Turn on thread page Beta

Bring back the Death Sentence? POLL watch

  • View Poll Results: Bring back the Death Sentence for murderers?
    Yes.
    37.40%
    No.
    62.60%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A few posters keep throwing around the idea that DNA evidence is infalliable, it is not. Would you say it is impossible to frame someone for a murder?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2485556.ece

    http://www.scientific.org/archive/Su...%20Release.htm

    http://www.dnewsglobal.com/united-st...-test/307.html

    It is childish to assume that any form of evidence is infalliable, therefore executing someone is the wrong path to take, additionally it costs more and has been shown to not be a deterrent.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    This is laughable. Are you honestly saying you want to discriminate between different levels of safety in convictions? So one guy gets executed because we're 100% sure, and another gets put in prison for 25 years because we're not so sure, while we try and find absolute proof they did it?
    It has to be all or nothing with justice - they are guilty or not guilty, nothing in between.
    Why nothing in between?

    If there is 100% evidence to prove they did it then the death penalty.

    If there is not 100% evidence then keep them incarcerated until

    1) we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did commit the murder = they get sentenced to death as soon as it is 100% proven

    2) we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't commit the murder = they get released as soon as its proven 100% that they didn't commit the murder

    Why does it have to be all or nothing? Maybe that is where this country has got it so wrong for so long.

    Yes they are guilty but proving it is another issue. If someone is 100% convicted they should be sentenced to death. If there is not scientific evidence that is concrete yet they are still regarded a risk due to an eye witnesses claims then they should be detained in prison until further information comes to light. An eye witnesses claim should not be regarded as 100% concrete as they could have a biased viewpoint or they could lie in court. Only DNA or camera footage proving the crime should be used for 100% convictions. Those that are accused and have only been seen by a witness and not caught by DNA or camera footage should be detained in prison because they could be a murderer and therefore a risk to society or the witness could be lying and they could be innocent and not a risk to society so until further evidence comes to light then it is impossible to say.

    Its really not hard to grasp is it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    People like Raoul Moat, who commit the most disgusting of crimes and are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, who would be the only serious candidates for the Death Penalty kill themselves anyway rather than face capture and a couple life sentences in Jail.

    So the system works.
    Not at all.

    Jon Venables has admitted committing murder yet was released and then was caught with child pornography on his computer.

    In my opinion, he should have been sentenced to death because what he did was sickening, vile and inhumane and he has put a lot of people through hell in their lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    Why nothing in between?

    If there is 100% evidence to prove they did it then the death penalty.

    If there is not 100% evidence then keep them incarcerated until

    1) we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did commit the murder = they get sentenced to death as soon as it is 100% proven

    2) we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't commit the murder = they get released as soon as its proven 100% that they didn't commit the murder

    Why does it have to be all or nothing? Maybe that is where this country has got it so wrong for so long.

    Yes they are guilty but proving it is another issue. If someone is 100% convicted they should be sentenced to death. If there is not scientific evidence that is concrete yet they are still regarded a risk due to an eye witnesses claims then they should be detained in prison until further information comes to light. An eye witnesses claim should not be regarded as 100% concrete as they could have a biased viewpoint or they could lie in court. Only DNA or camera footage proving the crime should be used for 100% convictions. Those that are accused and have only been seen by a witness and not caught by DNA or camera footage should be detained in prison because they could be a murderer and therefore a risk to society or the witness could be lying and they could be innocent and not a risk to society so until further evidence comes to light then it is impossible to say.

    Its really not hard to grasp is it.
    Stop harping on about DNA being infalliable

    From my post above:

    A few posters keep throwing around the idea that DNA evidence is infalliable, it is not. Would you say it is impossible to frame someone for a murder?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2485556.ece

    http://www.scientific.org/archive/Su...%20Release.htm

    http://www.dnewsglobal.com/united-st...-test/307.html

    It is childish to assume that any form of evidence is infalliable, therefore executing someone is the wrong path to take, additionally it costs more and has been shown to not be a deterrent.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    Jon Venables
    Dont make me google him again, His picture really creeps me out.

    The state killing a child would just be wrong. and keeping him in prison till he was of age to killed would be even worse

    Roul Moat = 3. Jon Venables = 1, (+1 for porn) = 2.

