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

Capital Punishment; The Question watch

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    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?
    Basing it on the results in America. Of the countries which have thew death penalty, we have the most similar criminal law system.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun...costs-20110620

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...life-in-prison

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I believe proof for terrorists being scared of death is the covering of their faces… most of the people who join terror groups are convinced normal lives will be led on Earth.
    To do that would mean applying the death penalty to members of nominated terrorist organisations (who do not give out membership cards) and people who support such organisations (and probably don't do that by direct debit payments). That would mean extending the scope of the death sentence immensely.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    the death penalty would quickly administered … proof for terrorists being scared of death
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    … attending terrorist training camps … people identified who have returned home should receive the death penalty
    The people in Guantanimo Bay and Abu Ghraib were people identified as being involved in terrorism or linked to terrorist organisations. They would have all been executed by your proposed rules.

    How many have been tried and found guilty?

    Most of them were identified in return for a bounty.

    This is how the witch trials ended up rounding up scores of people. Find someone willing to sell a name, arrest the suspect, offer them leniency in exchange for a name and death if they don't, they give you another name...

    And before long you have prisons full of innocent people.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    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)
    What do you mean there will never be enough evidence? There have been so many cases where a criminal has been caught either by CCTV or a whole group of witnesses giving almost the exact description of the person.

    And how much longer shall we wait to fix the prisons? Maybe after a hundred more murders or so?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The links form groups with an agenda to end the death penalty show no evidence for the death penalty creating martyrs from terrorists, and the deterrence aspect of the death penalty in crimes not relating to terrorism is not something I care for. The only evidence for the death penalty is the loose word of one dead terrorist who few have heard of and an ex-attorney general of the US; it is not enough.

    Stop changing the premise of the debate as the debate is starting to repeat itself now which is boring. As I have already said there would have to be various forms of evidence linking someone to terrorism, not a name given to security services by someone who was tortured. There is a notable difference between the evidence that comes from security services on the ground identifying a person engaging in terror acts which is later supported by a beheading video, and evidence gained by a tortured man giving a name of someone.
    You are being vague, woolly and inconsistent. You disregard evidence from subject specialists. You are making personal attacks and, when proven wrong, simply deny what has been said.

    You have been unable to make it clear what you want or expect or propose.

    In short, you're an unhelpful w**ker who does nothing to inform, educate or move a debate forward, you just sow discord and confusion that obfuscates an otherwise worthwhile process. What a strange skill set to adopt and employ.

    Planning a career in politics, are you? You'll do well.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I explained why I am against capital punishment when the Bill was put before the House. I would like to have the opportunity to vote against the Bill.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In principal I have no issue with a murderer being hung for his crime. In practice, I don't trust the state not to convict an innocent man.

    I'd probably allow those who plead guilty to be given a death rather than life sentence although life should mean life.
    Why not privatise?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Seeing as we recently had a bill along this line, I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on CP. There are some whom are very pro, and some who are very anti.

    What do you all believe in and why?
    I said no because if I was in charge of the country, I would never want to pass it into law. However, I do identify with reasons from both sides of the debate but more so with those against it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Seeing as we recently had a bill along this line, I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on CP. There are some whom are very pro, and some who are very anti.

    What do you all believe in and why?
    Why are you pro?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Anti.

    Punishment serves four main aims: deterrence, retribution, protection and reform. Capital punishment may protect society, but is it really that effective? After all, you're only killing one criminal. There's a tonne more out there, so it isn't really going to make a difference. You could say it meets deterrence, but personally I believe that if someone is going to commit a crime, there is very little that will deter them from doing so, and therefore no punishment can fully meet this. Retribution means revenge, and many people believe that death is the highest point of revenge you an get, but surely a life sentence is tougher: sitting by yourself in a cell day after day, having little to think about but the world outside that you are missing out on because of a crime you yourself committed? Death isn't an 'easy' way out, but there are definitely more painful alternatives. The focus of punishment should be on reforming, in a way that makes it unlikely that the criminal will commit another crime. Capital punishment solves nothing, and the state are effectively saying that it's okay to take someone's life if they've done something wrong, which is not a message that should be put across to the public.

