The Death Penalty (Merged)

[STEED]

A number of polls took place here in the last few days and the over all figure of 67% want to see the death penalty back. But I feel it's lower than that, as this is reaction to the news at the weekend. I just wonder how many of these posters know that we the UK can not bring back hanging as we are apart of the EU.

As for the figure I would put at about 53%.

[Tchocky]

A link for those numbers?

Agreed that they're a bit higher than expected. I'd say what with the number of man-kills-young-girl cases in Britain this month that those numbers are artificially high.

[STEED]

A link for those numbers?



No link as it was on the Radio yesterday but I do believe The Sun ran one of those polls. It was a mixture of radio/newspaper polls. the 67% is the over all sum of all those polls added up.

[Letum]

It was about 90% when the law was changed.

[STEED]

It was about 90% when the law was changed.

Was that at the time when hanging was out lawed?

[Steel_Tomb]

I'm sick to death (excuse the pun) of the EU telling us what to do. The EU was formed to be a market for the EU countries, not for them to go about telling us how to run our country. They can piss off for all the bloody use they are! :damn:

Go UKIP!:rotfl:

Oh, yes, I'm in favor of bringing back the Death penalty, might make people think twice about offending. Atm the they go to comfy prisons with better facilities than most people how access to. If they might get a visit to the gallows then they might actually reconsider! A lot of the scum that are in prison don't deserve to live anyway, wast of tax payers money to keep that filth alive!

[STEED]

I'm sick to death (excuse the pun) of the EU telling us what to do. The EU was formed to be a market for the EU countries, not for them to go about telling us how to run our country. They can piss off for all the bloody use they are! :damn:

Go UKIP!:rotfl:

Oh, yes, I'm in favor of bringing back the Death penalty, might make people think twice about offending. Atm the they go to comfy prisons with better facilities than most people how access to. If they might get a visit to the gallows then they might actually reconsider! A lot of the scum that are in prison don't deserve to live anyway, wast of tax payers money to keep that filth alive!

Nice to hear you also hate the EU. :up:

[FIREWALL]

This must be a poll for all of you that live on the ROCK.

So I'll just lurk and see.

[STEED]

This must be a poll for all of you that live on the ROCK.

So I'll just lurk and see.

Not necessary, input from others here who have the death penalty in there country's is welcomed.

[Letum]

It was about 90% when the law was changed.
Was that at the time when hanging was out lawed?

Yup.
There was a poll last year that showed for the first time it fell well under 50%, however
it's something that yo-yos a lot around the genral trend.

[August]

It was about 90% when the law was changed.

Just curious. How does a representative government ban something that 90% of the population supports?

[bookworm_020]

But why would you want to bring it back??? We haven't someone for almost 50 years, and despite the occasional media outburst, there isn't much support to bring it back.

[mrbeast]

Some food for thought for this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4457402.stm

"A 1995 poll of US police chiefs showed that at least three out of every five did not believe that the death penalty reduced significantly the number of homicides".

"You find that most research in the States is being used to buttress a polemical argument, either for or against executions".

"You can't say that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. But there is no evidence that it is more influential than Life Without Parole sentences and first-class detection techniques."

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

[Letum]

It was about 90% when the law was changed.
Just curious. How does a representative government ban something that 90% of the population supports?

Well, because it is a democracy, not a pure olagarchy.

Lets say there are two politicians.
The first politician believes X should be banned and will stay true to this belief, even
if no one else agrees with him.
The second politician also believes X should be banned, but he keeps voting against
banning X because no one agrees with him and he wants to stay popular and win
votes.

Even if I did not want X banned, I would still vote for the first politician because his way of doing things represents me better than the second politician.

If I voted for the second politician, I might get my way on issue X, but his
machivilian nature in appealing to the mob-majority in order to keep power and
popularity, rather than doing what he thinks is right would not represent me at all!

[August]

It was about 90% when the law was changed.
Just curious. How does a representative government ban something that 90% of the population supports?
Well, because it is a democracy, not a pure olagarchy.

Lets say there are two politicians.
The first politician believes X should be banned and will stay true to this belief, even
if no one else agrees with him.
The second politician also believes X should be banned, but he keeps voting against
banning X because no one agrees with him and he wants to stay popular and win
votes.

Even if I did not want X banned, I would still vote for the first politician because his way of doing things represents me better than the second politician.

