This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Thoughts on Capital Punishment
Scroll to see replies
An argument for capital punishment is always it's a deterrent. There are approximately 2,600 people currently on Death Row in the US. Not that many years ago the figure was over 3,400. Several States opted for LWOP (Life Without Opportunity for Parole). So...it wasn't a deterrent to the approximately 8,000 people who have been legally executed in the US.
All legal executions in the US are by lethal injection, right?
WRONG. The electric chair was last used on 20 February 2020, less than 40 days ago.
Also consider erroneous convictions.
For those generally interested in this subject - might I suggest looking at the following:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/next-to-die
https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/
All legal executions in the US are by lethal injection, right?
WRONG. The electric chair was last used on 20 February 2020, less than 40 days ago.
Also consider erroneous convictions.
For those generally interested in this subject - might I suggest looking at the following:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/next-to-die
https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/
Original post by LiberOfLondon
With modern technology it's quite easy to get CCTV of a crime and GPS tracking of where the criminal was. The death penalty in past years did have the problem of evidence, but that has been solved with modern technology.
Explain to me how life imprisonment is radical?
Explain to me how life imprisonment is radical?
Technology still hasn’t been able to solve difficult crimes like rape! Innocent men getting wrongfully convicted of such crime.
Try spending the rest of your life in isolation with barbaric inmates and your rights stripped off you.
Original post by Capitalist_Lamb
Even if you reintroduce capital punishment you will never have the same factors. To have a fair test you need to keep the factors the same but we can't, we can't just cull the population back down to 3 billion for a test so we have to make the best of the data we've got and from that data the population has more than doubled but the number of homicides hasn't really.
I think you've misunderstood the point. The point I'm making is that if you really wanted to find out the effectiveness of capital punishment, then you'd be for temporarily reintroducing it for a few years to see if it makes a difference to the homicide rate. Why aren't you for that?
Original post by LiberOfLondon
The solution to which is ”don't kill people”.
As for the OP, I'm personally in favour of capital punishment for murder, rape, terrorism and a few other crimes, for the reason that:
1) there are some crimes which, due to their nature, mean that the criminal responsible cannot be let out in society for fear that he may commit another offense
2) ordinarily you would have to keep these criminals in a maximum-security prison and supply them with food, clothing and the various luxuries provided by the ”prison should just be a lovely holiday camp” groups - all of which cost money
3) if you implement the death penalty for these crimes you only need to pay for a few bits of lumber and a rope
As for the OP, I'm personally in favour of capital punishment for murder, rape, terrorism and a few other crimes, for the reason that:
1) there are some crimes which, due to their nature, mean that the criminal responsible cannot be let out in society for fear that he may commit another offense
2) ordinarily you would have to keep these criminals in a maximum-security prison and supply them with food, clothing and the various luxuries provided by the ”prison should just be a lovely holiday camp” groups - all of which cost money
3) if you implement the death penalty for these crimes you only need to pay for a few bits of lumber and a rope
doesn't the death penalty cost more than life in prison?
Original post by Joel 96
I think you've misunderstood the point. The point I'm making is that if you really wanted to find out the effectiveness of capital punishment, then you'd be for temporarily reintroducing it for a few years to see if it makes a difference to the homicide rate. Why aren't you for that?
I agree with you that to find out we would have to reintroduce capital punishment but we would never truly know for sure if capital punishment is the reason for an increase of decrease in homicides. For example, if you wanted to see the effect sunlight had on the growth on plants you would have to keep every variable other than sunlight the exact same, otherwise those variables could play a role in the plants growth, such as one plant having more water. What I'm trying to get at here is even if you reintroduce capital punishment and the crime rate does decrease, that might not be the reason for it's decrease. Yes it could be a correlation but there could be other factors, maybe people have just changed, maybe it is because people fear the harsher sentences. People cannot be controlled, they are not variables that we can change and so the data will never truly be accurate. Yes you can make correlations that the crime rate decreased since capital punishment was reintroduced but you would never actually know for sure if that was the reason.