    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, after all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Pro, especially for those who confess, whether that be a confession of guilt, or an unequivocal and recorded confession not made under duress. Massive money saver, depending on methodology, there isn't enough decent entertainment these days, and it opens up prisons for lesser scum.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Seeing as we recently had a bill along this line, I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on CP. There are some whom are very pro, and some who are very anti.

    What do you all believe in and why?
    My honourable friend I'm not sure you're any more within your rights to poll the House than IAS was. The policy can be passed or blocked by the proper procedure. And if the goal isn't to gain party views but the views of people who might just wander into the MHoC then surely it should be in the wider D&CA and outside the House.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    My honourable friend I'm not sure you're any more within your rights to poll the House than IAS was. The policy can be passed or blocked by the proper procedure. And if the goal isn't to gain party views but the views of people who might just wander into the MHoC then surely it should be in the wider D&CA and outside the House.
    Whilst you have a valid point, this has brought more people to the MHoC who wouldn't usually be here, which is certainly a good thing. I think it'd be interesting to have more topical debates in the MHoC, though they should probably be started by Birch and not be too often, as it would detract from Bills
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    My honourable friend I'm not sure you're any more within your rights to poll the House than IAS was. The policy can be passed or blocked by the proper procedure. And if the goal isn't to gain party views but the views of people who might just wander into the MHoC then surely it should be in the wider D&CA and outside the House.
    What must be remembered is that support or opposition of the bill does not necessarily imply support or opposition of capital punishment as there may be clauses in the bill that run contrary to your opinion, or in may lack clauses one wishes to see.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Whilst you have a valid point, this has brought more people to the MHoC who wouldn't usually be here, which is certainly a good thing. I think it'd be interesting to have more topical debates in the MHoC, though they should probably be started by Birch and not be too often, as it would detract from Bills
    That is because people are mistaking it for a thread in the UK Politics forum (where it should be) rather than people suddenly deciding they want to actually be 'MHoCers' because of an interesting topic. We've had this debate (whether we should try and attract members in this way - there was even a bill that would allow us to submit bills to the debate forum) before and it was decided that there is a place for everything.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What must be remembered is that support or opposition of the bill does not necessarily imply support or opposition of capital punishment as there may be clauses in the bill that run contrary to your opinion, or in may lack clauses one wishes to see.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That would be where the petition comes into play.

    And if 3 readings still leaves a bill defeated then the chances are the idea itself was unpopular. And besides, I don't think we even need a poll to know that amongst regular MHoCers capital punishment is very unpopular.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That is because people are mistaking it for a thread in the UK Politics forum (where it should be) rather than people suddenly deciding they want to actually be 'MHoCers' because of an interesting topic. We've had this debate (whether we should try and attract members in this way - there was even a bill that would allow us to submit bills to the debate forum) before and it was decided that there is a place for everything.
    I suppose so. A lot of people don't realise that there is a MHoC though, and if any potential debates in the MHoC had links to joining it'd surely bring in more members, something that is severely lacking.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    taxpayers money by being alive.
    .
    Actually in the US, executing prisoners costs a lot more then keeping them in prison for life, I would presume legal costs and the problem they are having getting hold of lethal injection drugs. In my opinion, it could be cheaper but honestly the legal cost to defend the death sentence for individuals costs an absolute fortune and is an ongoing process.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Seeing as we recently had a bill along this line, I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on CP. There are some whom are very pro, and some who are very anti.

    What do you all believe in and why?
    my opinion towards capital punishment is that i am for it but depends on the situation and u have to have solid 100 percent evidence the reason why i am for it if u read statistics it has prooven many countires which carry CP out is starting to reduce such thing as murder and rape and an example i can give if a thief was to steal your best thing ion earth which could cost bexample 10000 pounds and he got away with it he would carry on wheras some ppl would chop their hands of in order for them to learn their lesson which has been prooven in religious reason some people may think that for example christianity says love thy neighbir and jesus says and eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is wrong but im sure if u were to take it ou of the limit it wouldnt work but some parts of the bible likr book of deutronomy supports capital punishment but if you want to forgive them you should i would also personally agree to forgiving but once it goesout of hand and above limits then CP should be carried out
    thank you
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

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.