If I voted for the second politician, I might get my way on issue X, but his
machivilian nature in appealing to the mob-majority in order to keep power and
popularity, rather than doing what he thinks is right would not represent me at all!
Sounds like Orwellian double speak to me. Pols are supposed to represent their constitutents. When 9 out of 10 want something, unless it violates the constitution they should get it.

How does your theory stack up when the thing that the politician believes in is something racist or otherwise completely unpalatable?

[Letum]

Sounds like Orwellian double speak to me. Pols are supposed to represent their constitutents. When 9 out of 10 want something, unless it violates the constitution they should get it.
So you want a politician who just panders to what ever he thinks will give him power
and popularity instead of sticking to his principles and beliefs?

Does that kind of machiavellianism represent you well?

[Platapus]

Just curious. How does a representative government ban something that 90% of the population supports?

A representative owes his people not only his industry but his judgement and he betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion - Edmund Burke

That's why.

[Seth8530]

Dunno if this has been posted or not, but thier is a thread about the death penality, and this has got my intersist to see how many of yall sopport it or dissoport it.

[August]

Just curious. How does a representative government ban something that 90% of the population supports?
A representative owes his people not only his industry but his judgement and he betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion - Edmund Burke

That's why.

So you're of the "Mommy Government knows best for her little chillen" camp, eh?

[geetrue]

Yes, I think it is a way to keep people from killing more people ...

That fear sits somewhere in every person sub-consciously or consciously.

If the fear was removed they could all sit around laughing about what they did to
someone while playing cards and readin the newspaper in prisons.

You take a life ... you should lose your life.

Depedning on the circumstance of course.

[bradclark1]

A politician represents the people. At 90% public opinion for and he votes against then he is voicing his personal opinion on the matter and is not representing the people.

[Urspankd]

I say yes!

I also believe if it is used, they should really use it. Don't let these people sit on death row for years waiting.

I say as soon as the court find you guilty, take them and set them in the chair and give them the JUICE!

[August]

Sounds like Orwellian double speak to me. Pols are supposed to represent their constitutents. When 9 out of 10 want something, unless it violates the constitution they should get it.
So you want a politician who just panders to what ever he thinks will give him power
and popularity instead of sticking to his principles and beliefs?

Does that kind of machiavellianism represent you well?

No I want a politician who does what the people who elected him want him to do. He's hired to do a job and if he wants to keep it he'd better keep his customers happy.

But you didn't answer my question so i'll ask it again: How does your theory stack up when the thing that the politician believes in is something racist or otherwise completely unpalatable? According to you that is something to be admired right?

[August]

Personally i'm opposed to the DP.

First, it's too final and no court ever created by man is infallable.

Second, death lets the bastards off too easy. Put them in a cell without their cable TV or anything besides the most basic of amentities for the rest of their worthless lives. Now that's a just punishment.

[bradclark1]

I used to be for it but now I think it punishes more by keeping him in a 6X10 cell for 23 hours a day for the rest of his life. Thats a lot of time in a very small place to dwell on the reason he's in there.

[Reece]

If you kill a person intentionally & it can be proved without a doubt then yes, the killer has ended a persons life so that person has lost rights to live.:nope: However the person should be put to death as humanely as possable, it is not our right to inflict pain!:-?

[Bort]

Personally i'm opposed to the DP.

First, it's too final and no court ever created by man is infallable.

Second, death lets the bastards off too easy. Put them in a cell without their cable TV or anything besides the most basic of amentities for the rest of their worthless lives. Now that's a just punishment.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

As someone from Illinois, having seen the mess my state was in with this issue before the Governor emptied death row, I honestly do not believe that the Death Penalty can be applied fairly. That is before the other deep arguments of morality and cruelty.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

even the smallest of crimes should result in death penalty... :arrgh!: death penalty will make people think twice before commiting a crime.. always remember you WILL get the electric chair :arrgh!::rotfl:


seriously yes i support it.. too bad canada doesnt have it:cry:

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, it has been discussed before. But still...

Yes, I support it. But still...

For proven serial killers like Ted Bundy, I have no compunctions at all. For the one-time murderer? Well, If the evidence is absolute...but then, is it ever? I think removing them from society is enough; but then there is always a parole, even if the verdict stipulates there not be.

For me it's too easy to argue both sides.

[kiwi_2005]

No, killing them is setting them free from their guilt. Let them rot in Jail for 50yrs. Go back to the days where they actually did break rocks all day and were fed crap food, prisons today are a holiday to most crims.