The thing also is that capital punishment is in-humane. In the past many have been falsely convicted and if capital punishment was around those individuals would have been wrongfully executed and many have been in the past. Yes the likelihood is that the criminals being punished did commit the crimes but there is still that chance.
Original post by Capitalist_Lamb
I agree with you that to find out we would have to reintroduce capital punishment but we would never truly know for sure if capital punishment is the reason for an increase of decrease in homicides. For example, if you wanted to see the effect sunlight had on the growth on plants you would have to keep every variable other than sunlight the exact same, otherwise those variables could play a role in the plants growth, such as one plant having more water. What I'm trying to get at here is even if you reintroduce capital punishment and the crime rate does decrease, that might not be the reason for it's decrease. Yes it could be a correlation but there could be other factors, maybe people have just changed, maybe it is because people fear the harsher sentences. People cannot be controlled, they are not variables that we can change and so the data will never truly be accurate. Yes you can make correlations that the crime rate decreased since capital punishment was reintroduced but you would never actually know for sure if that was the reason.
The thing also is that capital punishment is in-humane. In the past many have been falsely convicted and if capital punishment was around those individuals would have been wrongfully executed and many have been in the past. Yes the likelihood is that the criminals being punished did commit the crimes but there is still that chance.
The thing also is that capital punishment is in-humane. In the past many have been falsely convicted and if capital punishment was around those individuals would have been wrongfully executed and many have been in the past. Yes the likelihood is that the criminals being punished did commit the crimes but there is still that chance.
If the rate, hypothetically, did decrease, and was at a lower rate for next 10 years than it was in... say, 2002... then couldn't it be confidently asserted that capital punishment's reintroduction was a success? There will always be other factors and variables and, of course, we can't know for sure, but we're talking about a situation where it looks like it has definitively had a positive effect.
Innocent people will invariably die because of capital punishment. It happened in the past (albeit, rarely and at a time when we didn't have technology) and would probably happen now, but it's like saying you wouldn't have supported the UK's involvement in the second world war because of the possibility of innocent deaths. I just want to make it clear that this is not a utilitarian argument, but a deontological one. I believe in retributivism, that the penalty of death is required for the most heinous of crimes. It should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible, like you would for putting down a dog. Capital punishment isn't morally permissable, but morally obligatory.
Original post by LiberOfLondon
The solution to which is ”don't kill people”.
As for the OP, I'm personally in favour of capital punishment for murder, rape, terrorism and a few other crimes, for the reason that:
1) there are some crimes which, due to their nature, mean that the criminal responsible cannot be let out in society for fear that he may commit another offense
2) ordinarily you would have to keep these criminals in a maximum-security prison and supply them with food, clothing and the various luxuries provided by the ”prison should just be a lovely holiday camp” groups - all of which cost money
3) if you implement the death penalty for these crimes you only need to pay for a few bits of lumber and a rope
As for the OP, I'm personally in favour of capital punishment for murder, rape, terrorism and a few other crimes, for the reason that:
1) there are some crimes which, due to their nature, mean that the criminal responsible cannot be let out in society for fear that he may commit another offense
2) ordinarily you would have to keep these criminals in a maximum-security prison and supply them with food, clothing and the various luxuries provided by the ”prison should just be a lovely holiday camp” groups - all of which cost money
3) if you implement the death penalty for these crimes you only need to pay for a few bits of lumber and a rope
Capital punishment for rape is a bit much isn’t it ?
Regardless , if there was capital punishment for rape not only would it be harder to get a conviction -because among other reasons a juror who was finding it hard to decide who was telling the truth might be more likely to err on the side of not possibly sending a man to a wrongful death - but more importantly someone who commits a rape then has no real disincentive to not kill the only witness other the problem of disposing of the body which admittedly is a biggie.
Original post by Joel 96
If the rate, hypothetically, did decrease, and was at a lower rate for next 10 years than it was in... say, 2002... then couldn't it be confidently asserted that capital punishment's reintroduction was a success? There will always be other factors and variables and, of course, we can't know for sure, but we're talking about a situation where it looks like it has definitively had a positive effect.
Innocent people will invariably die because of capital punishment. It happened in the past (albeit, rarely and at a time when we didn't have technology) and would probably happen now, but it's like saying you wouldn't have supported the UK's involvement in the second world war because of the possibility of innocent deaths. I just want to make it clear that this is not a utilitarian argument, but a deontological one. I believe in retributivism, that the penalty of death is required for the most heinous of crimes. It should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible, like you would for putting down a dog. Capital punishment isn't morally permissable, but morally obligatory.
Innocent people will invariably die because of capital punishment. It happened in the past (albeit, rarely and at a time when we didn't have technology) and would probably happen now, but it's like saying you wouldn't have supported the UK's involvement in the second world war because of the possibility of innocent deaths. I just want to make it clear that this is not a utilitarian argument, but a deontological one. I believe in retributivism, that the penalty of death is required for the most heinous of crimes. It should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible, like you would for putting down a dog. Capital punishment isn't morally permissable, but morally obligatory.
Er no.
It’s not like saying you wouldn’t support the UK fighting in the Second World War because it would lead to innocent deaths .
Original post by moggis
Capital punishment for rape is a bit much isn’t it ?
Regardless , if there was capital punishment for rape not only would it be harder to get a conviction -because among other reasons a juror who was finding it hard to decide who was telling the truth might be more likely to err on the side of not possibly sending a man to a wrongful death - but more importantly someone who commits a rape then has no real disincentive to not kill the only witness other the problem of disposing of the body which admittedly is a biggie.
Regardless , if there was capital punishment for rape not only would it be harder to get a conviction -because among other reasons a juror who was finding it hard to decide who was telling the truth might be more likely to err on the side of not possibly sending a man to a wrongful death - but more importantly someone who commits a rape then has no real disincentive to not kill the only witness other the problem of disposing of the body which admittedly is a biggie.
Obviously, only the most conclusive cases would end up with death. Like a 50 year old attacking and raping a 16 year old out in the streets, with CCTV footage, or various reliable witness accounts. Hard evidence is key here, and capital punishment is never taken lightly in the courts. If some girl is accusing a guy of rape at a party, then it most likely wouldn't be enough. But of course, I believe that raping someone, like in the first example I gave, is an extremely scarring action and deprives the victim of sanity, trust, purity, etc. It's one of the worst acts imaginable and the rapist rightly deserves death.
Original post by moggis
Er no.
It’s not like saying you wouldn’t support the UK fighting in the Second World War because it would lead to innocent deaths .
It’s not like saying you wouldn’t support the UK fighting in the Second World War because it would lead to innocent deaths .
Why not? The situations are different, but the logical reasoning is the same. Both actions are for noble causes, and are both attempts to protect the people in this country.
Original post by Joel 96
Obviously, only the most conclusive cases would end up with death. Like a 50 year old attacking and raping a 16 year old out in the streets, with CCTV footage, or various reliable witness accounts. Hard evidence is key here, and capital punishment is never taken lightly in the courts. If some girl is accusing a guy of rape at a party, then it most likely wouldn't be enough. But of course, I believe that raping someone, like in the first example I gave, is an extremely scarring action and deprives the victim of sanity, trust, purity, etc. It's one of the worst acts imaginable and the rapist rightly deserves death.
Burglary can have a very scarring affect on the victim especially if elderly .
Do you therefore believe burglars should get 10 years ? Just asking .
And you havnt really answered my point I think .
You’d be putting the 16 year old girls life in danger just because you by your own admission ( if I havnt confused you with someone else ) happen to be for the retributional (sic) aspect of punishment.
Original post by moggis
Burglary can have a very scarring affect on the victim especially if elderly .
Do you therefore believe burglars should get 10 years ? Just asking .
And you havnt really answered my point I think .
You’d be putting the 16 year old girls life in danger just because you by your own admission ( if I havnt confused you with someone else ) happen to be for the retributional (sic) aspect of punishment.
Do you therefore believe burglars should get 10 years ? Just asking .
And you havnt really answered my point I think .
You’d be putting the 16 year old girls life in danger just because you by your own admission ( if I havnt confused you with someone else ) happen to be for the retributional (sic) aspect of punishment.
Burglary is also bad, but it's a different kettle of fish. It sounds like you're trying to downplay the act of rape to burglary?
And I really don't know what point you're trying to make. I'd be putting a 16 year old's life in danger... how?
Original post by Joel 96
Just looking at the statistics before and after capital punishment was abolished in this country (effectively 1964 but officially 1969), we can see that the homicide did shoot up around 1966, and had doubled ever since then. The biggest argument against these statistics is that "correlation is not causation"; you can attribute the rise of the homicides to population growth, or other factors, but it does seem, to me, to be evident that there was some amount of causation when the abolishment took place. It's only logical that more people will commit more atrocious acts when they know they won't face appropriate justice.
Being against the death penalty on the grounds of innocent people being killed is as cavelier as saying you wouldn't have taken part in the second world war because a few innocents would die. It's a necessary action to protect the people in this country.
Being against the death penalty on the grounds of innocent people being killed is as cavelier as saying you wouldn't have taken part in the second world war because a few innocents would die. It's a necessary action to protect the people in this country.
Interestingly those dates of 1964 - 1969 are close to the ending of National Service, which ended in December 1960. I personally feel that the ending of national service has greatly impacted youth crime rates as they have almost tripled since it ended. I'm not saying the ending of capital punishment didn't impact this at all, I feel it greatly has, I just find it interesting that both of these 'old-world' concepts have had such an impact on crime rates, and on homicides as you have pointed out. It poses the question of whether the country was better off for the increased levels of control held by the government and for the extreme measures that were implemented.
As for my views on capital punishment, I think it's a very difficult topic. I think morally it is completely out of the question and I certainly would never want to live in a country which implemented it. However I also feel that capital punishment is something which the world will never be absent of. As humans, we seem to constantly seek revenge and ways to punish others and, at the end of the day, the majority of people are frustrated when people are only sent to prison for crimes which would have previously been punishable by death. The main example I find is with terrorists. Most people are more annoyed if a terrorist is arrested than if they were shot. I know the members of my family who lived through the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980 were annoyed that one of the terrorists survived. They would have preferred it had he been shot dead the same as the others. It is the same with the more recent London Bridge attack. I know most people who I spoke to seemed to be happy that the terrorists had been shot dead by police, and I'm sure many would have been frustrated had they simply been thrown in a cell.
Essentially it goes back to the 'Eye for an Eye' attitude which seems to constantly be present in all people. Although some of us attempt to take the high ground, I think it is more than easy to return to out ancestors attitude of taking a life in return for another. At the end of the day, I don't think any Westerner would have been happy had Hitler survived, whether they preach forgiveness or not. It seems to be human nature to implement capital punishment.
Original post by Joel 96
Burglary is also bad, but it's a different kettle of fish. It sounds like you're trying to downplay the act of rape to burglary?
And I really don't know what point you're trying to make. I'd be putting a 16 year old's life in danger... how?
And I really don't know what point you're trying to make. I'd be putting a 16 year old's life in danger... how?
I think I explained how in my last post but one . If the punishment for rape of a 16 year old girl by a fifty year old man is death then any 50 year old man who rapes a 16 year old girl has no incentive not to murder her.
Not only that he also has no incentive not to murder anyone who gets in his way while on the run .
