B1553 – Capital Punishment Referendum Bill 2020. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
(Original post by The Mogg)
Wait, that's a thing?
Yeah, it's in the GD/Constitution. the results of a referendum are binding on the house for three terms. only a great repeal in theory might be more powerful but even then the speaker might rule the bill to still be in effect.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by Aph)
Yeah, it's in the GD/Constitution. the results of a referendum are binding on the house for three terms. only a great repeal in theory might be more powerful but even then the speaker might rule the bill to still be in effect.
Well if this bill wasn't already a Nay, it is now.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
(Original post by The Mogg)
Wait, that's a thing?
Yes.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 week ago
#44
(Original post by Aph)
Yeah, it's in the GD/Constitution. the results of a referendum are binding on the house for three terms. only a great repeal in theory might be more powerful but even then the speaker might rule the bill to still be in effect.
Yeah, as a great repeal only takes place on a legislation level, and is thus trumped by the GD and Constitution, I'd argue that even that would not be powerful enough to repeal it.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Yeah, as a great repeal only takes place on a legislation level, and is thus trumped by the GD and Constitution, I'd argue that even that would not be powerful enough to repeal it.
Yes, that’s what I was thinking but then I was trying to remember if that had been the case for the monarchy referendum of XX
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(Original post by Aph)
Yes, that’s what I was thinking but then I was trying to remember if that had been the case for the monarchy referendum of XX
There was no amendment back then but the monarchists won anyway (15th parliament). The only other times the monarchy has gone was in the second and third age via legislation.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(Original post by Aph)
Yes, that’s what I was thinking but then I was trying to remember if that had been the case for the monarchy referendum of XX
(Original post by Rakas21)
There was no amendment back then but the monarchists won anyway (15th parliament). The only other times the monarchy has gone was in the second and third age via legislation.
The abolition of the monarchy by legislation (which IIRC was in the 19th) was what prompted the clause that made referendums binding for three terms.
0
David Getling
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(Original post by Andrew97)




Capital Punishment Referendum Bill 2020


A Bill to hold a referendum on whether capital punishment should be legal in the United Kingdom.
[field defaultattr=]
BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-


Clause 1

(1) A referendum is to be held on the reintroduction of capital punishment in the United Kingdom.
(2) The question shall be ”Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the United Kingdom?”
(3) The possible responses shall be ”Yes”, ”Spoilt Ballot” and ”No”.
(4) Should a simple majority of voters vote ”Yes”, the consequences outlined in Clause 2 shall occur.

Clause 2

(1) This Clause may only become law if more than 50% of the electorate vote ”Yes” in the referendum outlined in Clause 1.
(2) The death penalty shall be reintroduced for any offense which, at present, may be punished with a life sentence.
(3) The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 is to be repealed upon the conditions in Clause 2, Subclause 1 being met.
(4) Section 36 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is to be repealed upon the conditions in Clause 2, Subclause 1 being met.
(5) Section 21(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to be repealed upon the conditions in Clause 2, Subclause 1 being met.
(6) The United Kingdom is to rescind its signature and ratification of Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights upon the conditions in Clause 2, Subclause 1 being met.


Clause 3: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions

(1) This bill shall come into force upon Royal Assent, with the exception of Clause 2, Subclauses 2-6, which shall come into force upon the conditions in Clause 2, Subclause 1 being met.
(2) This bill may be cited as the Capital Punishment Referendum Bill 2020.
(3) This bill extends to the United Kingdom.
[/field]
Spoiler:
Show

Notes

Mr Speaker, I bring this Bill before you with the intentions of discovering the will of the people on such a contentious subject as the death penalty. A private poll recently carried out on TSR found a close split in favour of capital punishment, and there are many good arguments to be made in favour of and against the death penalty. Should the British people not get a say on how British criminals are punished?

For those curious about the legislation repealed by Clause 2, Subclauses 2-6, those Acts prevent the death penalty being imposed in Britain.

[field defaultattr=]
[/field]
What all the bleeding heart liberals forget is that it costs an absolute fortune to keep a lot of very bad people locked up. This is money that should be better spent on good decent people who deserve it. Think of all the expensive drugs that could be bought to help cancer patients, or the extra money that could go on looking after our nurses better.

Culling the worst in society is definitely one solution, but another better one might be to force them to work to pay the cost of their incarceration: and I do mean force, by whatever means necessary.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(Original post by Aph)
But remember that referenda on TSR are not advisory. if people were to vote yes then the contents of this bill would be entrenched in MHoC law for 3 terms.
it wouldn't bother me. i'm not anti-death penalty.

sentencing is up to judicial discretion, so just because the death penalty is optional doesn't mean it will automatically be imposed. it's just my opinion that some crimes are so heinous that death penalty is not uncalled for.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 week ago
#50
(Original post by Joleee)
it wouldn't bother me. i'm not anti-death penalty.

sentencing is up to judicial discretion, so just because the death penalty is optional doesn't mean it will automatically be imposed. it's just my opinion that some crimes are so heinous that death penalty is not uncalled for.
So you think, that the following should have the possibility of a death sentence:

causing explosion likely to endanger life or property
engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child (Something many parents do)
slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour
Manslaughter
abandoning children
hostage-taking
Performing FGM
permitting girl under sixteen to use premises for intercourse
keeping a brothel used for prostitution
soliciting by men
procuring others to commit homosexual acts
living on earnings of male prostitution
voyeurism
Beastiality
Necrophilia


There are plans more examples where this bill would cause death to be an option when it would really be an overreaction.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#51
Report 1 week ago
#51
(Original post by Aph)
So you think, that the following should have the possibility of a death sentence:

causing explosion likely to endanger life or property
engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child (Something many parents do)
slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour
Manslaughter
abandoning children
hostage-taking
Performing FGM
permitting girl under sixteen to use premises for intercourse
keeping a brothel used for prostitution
soliciting by men
procuring others to commit homosexual acts
living on earnings of male prostitution
voyeurism
Beastiality
Necrophilia