[Letum]

Just curious. How does a representative government ban something that 90% of the population supports?
A representative owes his people not only his industry but his judgement and he betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion - Edmund Burke

That's why.

Thats how I should have said it, nice quote!

[mrbeast]

Sounds like Orwellian double speak to me. Pols are supposed to represent their constitutents. When 9 out of 10 want something, unless it violates the constitution they should get it.
So you want a politician who just panders to what ever he thinks will give him power
and popularity instead of sticking to his principles and beliefs?

Does that kind of machiavellianism represent you well?

No I want a politician who does what the people who elected him want him to do. He's hired to do a job and if he wants to keep it he'd better keep his customers happy.

But you didn't answer my question so i'll ask it again: How does your theory stack up when the thing that the politician believes in is something racist or otherwise completely unpalatable? According to you that is something to be admired right?

Well if politicians are simply there to pander to what the mob desires then its not democracy its a descent into mob rule. In that case why have politicians at all. Why not simply have referandums on any and all issues. There is surely the technology to have a button installed next to your TV which would allow you to have a vote. So consider the following:

Should we have the death penalty?

Presses buttton; votes yes.

Next week same question; should we have the death penalty?

Hmmmm, well I watched a docu that changed my mind; votes no

All that would equal is chaos.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm against the death penalty as inevitably some of the innocent will be put to death. That's all there is to it.:nope:

[Letum]

But you didn't answer my question so i'll ask it again: How does your theory stack up when the thing that the politician believes in is something racist or otherwise completely unpalatable? According to you that is something to be admired right?

In that case his view is not admirable, but the strength of his convictions are admirable .
Of course, the merit of a poloticion does not solely lie here. He may still be a poor
poloticion because of what informs his decisions, even if it is not his own self intrested
hunger for power that informs them.

[HunterICX]

No, killing them is setting them free from their guilt. Let them rot in Jail for 50yrs. Go back to the days where they actually did break rocks all day and were fed crap food, prisons today are a holiday to most crims.

:yep: Aye, nothing wrong with the old style prisons,

HunterICX

[Skybird]

This theme seems to be a cyclic event in nthreads - it has been discussed many times before, in depth. ;)

[Foxtrot]

Nope
too many innocent folks were executed in past. "The Snaggletooth Killer" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Krone) dude comes in my mind. Although, he was not going to be executed but 10 years of his life were taken from him for the crime he didn't commit.

[STEED]

My view point is a little different I don't believe a murderer should swing as this is far to easy I want them sleeping on straw mats and breaking rocks for the rest of there lives. When it comes to yobs they should swing after there third offense because it's crystal clear they have no self respect or respect to others, in fact they don't give a damn about there own lives. So they don't want to stop or make any kind of effort what so ever so they should swing.

[jumpy]

I'm against the death penalty as inevitably some of the innocent will be put to death. That's all there is to it.:nope:
Indeed. The possibility for the judiciary to get it wrong and kill an innocent person is not worth the risk of the state taking revenge upon criminals for their actions.
My other half is currently reading 'Executioner - the chronicles of a Victorian hangman' (ISBN 0750943085) and it seems that many of the 'ordinary' cases ie not the great media events like Dr Crippen etc are accounts of how a husband killed his wife after a drunken bender, or how a lover discovered their partners infidelity and lost it. Mundane stuff, as it were and not the terrible and evil crimes we tend to associate with execution - like the moors murders etc.

UKIP and that nutter bloke can (kilroy silk) get lost - none of them really have the brains to make an informed decision not based upon an emotional response to something offensive.
The decision to bring back execution should not be made in the wake of serious cases that capture the public attention... rabble rabble rabble rabble ...if you know what I mean.

[STEED]

If anyone should be hung it should be the yobs who don't give a rats about there own life's as they come career criminals.

[Platapus]

So you're of the "Mommy Government knows best for her little chillen" camp, eh?


Only if you in the "take a quote and interprete it to the unrealistic extreme" camp :lol:

There is nothing in Burke's quote that would make that leap, I am afraid

[Platapus]

I support the concept of the death penalty, but disagree with its implementation.

In my mind there has to be solid, scientifically defendable evidence against a person before I would ever recommend the death penalty.

I just can't see sentencing people to death based on eyewitness testimony.

Witnesses lie in court
Witnesses make mistakes in court
Witnesses are mislead in court
Witnesses are influenced in court

How many times are spunky ADAs pushing witnesses to state that they know for sure "thats the man" when in reality, the witness only thinks "that may be the man". ADAs are judged by their conviction rate, not by justice.

I still don't understand why witnesses are not charged with perjury when they lie in court by overstating their confidence, especially when it causes an innocent person to be imprisoned or killed.

Now if there is solid scientifically defendable evidence that legally proves a murder's guilt, I have no problem with the death penalty.

But I would need more than someone saying "that's the guy".

Of course there is the whole evidence tampering scandals which really scare me.

But that is probably another thread

[Tchocky]

Against. Mostly for the same reasons as August. You can't undo it, and courts aren't perfect.

On the other tangents put up in this thread

A politician who is going against what 90% (or some other inane statistic) of the people believe, is sticking up for his/her principles. (hat's the ideal version anyway. We all know how special interests work)
The idea of representing the people comes through for an election, where the electorate decides who will make their decisions for them. Opinion polls don't change that.
Mob rule is one of the most entertaining and terrifying political scenarios imaginable. Mobile vulgus and all that.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Screenshotted the 50-50 whilst it lasts :lol:

[Tchocky]

Screenshotted the 50-50 whilst it lasts :lol:
Oh, I forgot to vote.

*Ruins his fun*

[lambda*sqrt(u*x)]

I voted "No" because an eye-for-an-eye mentality does not fit into my personal philosophical beliefs about the potential of an individual to change. And my opinion is, that, even if I am without religious background, people who see themselves within a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other biblical religious community - I can't speak for far easter religions because of my lack of knowledge - can't combine the legal death penalty with the commandments of their prophets. For those, death penalty can just be possible if there is a strong secular mindset in political life.

[Dowly]

And my opinion is, that, even if I am without religious background, people who see themselves within a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other biblical religious community - I can't speak for far easter religions because of my lack of knowledge - can't combine the legal death penalty with the commandments of their prophets. For those, death penalty can just be possible if there is a strong secular mindset in political life.

A-FRICKING-MEN! :up:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm against the death penalty as inevitably some of the innocent will be put to death. That's all there is to it.:nope:
Indeed. The possibility for the judiciary to get it wrong and kill an innocent person is not worth the risk of the state taking revenge upon criminals for their actions.
My other half is currently reading 'Executioner - the chronicles of a Victorian hangman' (ISBN 0750943085) and it seems that many of the 'ordinary' cases ie not the great media events like Dr Crippen etc are accounts of how a husband killed his wife after a drunken bender, or how a lover discovered their partners infidelity and lost it. Mundane stuff, as it were and not the terrible and evil crimes we tend to associate with execution - like the moors murders etc.

UKIP and that nutter bloke can (kilroy silk) get lost - none of them really have the brains to make an informed decision not based upon an emotional response to something offensive.
The decision to bring back execution should not be made in the wake of serious cases that capture the public attention... rabble rabble rabble rabble ...if you know what I mean.

I take it some individuals have been disproportionately naughty across the pond?

*fires up BBC website*

[fredbass]

I'm of the opinion that the Death Penalty is an appropriate punishment for someone who has committed murder. An eye for an eye I say, regardless of whether or not the execution would have an effect as a deterent or really lower prison overcrowding which it really wouldn't do.

Sure, there might be a few innocent soles who will be executed but nothing is perfect in life. Death in itself, to me, isn't a bad thing for anyone. It's the pain associated with it that is bad. There might be life after death. Who really knows.

If there is a heaven and hell then your afterlife will head to the appropriate place anyway. So if that person is innocent and a good person, then all is well in the end.

If I had really commited murder, I'd prefer the death penalty because as some have pointed out, staying alive and lingering in a cell for the rest of your life leaves you far worse off unless you go to hell which must be very bad and maybe you'd like to avoid that and become a better person in prison hoping to convince God to eventually bring you to heaven. :hmm:

[Urspankd]

Why should the hard working people, have to pay for the crimes that other people have committed. Personally I dont feel I should have to pay for their crimes.

What is the average cost of one inmate to stay in prison for a day?

Then do the math and see what it costs for the prison to stay up and running to house these people.

[lambda*sqrt(u*x)]

Why should the hard working people, have to pay for the crimes that other people have committed. Personally I dont feel I should have to pay for their crimes.

What is the average cost of one inmate to stay in prison for a day?

Then do the math and see what it costs for the prison to stay up and running to house these people.

ATT: Cynicism applied!
Do the math and tell me the costs that affect me as a tax payer if your wife gives birth to a handicapped child.

