Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Re-introducing capital punishment, seems to be something not many people wish to happen.

    Me personally, I would be all for it, I have always believed in justice. I think that the law is awkward at times, does anyody recall that farmer who shot an intruder and subsequently HE went to jail? That was wrong in my opinion. The most recent case is Ian Huntley, to read that he would recieve ONLY a life sentence, for the murder of two innocent young girls who had their whole lives to look forward to.

    However, I must also look at the negative impact of re-introducing the death sentence. If we did, it would give many of us the reason to say that the majority of criminals should recieve the death penalty, whether or not they deserve it, for the sake of revenge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    Re-introducing capital punishment, seems to be something not many people wish to happen.

    Me personally, I would be all for it, I have always believed in justice. I think that the law is awkward at times, does anyody recall that farmer who shot an intruder and subsequently HE went to jail? That was wrong in my opinion. The most recent case is Ian Huntley, to read that he would recieve ONLY a life sentence, for the murder of two innocent young girls who had their whole lives to look forward to.

    However, I must also look at the negative impact of re-introducing the death sentence. If we did, it would give many of us the reason to say that the majority of criminals should recieve the death penalty, whether or not they deserve it, for the sake of revenge.
    far from it, if you were to have a referendum tomorrow you'd find most people WOULD bring back the death penalty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Without stating that I'm either for or against life imprisonment, some of the arguments you make for it are not very strong.
    I dont know what you mean by greatening public opinion, but if you meant it would go along with public opinion- well since when has that necessarily made anywhere a better place? The electorate have a horrible habit of doing stupid things. Also, since murders are to the best of my knowledge more likely to be crimes of passion, then deterrents don't really apply- if someone really flips their lid (and they'd need to do so to some tune if they're going to kill someone) then I have my doubts as to whether they'll stop and think about the consequences.

    As for TV- have you ever read Howard Marks autobiography? I'm referring to the descriptions of Terre Haute penitentiary, where he was, which housed mainly lifers with no chance of parole. Now I know he's no criminologist, but bear with me here... basically, he made the point that for inmates who know they have no chance of ever being released, there isn't much that can be done to keep them in order- extra days arent really relevant and prison punishments have to be applied so often that solitary confinement etc become normal. The upshot of it was, this prison full of men who were doing life without chance of parole was impossible to control, and the murder, rape and violence rate was through the roof. Now, this might seem irrelevant but imagine how much harder it would be to keep any semblance of order if inmates had absolutely nothing to entertain and distract them. Boredom would only make it all worse, and if you intend to take away the distractions which pacify possibly violent prisoners on a day to day basis you'd have to have a Plan B for dealing with the fallout. Any ideas?
    Dont have lifers - kill them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by preyingmantis)
    far from it, if you were to have a referendum tomorrow you'd find most people WOULD bring back the death penalty.
    based on what findings/survey?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    based on what findings/survey?
    There have been I think 3 surveys in the past decade all of which have come back consistently the same. I mean, more recently the radio 4 poll gave a big percentage in favour of legislation allowing for the killing of intruders a la Tony Martin.
    I personally I agree with death penalty. If someone has commited such a henous crime such as to warrant never being free again, then what use are they to society, why should the rest of us be burdened with maintaining their life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by munchie_rox)
    After ths attack on a policeman on boxing day, and the holly and jessica trials, the issue of the death penalty inevitably comes up...i was just wondering what people thought about it?
    look up the thread, Is Prison the Answer, I had some pretty interesting opinions passed, as for my thoughts, bring back Capital Punishment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DevilsDoor)
    look up the thread, Is Prison the Answer, I had some pretty interesting opinions passed, as for my thoughts, bring back Capital Punishment.
    You would seriously bring back capital punishment and risk the death of innocents??? *shakes head*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    You would seriously bring back capital punishment and risk the death of innocents??? *shakes head*
    You would suggest that criminals can be rehabilitated, that tax payers should keep criminals with a roof over their head, 3 meals a day, learn a trade, be paid for doing so, gain qualifications, what of the victim that has to live daily with the trauma of the crime. Tax payers money can be better spent. How about making the punishment fit the crime, or would the do gooders in the world think that to inhumane, think about the victim. Should rapists be allowed out into society 3-5 years after commiting the crime, should murderers be allowed out after 25 years. As an example I raised in a previous thread, Jamie Bulgers killers are now out and living life, that child is dead and his parents have to live with the consequences of that crime every single day. With modern technology and DNA etc, there is little chance of convicting an innocent person, although I do concede that mistakes will be made.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DevilsDoor)
    You would suggest that criminals can be rehabilitated, that tax payers should keep criminals with a roof over their head, 3 meals a day, learn a trade, be paid for doing so, gain qualifications, what of the victim that has to live daily with the trauma of the crime. Tax payers money can be better spent. How about making the punishment fit the crime, or would the do gooders in the world think that to inhumane, think about the victim. Should rapists be allowed out into society 3-5 years after commiting the crime, should murderers be allowed out after 25 years. As an example I raised in a previous thread, Jamie Bulgers killers are now out and living life, that child is dead and his parents have to live with the consequences of that crime every single day. With modern technology and DNA etc, there is little chance of convicting an innocent person, although I do concede that mistakes will be made.
    search the thread for my series of posts on this earlier on. It has all the answers and then some. However, I also mentioned two men who were known to be innocent and yet were put to death anyway. That just can't happen, and with a death penalty in effect. Innocent people are going to be killed by the state. That simply can't happen, come what may people have rights. The right to see that a man/woman/child doesn't suffer for something they've not done included.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    search the thread for my series of posts on this earlier on. It has all the answers and then some. However, I also mentioned two men who were known to be innocent and yet were put to death anyway. That just can't happen, and with a death penalty in effect. Innocent people are going to be killed by the state. That simply can't happen, come what may people have rights. The right to see that a man/woman/child doesn't suffer for something they've not done included.
    i watched this program were these blokes in america got done for a crime they didn't commit, but they had to admit it so they dont go on death role or whatever you call it, it was that that murder detective program
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    search the thread for my series of posts on this earlier on. It has all the answers and then some. However, I also mentioned two men who were known to be innocent and yet were put to death anyway. That just can't happen, and with a death penalty in effect. Innocent people are going to be killed by the state. That simply can't happen, come what may people have rights. The right to see that a man/woman/child doesn't suffer for something they've not done included.
    The victim has rights to, I conceded that innocents may be convicted yet having been involved personally with an abused female where justice wasnt carried out, I find the entire judicial system to be unfair. Victims are not taken into consideration, nor is the long term effect of the crime, simply a dead criminal cant reoffend, as you have already posted, read the thread on is Prison the Answer, Guantanamo (query spelling) was mentioned, Im yet to form an opinion of that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DevilsDoor)
    The victim has rights to, I conceded that innocents may be convicted yet having been involved personally with an abused female where justice wasnt carried out, I find the entire judicial system to be unfair. Victims are not taken into consideration, nor is the long term effect of the crime, simply a dead criminal cant reoffend, as you have already posted, read the thread on is Prison the Answer, Guantanamo (query spelling) was mentioned, Im yet to form an opinion of that.
    Guantanamo Bay is a joke. I'm guessing you mean Camp X-ray at that. It is pathetic. There is a man there named David Hicks. The Australian Government and Law System can do nothing to help him due to the hypocrisy of the United States. Camp X-Ray rests on land that is leased from Cuba, thus is not American. With that it is leased by the United States Military. More over the point to be considered is that The American Supreme court, to which all nations must go to about citizens in American custody, has no power within the American Military, and certainly no power with American Military Law. That place should not be allowed to exist. The men there may never even see trial. That isn't fair, even the lowest of the low has the right to a quick and speedy trial.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Guantanamo Bay is a joke. I'm guessing you mean Camp X-ray at that. It is pathetic. There is a man there named David Hicks. The Australian Government and Law System can do nothing to help him due to the hypocrisy of the United States. Camp X-Ray rests on land that is leased from Cuba, thus is not American. With that it is leased by the United States Military. More over the point to be considered is that The American Supreme court, to which all nations must go to about citizens in American custody, has no power within the American Military, and certainly no power with American Military Law. That place should not be allowed to exist. The men there may never even see trial. That isn't fair, even the lowest of the low has the right to a quick and speedy trial.
    Thanks for the info, Im not sure that Camp X-Ray is the same place as the websites I found seemed to contradict each other to a degree, yet I agree with you that everyone has the right to a trial, guilty or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DevilsDoor)
    Thanks for the info, Im not sure that Camp X-Ray is the same place as the websites I found seemed to contradict each other to a degree, yet I agree with you that everyone has the right to a trial, guilty or not.
    I'm only talking of the place where the supposed terrorists are being held on Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). Whether this is called Camp X-Ray or not I can't be sure. But the fact of the matter is that the prisoners can be kept there for the rest of their natural lives and never see a trial. I don't know what anyone else calls it, but that is kidnapping. Calling them prisoners has also gone out of fashion, they are now referred to as 'detainees'. Question for all you forumites, the future of Britain.

