B1249 - Capital Punishment Reintroduction Bill 2017 Watch

This discussion is closed.
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 year ago
#41
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Where's my invite?

I miss you guys when you were helping liberals legalise euthanasia....
Get the Liberals to support this and I'll invite you all We can sit on some chairs and you lot can sit on the muddy ground

Aww, 'twas good.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 year ago
#42
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You say it contravenes the ECHR but you also haven't read it, btw it isn't a constitution or a GD so you should be able to manage it.
Right to Life though
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 year ago
#43
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I think we all know every citizen has the Right to Life JD...
Go and read it, I promise you it does not say that the state should never kill anybody, there are actually 4 exceptions given.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 year ago
#44
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Go and read it, I promise you it does not say that the state should never kill anybody, there are actually 4 exceptions given.
I know. There a specific circumstances. For example, to stop someone committing a violent crime, as long as the police use "necessary" force
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 year ago
#45
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I know. There a specific circumstances. For example, to stop someone committing a violent crime, as long as the police use "necessary" force
And you still haven't read it

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 year ago
#46
Mr Speaker,

I agree with the right honourable member Jammy Duel as this bill is in violation of the ECHR meaning this bill cannot come into force if it passes. This bill should be withdrawn on that basis.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 year ago
#47
(Original post by mr T 999)
Mr Speaker,

I agree with the right honourable member Jammy Duel as this bill is in violation of the ECHR meaning this bill cannot come into force if it passes. This bill should be withdrawn on that basis.
I do not construe this to be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 2 sets out a right to life, it says:

1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

This bill would set out in law that execution is a legal sentence a court could give for the crimes stated in the bill. It clearly states that a right to life must be protected save for the execution of a sentence of the court.

Therefore, this bill will not be withdrawn.
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 year ago
#48
As I've said in the past, if the Tories want my support on this the bill must apply only to the royal family.

Although it is pleasing to see the same members who advocate baby-killing defending the rights of murderers and rapists

Nay
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 year ago
#49
(Original post by mr T 999)
Mr Speaker,

I agree with the right honourable member Jammy Duel as this bill is in violation of the ECHR meaning this bill cannot come into force if it passes. This bill should be withdrawn on that basis.
And somebody else who hasn't read it. Capital punishment is one of the 4 exemptions

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 year ago
#50
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I find it deeply shocking that the Conservative Party has introduced this bill. I find it surprising to say this, but what happened to the sensible(ish), rational party of old?
Nay to the Bill

I consider that it should be an individual matter of conscience and a free vote, and so the Bill should have been a Private Members Bill, even if in practice the sponsors were all Conservatives.

I am opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that innocent people may be hanged, as no judicial system is perfect. We could all list several instances where convicted people are subsequently released or their conviction reduced to manslaughter.

I also think that there will be times where juries would refuse to convict because some of them are opposed to the death penalty or just could not bear the thought of sending someone whom they have seen being hanged.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 year ago
#51
(Original post by barnetlad)
Nay to the Bill

I consider that it should be an individual matter of conscience and a free vote, and so the Bill should have been a Private Members Bill, even if in practice the sponsors were all Conservatives.

I am opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that innocent people may be hanged, as no judicial system is perfect. We could all list several instances where convicted people are subsequently released or their conviction reduced to manslaughter.