I always prefer to pay taxes for social systems, health care and good prisons to saving the money on the cost of the lives of people.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'm for it, but in certain extreme cases, like serial killers, where there's no hope of rehabilitation, and putting them back on the street poses a risk to the public.

Whether or not the death penalty is availiable is not the issue, its using intelligent prison sentencing, i.e. no more allowing people to serve 10 years for murder and let them apply for parole. :yep:

[Urspankd]

Why should the hard working people, have to pay for the crimes that other people have committed. Personally I dont feel I should have to pay for their crimes.

What is the average cost of one inmate to stay in prison for a day?

Then do the math and see what it costs for the prison to stay up and running to house these people.

ATT: Cynicism applied!
Do the math and tell me the costs that affect me as a tax payer if your wife gives birth to a handicapped child.

I always prefer to pay taxes for social systems, health care and good prisons to saving the money on the cost of the lives of people.


I see you point but wouldn't I be paying for that as well.

I pay my taxes and dont gripe about it at all.

Just my opinion on it. There are obvious reason when and where to use I am not saying just use it all the time. This is contradictory to my earlier statement and I should have chosen better words agree.

[mrbeast]

I'm of the opinion that the Death Penalty is an appropriate punishment for someone who has committed murder. An eye for an eye I say, regardless of whether or not the execution would have an effect as a deterent or really lower prison overcrowding which it really wouldn't do.

Sure, there might be a few innocent soles who will be executed but nothing is perfect in life. Death in itself, to me, isn't a bad thing for anyone. It's the pain associated with it that is bad. There might be life after death. Who really knows.

If there is a heaven and hell then your afterlife will head to the appropriate place anyway. So if that person is innocent and a good person, then all is well in the end.

If I had really commited murder, I'd prefer the death penalty because as some have pointed out, staying alive and lingering in a cell for the rest of your life leaves you far worse off unless you go to hell which must be very bad and maybe you'd like to avoid that and become a better person in prison hoping to convince God to eventually bring you to heaven. :hmm:

And if there isn't an after life?.......:nope:

You appear to aspouse an opinion that values human life fairly cheaply. :yep:

What if the unfortunate innocent person was you or your child or anyone else that you care about? :hmm:

But I guess that wouldn't be such a big deal, at least some of those murderers got what they deserved! :roll:

[lambda*sqrt(u*x)]

Why should the hard working people, have to pay for the crimes that other people have committed. Personally I dont feel I should have to pay for their crimes.

What is the average cost of one inmate to stay in prison for a day?

Then do the math and see what it costs for the prison to stay up and running to house these people.
ATT: Cynicism applied!
Do the math and tell me the costs that affect me as a tax payer if your wife gives birth to a handicapped child.

I always prefer to pay taxes for social systems, health care and good prisons to saving the money on the cost of the lives of people.

I see you point but wouldn't I be paying for that as well.

I pay my taxes and dont gripe about it at all.

Just my opinion on it. There are obvious reason when and where to use I am not saying just use it all the time. This is contradictory to my earlier statement and I should have chosen better words agree.

I get your point more clearly now... I just wanted to outline that in all matters of society, one shouldn't rank the costs over the beings, even if those beings committed crimes beyond theft or excess of self-defence.

The death penalty, though not discussed in parliament, is a thing called for by the public always at times when a new crime happens that can be exploited by the sensationist media. But as emotionally and irrationally we perceive such crimes, often very cruel, as rationally we have to think about the chance of having the wrong man found guilty (a very popular and considerable argument), the possibility of a psychotherapy that could actually help the criminal (if well-funded and professional) or the likelyhood of a gain emerging from keeping the guilty alive (but in prison) such as learning from the sociology, psychology and history of him or her becoming a criminal.
But all these arguments are worth nothing if the idea is not established that man is not evil from his birth on, and that society and family play a role in the development of a human being.

This discussion is a complicated matter. "An eye for an eye" is an easyily outspoken but in cases devastating answer, in my honest opinion. And my guess is that the more complicated answer, which I for sure cannot utter, is the right one.

[Iron Budokan]

I must admit this is one of those questions that has never really bothered me. If someone murdered one of my family members I wouldn't care one whit if the state had the legal authority to execute him or not...because I would kill him myself and never think twice about it.

I'm not the least bit interested in the state meting out justice for someone who murders my little boys or my wife. I'll do that myself, thank you very much. And I don't give a hoot about what society says or what anyone might think about it.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying what I believe.

I just play a different game, with different rules, from most people, that's all.