And NO . I’m in no way downplaying rape so please don’t say that again . I didn’t think I’d have to explain that .
(edited 4 years ago)
Bring it back for child murderers
Original post by Rock Fan
Bring it back for child murderers
I’m sure most people would have no problem with that but how many children are murdered every year by people other than one of their parents ? (Murder by a father or even depressed mother is more common than stranger murder I believe but don’t quote me please 🐤)
Not many . Edit and not including by other juveniles .
So because child murder is very rare is there really any real need to reintroduce capital punishment for such crimes when child murderers almost certainly suffer far more in prison than they would by being humanely dispatched ?
And I suggest the answer to that is no .
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Rock Fan
Bring it back for child murderers
Even if the convicted perpetrator is also a child or teenager under 17?
Don't forget all the high profile miscarriages of justice where parents were wrongfully accused of murdering their children; Sally Clark, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony and Trupti Patel.
Original post by londonmyst
Even if the convicted perpetrator is also a child or teenager under 17?
I doubt many would have objected to seeing the Bulger murderers strung up from a lamp post.
Don't forget all the high profile miscarriages of justice where parents were wrongfully accused of murdering their children; Sally Clark, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony and Trupti Patel.
Everything in life is a matter of give and take, unfortunately, it seems to rather depend if you are willing to let killers get off or accept that sometimes there will be mistakes made.
Original post by Napp
I doubt many would have objected to seeing the Bulger murderers strung up from a lamp post.
Everything in life is a matter of give and take, unfortunately, it seems to rather depend if you are willing to let killers get off or accept that sometimes there will be mistakes made.
Everything in life is a matter of give and take, unfortunately, it seems to rather depend if you are willing to let killers get off or accept that sometimes there will be mistakes made.
I know quite a few that are still objecting to the fact that Thompson and Venables were arrested then "traumatised by the police and put through the ordeal of a trial at only 10 years old".
Most seem to prefer the Norwegian system and cite the approach taken to the death of Silje Redergård.
I'm against capital punishment.
But believe that life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment with no chance of release for an adult murder conviction.
Prison or secure hospital.
Original post by Joel 96
If the rate, hypothetically, did decrease, and was at a lower rate for next 10 years than it was in... say, 2002... then couldn't it be confidently asserted that capital punishment's reintroduction was a success? There will always be other factors and variables and, of course, we can't know for sure, but we're talking about a situation where it looks like it has definitively had a positive effect.
Innocent people will invariably die because of capital punishment. It happened in the past (albeit, rarely and at a time when we didn't have technology) and would probably happen now, but it's like saying you wouldn't have supported the UK's involvement in the second world war because of the possibility of innocent deaths. I just want to make it clear that this is not a utilitarian argument, but a deontological one. I believe in retributivism, that the penalty of death is required for the most heinous of crimes. It should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible, like you would for putting down a dog. Capital punishment isn't morally permissable, but morally obligatory.
Innocent people will invariably die because of capital punishment. It happened in the past (albeit, rarely and at a time when we didn't have technology) and would probably happen now, but it's like saying you wouldn't have supported the UK's involvement in the second world war because of the possibility of innocent deaths. I just want to make it clear that this is not a utilitarian argument, but a deontological one. I believe in retributivism, that the penalty of death is required for the most heinous of crimes. It should be done as quickly and painlessly as possible, like you would for putting down a dog. Capital punishment isn't morally permissable, but morally obligatory.
I get your first point but have no idea how capital punishment and the war are the same thing. If we were to not join the war innocent people would still die. War is war, you either fight to try to survive and win or don't fight and innocents still die. We had no choice but to join the war otherwise millions more innocent would most likely of died. However, Capital punishment is not needed like joining the war. If we had capital punishment people would die, and if we didn't they would be in jail. We have a choice unlike war. In war you can't just say, uh actually I'll sit this one out if that's alright, if you are directly involved and are at risk of being defeated and your population slaughtered.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
