Should they bring in the death penalty for england? Watch

Poll: Should the death penalty be brought into england?
Yes (53)
31.55%
No (115)
68.45%
nadamo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#141
Report 10 years ago
#141
when theres substancial evidence , i mean a hell of alot , if there isnt enough then prison , you get me ?
0
reply
nuttygirl
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#142
Report 10 years ago
#142
(Original post by nadamo)
when theres substancial evidence , i mean a hell of alot , if there isnt enough then prison , you get me ?
If there's not substantial evidence why would they even be in prison? The police have made up evidence against people before.
0
reply
nadamo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#143
Report 10 years ago
#143
(Original post by nuttygirl)
If there's not substantial evidence why would they even be in prison? The police have made up evidence against people before.
if they found the police made up the evidence then it is clearly identifiable and not a problem, besides, we are talkign about the death sentence in britain , if it is a path in court this will disuade people from commiting crimes, even if the amount of evidence to get to the sentence may be unreachable.
0
reply
UberCool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#144
Report 10 years ago
#144
(Original post by nadamo)
when theres substancial evidence , i mean a hell of alot , if there isnt enough then prison , you get me ?
You mean, when there is not substantial evidence against somebody they should be sent to prison :confused:.
0
reply
chooka
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#145
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#145
If you are caught stabbing someone on camera. You didnt know him and You did it for street cred. kinda like a happy slap thing, i think that it should be an option. But its not just one man that decides the anwser a panel. It would make a few people think twice.
0
reply
nuttygirl
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#146
Report 10 years ago
#146
(Original post by nadamo)
if they found the police made up the evidence then it is clearly identifiable and not a problem, besides, we are talkign about the death sentence in britain , if it is a path in court this will disuade people from commiting crimes, even if the amount of evidence to get to the sentence may be unreachable.
:confused:
0
reply
nuttygirl
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#147
Report 10 years ago
#147
(Original post by chooka)
If you are caught stabbing someone on camera. You didnt know him and You did it for street cred. kinda like a happy slap thing, i think that it should be an option. But its not just one man that decides the anwser a panel. It would make a few people think twice.
We already have that, it's called a jury. There will always be innocent people convicted, and how can you say murder is wrong, but then say murder is fine when it's against 'bad' people?
0
reply
User188463
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#148
Report 10 years ago
#148
(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
Yes.
For:
Treason
Rape
Premeditated murder
kiddie fiddling
Major drug offences (similar to Singaporean lines)

Percentage of transgressors who go on to re-offend? 0%...
I agree, but it would be tragic to condemn the wrong suspect. Also, the crimes allowing for death punishment need to be much more closely clarified, as crimes vary massively from crime to crime. Another thing to think about - if murder was committed by someone with severe learning difficulties or brain malfunctioning, should he be condemned to death? The issue is much more complex than some of you are making it out to be.
0
reply
Titch89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#149
Report 10 years ago
#149
Totally against it. Always have been and always will be.

If the death penalty did exist, where would one draw trhe line about who should et it and who shouldn't? Also, to me it's murder.
0
reply
Rosaaa
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#150
Report 10 years ago
#150
(Original post by UberCool)
Most killers also probably think that what they are doing is right, or else they wouldn't do it, right?
B0ll0cks.
0
reply
UberCool
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#151
Report 10 years ago
#151
(Original post by Rosaaa)
B0ll0cks.
This is exactly my point...how can a society which holds murder as its most heinous crime justify killing anybody? Murderers may know that what they are doing is wrong but a highly educated, clear-minded judge would no better than anyone that killing is wrong.
0
reply
Mcjazz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#152
Report 10 years ago
#152
(Original post by UberCool)
This is exactly my point...how can a society which holds murder as its most heinous crime justify killing anybody? Murderers may know that what they are doing is wrong but a highly educated, clear-minded judge would no better than anyone that killing is wrong.
Yeah, this was my point too. Killing to avenge murder is highly ironic.
0
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#153
Report 10 years ago
#153
(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
Yes.
For:
Treason
Rape
Premeditated murder
kiddie fiddling
Major drug offences (similar to Singaporean lines)

Percentage of transgressors who go on to re-offend? 0%...
So easily overlooked by so many.

I find the difference in the death penalty vs non to be very pointless, from a criminal justice standpoint. Neither work. And, spare me the lectures. The same rhetoric applies to both sides.

"It's someones life at stake!" can be applied to both sides of the argument.
0
reply
StarsAreFixed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#154
Report 10 years ago
#154
No, there's only a tiny percentage of people who deserve the death penalty, such as, Joseph Fritzl, who cares how old he is?
0
reply
thanette
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#155
Report 10 years ago
#155
No. Two wrongs don't make a right; killing someone is inhumane, pointless and noone's prerogative-what does the criminal learn from it? Nothing. Yes, they are out of society permanently, but I think getting a life sentence for murder, and hefty amount of years for other serious crimes, is the best option.
0
reply
English lit geek
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#156
Report 10 years ago
#156
No, i don't think the death penalty would help reduce crime rates at all. Say if some onekilled some one then they were given the death penalty, there not really being punished. The death penalty is the easy way out.
0
reply
ConservativeNucleophile
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#157
Report 10 years ago
#157
Wow, never seen one of these threads before . . .

(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
Yes.
For:
Treason
Rape
Premeditated murder
kiddie fiddling
Major drug offences (similar to Singaporean lines)

Percentage of transgressors who go on to re-offend? 0%...
I agree with the crimes not deleted being subject to the death penalty.

One reason for that: many death penalty opponents argue that DP supporters are callous and wantonly cruel in their desired administration of the death penalty. That should not be so. I believe the death penalty's purpose should be to protect society against further offences from a patently incorrigible murderer. There are those murderers who commit heinous murders and, instead of being sentenced to death, they go on to murder prison guards, fellow inmates, or they occasionally even escape and kill innocent civilians. In the US, convicted murderers who meet an aggravating factor of imposing "a future threat to others" can be sentenced to death.

A quick example from a recent case: Mark Dean Schwab. He was executed by the state of Florida on 1 May, 2008 - last Tuesday. He is (was), in my opinion, a perfect candidate for the death penalty. He had prior convictions for the rape of young boys, and was released from prison early only to go on to befriend, abduct, rape and murder an 11-year-old boy. His execution earlier this week means that he can now never harm another child.

(Original post by nuodai)
The death penalty will achieve nothing that life in prison cannot do.
Wrong. You cannot guarantee a 100% non-recidivism rate for murderers sentenced to (life in) prison. With the death penalty, you can. As Syd Dernley, one of Albert Pierrepoint's assistant hangmen, once said, "As an executioner, no one who passed through my hands ever murdered again."
0
reply
nuodai
Badges: 14
#158
Report 10 years ago
#158
(Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
Wrong. You cannot guarantee a 100% non-recidivism rate for murderers sentenced to (life in) prison. With the death penalty, you can. As Syd Dernley, one of Albert Pierrepoint's assistant hangmen, once said, "As an executioner, no one who passed through my hands ever murdered again."
I don't see why not. If security is good enough so that they can't escape, and if they're kept in a cell of their own so they can't murder inmates, and if there's no chance of them being "considered for release" for the rest of their lifetime (unless they're later found to be innocent), surely there's no chance of reoffence?
reply
ConservativeNucleophile
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#159
Report 10 years ago
#159
(Original post by nuodai)
I don't see why not. If security is good enough so that they can't escape, and if they're kept in a cell of their own so they can't murder inmates, and if there's no chance of them being "considered for release" for the rest of their lifetime (unless they're later found to be innocent), surely there's no chance of reoffence?
So are you denying that some convicted murderers continue murdering whilst incarcerated?

It happens with quite a surprising frequency. I've read reports of some unbelievably gruesome murders committed by felons (it's surprising how many ways they devise to kill others). Incarceration cannot guarantee non-recidivism. Of course, the death penalty also results in the death of a person, but those people are guilty -- the people killed by felons in prison are innocent. As distressing as the idea may be, when asked to choose between one or the other, there's little doubt in my mind as to which is the better candidate for death.

Any comment pertaining to the Schwab case? He is incontrovertibly guilty, and obviously poses (well, posed) a future threat to innocents. I see no good reason for him not to have been executed.
0
reply
nuttygirl
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#160
Report 10 years ago
#160
(Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)
So are you denying that some convicted murderers continue murdering whilst incarcerated?

It happens with quite a surprising frequency. I've read reports of some unbelievably gruesome murders committed by felons (it's surprising how many ways they devise to kill others). Incarceration cannot guarantee non-recidivism. Of course, the death penalty also results in the death of a person, but those people are guilty -- the people killed by felons in prison are innocent. As distressing as the idea may be, when asked to choose between one or the other, there's little doubt in my mind as to which is the better candidate for death.

Any comment pertaining to the Schwab case? He is incontrovertibly guilty, and obviously poses (well, posed) a future threat to innocents. I see no good reason for him not to have been executed.
What about people who are hanged and then later found out to be innocent? You can never bring them back to life.
Also, you support killing someone for murder, isn't that a bit hypocritical?

0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (315)
37.77%
No - but I will (64)
7.67%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.43%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (393)
47.12%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed