Guilty", ad we will no doubt see the "very Guilty" verdict relaxed over time until we once again have innocents being killed.

    If prison isn't working then fix the prisons, don't kill the prisoners. (common sense 101)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Then alternatively not having CP could save one or two persons per year who are actually innocent, so maybe CP is not worth it after all?
    No, because I'm suggesting the use of CP only when there's no doubt about who the offender is.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    No, because I'm suggesting the use of CP only when there's no doubt about who the offender is.
    How can you have absolutely no doubt about who the offender is?

    We can't even be sure ever if Jesus Christ came back and pointed to someone.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    How can you have absolutely no doubt about who the offender is?
    As I said, caught during the act, pleaded guilty, on camera, with a strong motive, etc. I'm willing to risk a 0.00000001% chance of error if you're just being pedantic.

    We can't even be sure ever if Jesus Christ came back and pointed to someone.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    If prison isn't working then fix the prisons, don't kill the prisoners.
    I like that!

    You have already rated a post by this user recently!

    Damn.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Actually a death sentence costs more than a life sentence due to the bureaucracy involved.
    Really? I mean, I knew it was expensive (personally I think that, if capital punishment is going to be reintroduced, then we may as well just bring the rope out. Would probably cut a lot of costs and seeing as capital punishment's going to be reintroduced in this hypothetical scenario, I don't really think that people can be morally outraged over how a dude dies if they support killing him anyway [be it via hanging, the chair, lethal injection, catapult straight into a wall, whatever method you fancy really]), but I didn't know it was that expensive.

    Out of interest, what are the stats?
    And are they figures from yesteryear when government sanctioned murder was a big thing, or hypothetical figures for modern times based on the aforementioned figures from yesteryear but having taken into account other factors like inflation, wage rises, absurd amount of red tape, etc?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    No, because I'm suggesting the use of CP only when there's no doubt about who the offender is.
    Oh, you're back. That was a quick flounce.

    Where's your sources for your claims?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I support capital punishment in cases of rape, murder, treason and terrorism where there is very little doubt in the minds of anyone about who committed the crime.
    If you kill terrorists you simply martyr them and make their cause stronger.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    If you kill terrorists you simply martyr them and make their cause stronger.
    I disagree with that thinking, I believe of there is a a death sentence proven terrorists it will deter people from joining organisations. I think the rates of people joining terror organisations are high because people joining are convinced they will be safe, but when the message changes to threaten a death penalty fewer people will join.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    As I said, caught during the act,
    Footage can be doctored and eye witnesses are not really that reliable and ever if it was an accurate demonstration of the events, it still may not make it murder.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    pleaded guilty
    There have been people who pleaded guilty despite never actually having committed the crime.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    with a strong motive
    Which is really not an evidence.

    ---

    The court considers all those things you've mentioned and there are still many mistrials. You're pretending as if the court just make random guesses and convict people. They don't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I disagree with that thinking, I believe of there is a systematic cull of proven terrorists it will deter people form joining organisation. I think the rates of people joining terror organisations are high because people joining are convinced they will be safe, but when the message changes to be one based on death to those who are found to have joined a terror organisation the rates will fall.
    I will take an excerpt from this article about Bobby Sands to counter your opinion. I would point out joining a terrorist group is never going to be safe, you could easily die in those activities.

    "Over a period of seven months nine other men followed Bobby, dying on a hunger strike that Thatcher described as "the IRA's last card". How wrong she was. Recruits flocked to the IRA. Its support multiplied. Its operations intensified"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I disagree with that thinking, I believe of there is a systematic cull of proven terrorists it will deter people form joining organisation. I think the rates of people joining terror organisations are high because people joining are convinced they will be safe, but when the message changes to be one based on death to those who are found to have joined a terror organisation the rates will fall.
    Where have you been since the Second Gulf War?

    You are talking about people who will blow themselves up in bus queues. People who will attack the police to guarantee they get killed and martyred. People whose faith tells them they will be rewarded in heaven for such a self sacrifice.

    Even the IRA called their dead martyrs, and they were hardly fighting for the Pope and salvation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The example I like to use of proof is a case like the murder of Lee Rigby where there were hundreds of independent witnesses on the streets of London, multiple recordings of the murder on mobile phones and CCTV cameras, recordings of the perpetrators admitting their actions on video, and the perpetrators admitting their actions in court; in a case like this I would feel confident an innocent person was not sentenced to death.
    Even in a case like that, there's room for the murderer to be mentally ill or for him to have done it for other motives (eg being threatened by another person).

    And how do you make a law like this? Instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt', '100%, absolutely certain, with absolutely no way of getting it wrong'?
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.