    If I were to make a push for power and win such power as I know I would... (force of habit being a leader) do you think anyone here would be willing to help overthrow the United States Government? Break the American state itself for the better of the rest of the world. It is possible. 'Never underestimate the ability of a few determined people in changing the world... Indeed it is the only thing that ever has'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Without stating that I'm either for or against life imprisonment, some of the arguments you make for it are not very strong.
    I dont know what you mean by greatening public opinion, but if you meant it would go along with public opinion- well since when has that necessarily made anywhere a better place? The electorate have a horrible habit of doing stupid things. Also, since murders are to the best of my knowledge more likely to be crimes of passion, then deterrents don't really apply- if someone really flips their lid (and they'd need to do so to some tune if they're going to kill someone) then I have my doubts as to whether they'll stop and think about the consequences.

    As for TV- have you ever read Howard Marks autobiography? I'm referring to the descriptions of Terre Haute penitentiary, where he was, which housed mainly lifers with no chance of parole. Now I know he's no criminologist, but bear with me here... basically, he made the point that for inmates who know they have no chance of ever being released, there isn't much that can be done to keep them in order- extra days arent really relevant and prison punishments have to be applied so often that solitary confinement etc become normal. The upshot of it was, this prison full of men who were doing life without chance of parole was impossible to control, and the murder, rape and violence rate was through the roof. Now, this might seem irrelevant but imagine how much harder it would be to keep any semblance of order if inmates had absolutely nothing to entertain and distract them. Boredom would only make it all worse, and if you intend to take away the distractions which pacify possibly violent prisoners on a day to day basis you'd have to have a Plan B for dealing with the fallout. Any ideas?