I also think that there will be times where juries would refuse to convict because some of them are opposed to the death penalty or just could not bear the thought of sending someone whom they have seen being hanged.
Why should it be a pmb even if there was unanimous support?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Lumos_
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 year ago
#52
Nay
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 year ago
#53
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Well this is either wildly misguided or a barefaced lie. The vast majority of research indicates that it has little to no deterrent effect.
I would recommend looking at the research regarding its effects in the UK in the 1950's, rather than capital punishment in the US, as I assume that's what you've been reading.
0
ScarletCelestia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 year ago
#54
Capital punishment ends the sentence all too quickly in my opinion. To make them remember the heinous crime they had commited is in itself an effective punishment. To confine rather than kill is what I think is best. On top of that, how can we call killing wrong when we kill the killers?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 year ago
#55
It is no secret that I support exceedingly tough punishments for those who commit the worst crimes. Indeed, I often think that mass murderers and terrorists should get executed, and not just because it would be the best thing to do economically speaking. However, I then realise that there are several disadvantages associated with capital punishment. Firstly, even terrorists can change their ways and attempt to repiar the damage that they have caused. For example, Patrick Magee's friendship that he established with one of the Brighton Bombing's victim's daughters and Martin McGuinness' role in obtaining peace for Northern Ireland are examples of this. Secondly, some Islamic extremists in particular are so fanatical that they would actually rather be killed for their crimes rather than be locked up so they can die as 'martyrs'; by executing these people in particular, you are giving them exactly what they want. Thirdly, and this is by far the biggest disadvantage for me, is the chance that the person being executed may be completely innocent. Our judicial system is not perfect and although rare, there have been instances in the past of people being falsely convicted for murder for example. The Derek Bentley case is a classic example of a tragic execution of an innocent man. Finally, I have issue with this particular bill due to the method of hanging which it puts forward (this just seems ridiculously archaic for the sake of it) and because I believe someone who commits just one murder should not be executed.
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 year ago
#56
(Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
Even with jail sentences, there is always a chance an innocent person may be imprisoned and that also often takes up much of their life which can be just as bad as execution.
There will always be a few people wrongly convicted for the crimes covered by this bill (see here) but it is simply wrong to say that jail is just as bad as being executed. Take the case of Angela Cannings for example. She was wrongly convicted of the murder of her two babies and released after 2 years in prison. I'm sure if you were to ask her today whether she would rather have gone to jail or been executed, she wouldn't think twice about her answer.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 year ago
#57
(Original post by Quamquam123)
There will always be a few people wrongly convicted for the crimes covered by this bill (see here) but it is simply wrong to say that jail is just as bad as being executed. Take the case of Angela Cannings for example. She was wrongly convicted of the murder of her two babies and released after 2 years in prison. I'm sure if you were to ask her today whether she would rather have gone to jail or been executed, she wouldn't think twice about her answer.
It depends on how she committed the murder, express or implied malice aforethought.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 year ago
#58
(Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
It depends on how she committed the murder, express or implied malice aforethought.
She was convicted in court and sent to jail for two years though. This was just an example to demonstrate that there are people in this country who have been wrongly convicted and sent to jail for a relatively brief amount of time before being released. If you wrongly executed someone, you simply don't have the option of returning them to society.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 year ago
#59
(Original post by Quamquam123)
She was convicted in court and sent to jail for two years though. This was just an example to demonstrate that there are people in this country who have been wrongly convicted and sent to jail for a relatively brief amount of time before being released. If you wrongly executed someone, you simply don't have the option of returning them to society.
The intent in which she was convicted is massively relevant. If she had implied malice aforethought, capital punishment wouldn't even be considered. Yes, there is a chance innocent people may be executed but we cut those numbers down by allowing an appeal to be sent within a month.

In the event of this appeal being successful, they will be sentenced to life imprisonment if sentence deemed unfair or acquitted if innocent.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 year ago
#60
(Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
The intent in which she was convicted is massively relevant. If she had implied malice aforethought, capital punishment wouldn't even be considered. Yes, there is a chance innocent people may be executed but we cut those numbers down by allowing an appeal to be sent within a month.

In the event of this appeal being successful, they will be sentenced to life imprisonment if sentence deemed unfair or acquitted if innocent.
If there is any chance whatsoever that you may execute an innocent person, surely capital punishment should not be reintroduced? Until we get a completely flawless judicial system, which won't be anytime soon, there will always be wrong convictions.
0
X
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

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (132)
18.72%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (70)
9.93%
No I am happy with my course choice (402)
57.02%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (101)
14.33%

Watched Threads

View All