    I thought he was cleared of all charges? Im not googling that ****er again to find out for sure.
    EDIT: I hated the **** storm that occured from his reappearence. People talking about killing him, that he was already guilty of the porn charges prior to ANY conviction. Thats not (Aristotelian) fair.


    Im not gonna ****ing sleep for hours now.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    Why nothing in between?

    If there is 100% evidence to prove they did it then the death penalty.

    If there is not 100% evidence then keep them incarcerated until

    1) we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did commit the murder = they get sentenced to death as soon as it is 100% proven

    2) we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't commit the murder = they get released as soon as its proven 100% that they didn't commit the murder

    Why does it have to be all or nothing? Maybe that is where this country has got it so wrong for so long.

    Yes they are guilty but proving it is another issue. If someone is 100% convicted they should be sentenced to death. If there is not scientific evidence that is concrete yet they are still regarded a risk due to an eye witnesses claims then they should be detained in prison until further information comes to light. An eye witnesses claim should not be regarded as 100% concrete as they could have a biased viewpoint or they could lie in court. Only DNA or camera footage proving the crime should be used for 100% convictions. Those that are accused and have only been seen by a witness and not caught by DNA or camera footage should be detained in prison because they could be a murderer and therefore a risk to society or the witness could be lying and they could be innocent and not a risk to society so until further evidence comes to light then it is impossible to say.

    Its really not hard to grasp is it.
    Like D92 was saying, DNA is not infallible. I wouldn't say CCTV can be fully transparent either, sometimes videos don't always tell the full story, especially if someone is fighting someone else in self defence and later kills them in self defence. - However it only depicts one half of what's going on. So it is how you actually view whether something is 100% concrete as sometimes things don't always seem as they look.

    Otherwise I say lock them up if there is a high probability they murdered someone and if they want to bring up cases later on, on perhaps new evidence, at least they can.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Death is the easy way out.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    The Death Sentence doesn't seem like a good enough punishment imo.

    A lifetime in prison seems like more of a punishment. I mean a proper prison- no entertainment or any luxuries at all. Just the necessaries- food, water a bed and perhaps an hour of exercise a day- thats it- nothing more than that. That should teach the scumbags. And they shouldn't be allowed to vote either. If they want human rights they should have thought about that before they killed someone else.

    Of course this should only be in cases where we know for sure who committed the crime.
    Don't you think that could be considered as too harsh a punisment for a crime such as murder?

    I mean, all they did was kill someone. It's not as though they locked them up and gave them nothing but food, water, bed and exercise (if we're assuming that killing someone isn't as harsh as this).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    People like Raoul Moat, who commit the most disgusting of crimes and are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, who would be the only serious candidates for the Death Penalty kill themselves anyway rather than face capture and a couple life sentences in Jail.

    So the system works.
    What do you mean? Surely just because one such criminal committed suicide doesn't mean all of them will?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    What do you mean? Surely just because one such criminal committed suicide doesn't mean all of them will?
    The only people I feel who are suitable for the death penalty are the mass murders, such as Moat and the Cabbie who's names always escapes me. They usually recongise that killing on that scale is a one way street.

    I voted no anyway.
    if we take Ian Brady of Moors Murders infamy, He's been in prison for 40 years? been criminally insane for half of that and as of his latest transfer to a instiution is now pleading for death.

    is that not a worse and fitting fate for a murder of 8 5?

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Don't you think that could be considered as too harsh a punisment for a crime such as murder?
    Thats why murders of one say, dont serve their life sentances and are let out with fresh identities
    Manslaughterers certainly dont deserve such a thing.

    Is it not possible that after so many years of debate that our Justice System has found the sweet spot?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ich Dien)
    The only people I feel who are suitable for the death penalty are the mass murders, such as Moat and the Cabbie who's names always escapes me. They usually recongise that killing on that scale is a one way street.

    I voted no anyway.
    So then what if, hypothetically we have another mass murderer similar to Raoul Moat who ends up not committing suicide? Do you think the death penalty is suitable for this person?

    If so, surely the legal system should still have the ability to use the death penalty at it's disposal (even if they don't use it very often)?


    if we take Ian Brady of Moors Murders infamy, He's been in prison for 40 years? been criminally insane for half of that and as of his latest transfer to a instiution is now pleading for death.

    is that not a worse and fitting fate for a murder of 8 5?
    I don't know. I thought you said mass murderers deserved the death penalty?

    Manslaughterers certainly dont deserve such a thing.
    I agree

    Is it not possible that after so many years of debate that our Justice System has found the sweet spot?
    Of course it's possible. But then, one might easily ask the same thing about another country that does use the death penalty.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    How do you re-integrate the Yorkshire Ripper for example?
    whack him in a mental hospital, theres obviously something very wrong going on in there!

    obviously you may not be able to rehabilate everyone but you should at least give it a shot
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dorito)
    Death is the easy way out.
    Yes and locking them up costs the taxpayer thousands.

    It sickens me that my money that I work hard to earn goes to help those vile and sick creatures (in my eyes they are not human) alive.

    That money could educate children, help children out of poverty, etc.

    Instead it is being wasted on scum.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'd have no issue with them being killed. They don't deserve to live in most cases; people like Josef Fritzl, why do we even want him alive? In the long run, it saves money and stops them re-offending. People don't change.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Don't you think that could be considered as too harsh a punisment for a crime such as murder?
    No.
    I mean, all they did was kill someone. It's not as though tlocked them up and gave them nothing but food, water, bed and exercise (if we're assuming that killing someone isn't as harsh as this).
    If you murder someone (and we know you did it) you should lose all your human rights. This is a suitable punishment in my opinion. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh_Dey)
    On the news there have been stories of serial killers, I think that if they take someones life they should definitely be punished (obviously). In my opinion, a prison sentence is not enough, they should be punished much more worse.
    If someone has done something that terrible they should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Getting the death sentence is too easy. So what they get punished for about a year on death row then thats it. If i had done something terrible and had the choice between death and spending the rest of my life in prison i would choose death no question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    If you murder someone (and we know you did it) you should lose all your human rights. This is a suitable punishment in my opinion. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
    Why punish them with a sentence which is (supposedly) more harsh than the crime they committed?

    There seems to be a bit of a double standard here; on the one hand, killing someone is so bad that they deserve to be locked up. But on the other hand, killing isn't really that bad; the death penalty is "too easy" and doesn't make a harsh enough punishment, compared with being locked up?

    What if a person didn't murder someone, but instead just locked them up in a room for their entire life giving them nothing but food, water, bed and a bit of exercise. What would be an appropriate punishment then?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Why punish them with a sentence which is (supposedly) more harsh than the crime they committed?
    Because they deserve it.
    There seems to be a bit of a double standard here; on the one hand, killing someone is so bad that they deserve to be locked up. But on the other hand, killing isn't really that bad; the death penalty is "too easy" and doesn't make a harsh enough punishment, compared with being locked up?
    Killing is wrong. Most people would agree to that. So by killing someone for their crime then that seems a bit hypocritical. But the person needs to be punished, no? Locking them up is the most suitable way to ensure they pay for their crimes.
    What if a person didn't murder someone, but instead just locked them up in a room for their entire life giving them nothing but food, water, bed and a bit of exercise. What would be an appropriate punishment then?
    Then they get locked up as well.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    Killing is wrong. Most people would agree to that. So by killing someone for their crime then that seems a bit hypocritical. But the person needs to be punished, no? Locking them up is the most suitable way to ensure they pay for their crimes.
    I don't really think it seems hypocritical.
    If we administer the death penalty to a murderer, then we are not "as bad as the murderer" because we have not performed the same action as him. The fundamental difference is that he killed an innocent person who didn't deserve it, while we killed a guilty person who did deserve it.

    Then they get locked up as well.
    Why do they get exactly the same punishment as someone who committed a much lesser crime?

    (I'm assuming murder is a "lesser" crime than locking someone up, based on the fact that apparently the death penality is "the easy way out" compared to going to prison).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    nope. in my mind the point of the prison system is to try and re-integrate people into society not just punish them. killing somebody is simply giving up

    How do you plan on 're-integrating' Ian Huntley or Peter Sutcliffe?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.