There are plans more examples where this bill would cause death to be an option when it would really be an overreaction.
i would say based on your examples, in some situations the death penalty may be called for:

causing explosion likely to endanger life or property
engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child (Something many parents do)
slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour
hostage-taking
Performing FGM
procuring others to commit homosexual acts.

basically terrorism, some instances of sexual abuse, murder, trafficking. assuming so much harm has been done, that it would not be unreasonable to take the life of the perpetrator.

some people are so disgusting, they hold hostage kids in their basement for like 40 years. yes, i think the death penalty would be in order then. not talking about simple criminal acts; the ones that are so disgusting to the point they don't deserve living anymore.

do you think someone like Ted Bundy did not deserve the death penalty? why/why not?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 week ago
#52
(Original post by Joleee)
i would say based on your examples, in some situations the death penalty may be called for:

causing explosion likely to endanger life or property
engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child (Something many parents do)
slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour
hostage-taking
Performing FGM
procuring others to commit homosexual acts.

basically terrorism, some instances of sexual abuse, murder, trafficking. assuming so much harm has been done, that it would not be unreasonable to take the life of the perpetrator.

some people are so disgusting, they hold hostage kids in their basement for like 40 years. yes, i think the death penalty would be in order then. not talking about simple criminal acts; the ones that are so disgusting to the point they don't deserve living anymore.

do you think someone like Ted Bundy did not deserve the death penalty? why/why not?
So you are ignoring the fact that this bill would entrench into law that manslaughter can be an offence punishable by death? Remember that these are people who kill others by accident...

Death is never the answer no. It lets people get off easily and one innocent person who looses their life is too many.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#53
Report 1 week ago
#53
(Original post by Aph)
So you are ignoring the fact that this bill would entrench into law that manslaughter can be an offence punishable by death? Remember that these are people who kill others by accident...

Death is never the answer no. It lets people get off easily and one innocent person who looses their life is too many.
as i said, sentencing is based on judiciary discretion - it is not based on some legislative limit. do you assume i think the judiciary isn't smart enough to impose the appropriate penalties?

you didn't answer my question on Ted Bundy. but i'll guess you think the death penalty was not accurate. i disagree.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 week ago
#54
(Original post by Joleee)
as i said, sentencing is based on judiciary discretion - it is not based on some legislative limit. do you assume i think the judiciary isn't smart enough to impose the appropriate penalties?

you didn't answer my question on Ted Bundy. but i'll guess you think the death penalty was not accurate. i disagree.
I assume you know that the judiciary also knows that if a sentence is possible then sentencing guidelines need to allow it to be handed out...

I think any death sentence is wrong. It's not punishment.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#55
Report 1 week ago
#55
(Original post by Aph)
I assume you know that the judiciary also knows that if a sentence is possible then sentencing guidelines need to allow it to be handed out...

I think any death sentence is wrong. It's not punishment.
no, i don't know what you're saying.

the judiciary decides what is appropriate for the specific offence. you think it is a blanket sentence is a bit weird tbh.

fine if you think death sentence is never appropriate; it is a very personal opinion i will never convince you of something other than.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 week ago
#56
(Original post by Joleee)
no, i don't know what you're saying.

the judiciary decides what is appropriate for the specific offence. you think it is a blanket sentence is a bit weird tbh.

fine if you think death sentence is never appropriate; it is a very personal opinion i will never convince you of something other than.
I don’t think that but I see you can’t be bothered to read what I have said without bias.

This bill makes death a possible option for a judge to administer for the crime of manslaughter.
The judiciary make sentencing guidelines for every crime and they cannot ignore a potential punishment, for instance, imagine if parliament said a crime could carry between 6 months and 10 years and the judiciary decided it would only ever carry 6 months.

Thus, this bill will see people dying for accidentally killing other people... how is that right?

Furthermore, this bill does not allow for further appeals or make a manda Minimum waiting time. As such, someone could be sentenced at 2 and be killed at 3.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#57
Report 6 days ago
#57
(Original post by David Getling)
What all the bleeding heart liberals forget is that it costs an absolute fortune to keep a lot of very bad people locked up. This is money that should be better spent on good decent people who deserve it. Think of all the expensive drugs that could be bought to help cancer patients, or the extra money that could go on looking after our nurses better.

Culling the worst in society is definitely one solution, but another better one might be to force them to work to pay the cost of their incarceration: and I do mean force, by whatever means necessary.
I think supporters of the death penalty forget how much it costs to keep prisoners on death row for years and decades, set up facilities, acquire the necessary drugs and fight the legal cases every time they arise.

So you'd have forced labour followed by execution? Sounds like a death camp to me.
0
David Getling
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#58
Report 6 days ago
#58
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I think supporters of the death penalty forget how much it costs to keep prisoners on death row for years and decades, set up facilities, acquire the necessary drugs and fight the legal cases every time they arise.

So you'd have forced labour followed by execution? Sounds like a death camp to me.
Where did I say "followed by execution"? I didn't!
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#59
Report 6 days ago
#59
(Original post by David Getling)
Where did I say "followed by execution"? I didn't!
Well the death penalty is an execution.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#60
Report 6 days ago
#60
Good heavens, no, capital punishment or the barbarism of the executioner as I like to call it, is not a humane virtue and it lessens us to butchers. Furthermore, it is far too nuanced a debate for any good to come out of what would be a heart over head populist rhetoric-driven referendum on the issue. I can't possibly back this.
2
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (478)
66.48%
No (241)
33.52%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed