This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should we use the 'Death Penalty' for serious crimes?

MaceyThe

Aeolus, this is really interesting, as are the quotes in your sig....What would you class yourself as politically wise, out of interest?? :smile:

I suppose minarchist libertarian or liberal. Although i am a fan of constitutional monarchy so im not sure :dontknow:

Reply 81

lordbonney

1

adamrules247

Look you don't only get one appeal, it just that the courts won't usually allow you to appeal because it would be pointless.

Well in this case it wouldnt be pointless, it could well be a matter of life and death. Surely if thats the case every last avenue should be tried before the death penalty is carried out? No matter how small or petty the new arguement seems to be surely it should be tried? I imagine if it was my life on the line, and I was innocent, I'd want to try every tiny possibility.

adamrules247

I agree it does imply there is another factor, however I do believe the jump does imply that the abolition of the death penalty does play a part in it.

It may well have played a part in the short term, but as the two sources I showed you say, in the long run it doesnt appear to have any effect. I fanything it has a negative effect.

adamrules247

I use singapore as it is a country constantly developing, it is also a country that was part of the Empire and thus has taken some of the qualities with it.

Some of the qualities yes, but why not go for a country with very similar qualities and cultures, rather than a tiny, one city country on the other side of the world?

adamrules247

It is different in different countries, the USA the people are far more, I can't say this, umm. Trigger happy maybe.

I have heard your swiss point in gun law debates with Americans. In Switzerland you must do 2 years of military training before you can recieve your gun, in the USA practically any nutter can get a gun.

Well if they are more trigger happy surely the only way to stop them would be to kill those who kill others with guns? Which they do... which doesnt work...

The second point would suggest what is needed the is greater education, not a blunt punishment?

I also quite like the saying MissesTwishes posted - "If we believe that murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well." If the state is killing people it gives it an air of normality as 'he ultimate punishment', something I suspect gangs may very well take to heart.

Reply 82

yunghamz

Either stop locking people up for small crimes or yes introduce the death penalty, prisons are gettin too overcrowded.

Reply 83

username345307

14

Prisoners should be forced/encouraged to work and earn money for the prison, e.g. embroidery for cushion covers, making pottery, whatever and if they don't, then their prison life can be a lot worse. If capital punishment is introduced, people will have to be employed to kill others. Nobody has the right to kill someone, no matter how heinous their crimes may be. And what about false imprisonment? We can't afford to make mistakes. Or false confessions? The identical twin of someone being caught on CCTV murdering someone? What about people with mental disabilities, like that guy who murdered John Lennon? There's no possible way it could be fair, moral, worth the risk and beneficial. Though I do agree that there is a problem in prisons being too nice and spending too much money - though I'm prepared to admit I don't really know what it's like in there :P

Reply 84

nolongerhearthemusic

13

punkyrocker

Yes, unprovoked.

As opposed to all those provoked rapes?

And yes, as you seemed to be implying that she was horrible for wanting a criminal to suffer without taking into account the horrible deed done to her, and therefore the suffering caused by him.

It is horrible to want other people to suffer. The end. We're not 10 any more and "he started it" is not an excuse.

Reply 85

tom//

17

Bobo1234

please, please do some proper research before you go spouting rubbish...

whilst it costs a lot to keep someone on death row it doesnt cost as much as 40+ years in prison

but no it shouldnt be used

Reply 86

lordbonney

1

tom//

whilst it costs a lot to keep someone on death row it doesnt cost as much as 40+ years in prison

but no it shouldnt be used

It does in America once you take into account appeals.

Reply 87

Csel

1

State Murder of murderers? No thanks, if you want to kill an individual that killed a loved one then by all means be my guest, it is your choice. But don't think you can get away with murder by asking the state to do it for you.

You can't have people going around revenge killing without trial or order, laws are there to prevent anarchy. Having the state carry out execution and enforcement of laws and punishment is a more just solution. The state must follow procedures and rules to prevent unjust killings.

Death penalty isn't about being a deterrent, many people who commit crimes are psycho or sociopaths that don't care about consequences. Death penalty is about removing someone unfit to live from existence so they cannot harm anyone and so the decent humans don't have to coexist with them.

Reply 88

Aeolus

2

Csel

You can't have people going around revenge killing without trial or order,

Where in that sentance did i say they wouldn't be tried?

Having the state carry out execution and enforcement of laws and punishment is a more just solution.

Why?

Death penalty isn't about being a deterrent, many people who commit crimes are psycho or sociopaths that don't care about consequences.

Massive generalisation, well done.

Death penalty is about removing someone unfit to live from existence so they cannot harm anyone and so the decent humans don't have to coexist with them.

Severely disabled humans are unfit to live, should we remove them from society? What about those who have bad schizophrenia or dementia or extreme personality disorder? Should we destroy them at birth or the first signs of physcological problems so that they won't harm anybody, or so "decent" people wont have to put up with or look at them. Youre starting to sound very 'third reichy' there chump.

Reply 89

Time Tourist

9

I think we we have a right to punish crimes. And a just punishment is one that fits the crime, and some crimes are such that they deserve death. If those affected by the crime want to ask for mercy that should be up to them, but not those unaffected. To take the most extreme example, how anyone could say Hitler did not deserve death is beyond me. It seems to me when an individual commits a crime of which death is a just punishment, one that typically denies others life or self, it is not we but they who have chosen and they who are responsible for their their own fate and ultimately their death, and it us up to us to ensure that they can die with dignity.

Reply 90

S_123

14

No.
Circumstances of murder?
The chance that the prisoner is not the same person?
Some of these people may be help to community (painting buildings, etc)?
Why should we ever decide when to end someone's life - as bad as murder itself?

Reply 91

Liquidus Zeromus

17

Yes. Some crimes are unforgivable. I wish people would get over the fact that it is killing another human in the name of justice. They are human beings, yes. I realise that wholly. Yet their circumstances do not excuse their actions. There are certain types of murderers and sex offenders who only deserve death. It takes a horrible character to willingly and knowingly inflict massive pain and suffering upon a person who has not done the same.

I could, without guilt, fatally stab someone who has committed sadistic and unjustified murder, and/or rape if I was put into the same room as them. I would call it justice, case closed. That person did extremely bad things with their free will, and they lost their life as a consequence. For, people are getting away with murder if they are allowed to continue living after it.
Killing a convicted murderer is justified as long as their guilt is crystal clear. People who call it hypocrisy are living in the clouds...

Does everyone deserve to live a long, prosperous life?

In the end, everything dies. What matters is the circumstances and timing of a person's death. Stop and examine what is actually happening.

Reply 92

tom//

17

lordbonney

It does in America once you take into account appeals.

they probably spend a lot more money on food than us :biggrin:

Reply 93

charvisioku

No.

It's irreversible, so if they execute an innocent person by mistake, they can't rectify it.
To kill someone for killing, to show that killing is wrong... to me, the flaw speaks for itself.
As for rape, paedophilia, etc... to kill them for it can be a quick escape from the guilt; rotting away for life in a prison cell would be worse in my opinion.
It's often approved by people purely out of vengeful feelings... how is that good reasoning for anything?

Reply 94

hepaium

wrongful imprisonment
Sam hallam
Satpal Ram
Eddie Hampton
Mark Barnsley
Malcolm Kennedy

the list goes on.... all found innocent of crimes such as rape and murder. innocent people will die with the death penalty there can be no doubt about that. those listed above would most likely have been 'murdered' by the state but at least now they can experience freedom once again.

Reply 95

Liquidus Zeromus

17

hepaium

wrongful imprisonment
Sam hallam
Satpal Ram
Eddie Hampton
Mark Barnsley
Malcolm Kennedy

the list goes on.... all found innocent of crimes such as rape and murder. innocent people will die with the death penalty there can be no doubt about that. those listed above would most likely have been 'murdered' by the state but at least now they can experience freedom once again.

This is my only qualm... yet with advanced technology we can now overcome the risk of executing innocent people. And besides, I think the risk of killing extremely unlucky people is more favourable than that of letting people get away with brutal murder. The case for limiting it to brutal and serial cases of murder and serious sex offences is that people should exhibit signs of callous killing anyway. Serial killers for example, leave trails which all point to them. Try saying Harold Shipman was innocent, or that Ian Huntley never murdered and raped two girls.

Reply 96

Jon of the North

10

Proven serial killers only in my opinion.

Reply 97

hepaium

Liquidus Zeromus

And besides, I think the risk of killing extremely unlucky people is more favourable than that of letting people get away with murder.

i'm speakless

murderers arent 'getting away with it' are they. They're doing time in prison without freedom in a 2x3m cell for 18hrs a day (HELL)

Reply 98

cybergrad

2

No, just hard labour without TVs and playstations.

Reply 99

chocobloc

the death penalty is just legalised murder.

It all comes down to this, the death penalty is ending somebody's life, exactly what the murderers have been accused of.

Should we use the 'Death Penalty' for serious crimes?

Related discussions

Articles for you