    I think that part of the problem with life sentences is that there is a mandatory life sentence for first degree murder. But obviously, there are different scales of 'evil' demonstrated in these murders. The rape and murder of a little girl, for example, would more than justify life imprisonment in my mind whether it be in solitary confinement or otherwise.
    Where as, in the case of Tony Martin, it can be argued that he deserves a lesser sentence than that of 'life'.
    Because of these different scales of evil, the term "life imprisonment" when decided by a judge is becoming diluted. Life no longer means life as it covers such a vast array of offenders.
    I'm don't agree with you saying that most murders are spontaneous, there is an element of planning involved (desire to kill) which gives them time to consider the consequences. That's why many murderers try and cover up their crimes because they know what the consequences entail. The programme "Real Crimes" on ITV last night about an adopted child who killed most of his family for the inheritance, and then covered it up for 6 months was a very interesting watch. He is now looking for parole, the remainder of his family are terrified that he may get out. His parole was refused and he was told he would die in prison. I for one, am glad he will never be allowed freedom again.
    I stand by my opinion that if the death penalty was shown to reduce the murder rate as a deterrent, I would be all for it as this would benefit society as a whole. It doesn't, and can even be deemed to provoke violence. However, I don't think there is enough evidence to support either claim.
    I wouldn't particularly be bothered if people who are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison (Ian Huntley, for example, or the late Myra Hindley) become bored, a lone cold cell would contain any budding violence. What I do get through your post though is the fact that life imprisonment for all murderers may be counter-productive. Does Tony Martin deserve life for example? As with any system, there are fallacies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tony martin should have been charged with manslaughter, through diminished responsiblity, a lonely man on his farm. I have an example of the death penalty in Arkansas. Bill Clinton, who many here in the UK love. Race and crime ere running alongside him for the democratic presidential nomination in 1992. He did this by flying to Arkansas and ordering the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a black man with the mind of a child. He had been accused of a double murder. He shot himseld in the head when he was arrested, he was brain damaged and could not understand what was going on. Most judges would have said he was unfit to stand trial. When he was given his final meal, he pushed his pudding to one side and said he was saving it 'for later'- he helpfully explained to the guards. When he was strapped down he gestured to a vein into which the executioners should inject the poison. A warder present told the NEW York TImes " Ricky's a harmless guy. This is not something I want to do. IS that fair, should people be killed solely for political gain, because they would, for exampel the killerss of JAmes Bulgar
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    IS that fair, should people be killed solely for political gain, because they would, for exampel the killerss of JAmes Bulgar
    I think that's why the overriding power for life imprisonment has passed form the Home Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice. Politicians will be more influenced by whether they are going to win the next election (as in they will go with greater public opinion when deciding whether to release someone), which shouldn't be a factor when considering an individuals release/imprisonment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    I think that's why the overriding power for life imprisonment has passed form the Home Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice. Politicians will be more influenced by whether they are going to win the next election (as in they will go with greater public opinion when deciding whether to release someone), which shouldn't be a factor when considering an individuals release/imprisonment.
    or the implementation of the death penalty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    Tony martin should have been charged with manslaughter, through diminished responsiblity, a lonely man on his farm. I have an example of the death penalty in Arkansas. Bill Clinton, who many here in the UK love. Race and crime ere running alongside him for the democratic presidential nomination in 1992. He did this by flying to Arkansas and ordering the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a black man with the mind of a child. He had been accused of a double murder. He shot himseld in the head when he was arrested, he was brain damaged and could not understand what was going on. Most judges would have said he was unfit to stand trial. When he was given his final meal, he pushed his pudding to one side and said he was saving it 'for later'- he helpfully explained to the guards. When he was strapped down he gestured to a vein into which the executioners should inject the poison. A warder present told the NEW York TImes " Ricky's a harmless guy. This is not something I want to do. IS that fair, should people be killed solely for political gain, because they would, for exampel the killerss of JAmes Bulgar
    Interesting. Do you perhaps know of the case in Britain where a man who was retarded was executed for a crime he didn't commit? I think his first name was Derrek. Anyway. What happened what that the man and his accomplice were confronted by a policed officer. The accomplice, only 15-16 had a gun. The officer demanded the gun, and the man told the 15-16yr old to 'give it to him'. The kid must have taken this to mean, shoot the bugger or something similar. So he shot the police officer. Yet because the couldn't charge the minor, the charged, convicted and executed the older, retarded man. Was this just? Execution was the only punishment for the intentional death of a police officer, and even the family of the dead officer is reported to have spoken out against the execution before it took place. This is why the death penalty can never be reintroduced to those places who were smart enough to get rid of it. NEVER!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Okay then, if the death penalty was shown to be a valid deterrent against murders and decreased the prevalence of them, would you support it?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 23, 2004
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.