[Tchocky]

I must admit this is one of those questions that has never really bothered me. If someone murdered one of my family members I wouldn't care one whit if the state had the legal authority to execute him or not...because I would kill him myself and never think twice about it.

I'm not the least bit interested in the state meting out justice for someone who murders my little boys or my wife. I'll do that myself, thank you very much. And I don't give a hoot about what society says or what anyone might think about it.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying what I believe.

I just play a different game, with different rules, from most people, that's all.
As long as you don't meet anyone else "playing a different game"

[bradclark1]

I'm not the least bit interested in the state meting out justice for someone who murders my little boys or my wife. I'll do that myself, thank you very much. And I don't give a hoot about what society says or what anyone might think about it.

Having said that are you prepared to what you would put the remainder of your family through? You got the satisfaction of killing a killer then you go to jail. Your wife dead and you in jail. What happens to the kids? One of your kids dead what happens to your wife and kids? No bread winner, loose the house got to move to a crappy side of town where they dare not go out after dark. Mom has to work 2 jobs to try and make ends meet. Food stamps? Is further devastation of your family worth it?

[jumpy]

I'm not the least bit interested in the state meting out justice for someone who murders my little boys or my wife. I'll do that myself, thank you very much. And I don't give a hoot about what society says or what anyone might think about it.
Having said that are you prepared to what you would put the remainder of your family through? You got the satisfaction of killing a killer then you go to jail. Your wife dead and you in jail. What happens to the kids? One of your kids dead what happens to your wife and kids? No bread winner, loose the house got to move to a crappy side of town where they dare not go out after dark. Mom has to work 2 jobs to try and make ends meet. Food stamps? Is further devastation of your family worth it?
As this thread clearly demonstrates: much of so-called 'public opinion' regarding execution, be it opinion fostered by the media, lapped up by the common man and bandied about in the corridors of power by the wealthy elite; is saturated with emotion and other baggage that does not lend itself to coherent decision making. And whilst I believe a statement of justice be decided cold and calculatingly, that also lacks the necessary humanity. Relying solely on logic and clarity is as bad as basing ones decisions on emotion alone.

Ideals such as justice are mere shadows of perfection dimly perceived by man and realised with the benefit of all of his innate imperfections. Therefore the pure ideal rarely comes to resemble itself in practise. Because of this inevitable error I can never accept such a final revenge as a just punishment as the consequences of a grave mistake are incapable of being undone. Besides, a more fitting claim of life imprisonment ought to mean exactly that - LIFE. Not 18 years then parole and redemption.

[Lt West]

By mental I mean mentally retarded people who dont know the've done anyhting wrong which may seem cruel to many,But it doesnt have to be cruel.For example Slap a micky mouse hat on their head and tell them there going to disney land.

"Dih-nee-lan!"as hes led down the hall to the gas chambers.

"Dih-nee-lan!" as he is strapped down.

"Dih-nee-lan!" as gas fills the room.

"Dih-nee...." as he asphixiates(i know it spelled wrong)
(this is from the skippy list)

[Defiance]

Hiya's,
I've voted yes BUT, Many a person especially in england were hanged wrongly as-in they were innocent

If it's an outright planned murder 100% no errors capable i say kneck em

Manslaughter eg: someone snaps due to being mugged/robbed/abused etc or has to act in self defense well give em a medal and no record (but again has to be 100% free from errors and not a premeditated get-back-at-someone)

Rapes/Child abuse etc again if 100% certain kneck em (slowly)

As in a well known case of a farmer killing someone by shooting in their back as they fled again a medal, As the scum were there to rob and by all accounts he himself could of been yet another unsolved murder victim i say kneck em

What with dna etc now i think it's high time to bring the dp back but as i say only when it's 100% proven

Pierpoint himself had a very educated feeling that a female victim of his hanging was innocent but did his job none the less, Later she was found to of been probably innocent

As for the kids well youths of today that cause so much damage and worry in neighbourhoods knowing that until their 18 they can do anything and not get much done to them, Birch the ****s in local village/town/city so to not only let them feel pain but the humiliation of everyone knowing them

And for all you libs thinking pain/tough punishment don't solve stuff i read or was told this can't really remember but it makes sense to me, (maybe not word for word but gist is) Punch a liberal and when they get back up punch em again and again when back up punch them again, Sooner or later they lash back or resist (guess it means everyone can only take so much before they have to change their thinking)

Ohh and when it's your daughter been raped or your son shot maybe you would change your views

My dad hit me once in my life with a very thick army issue leather belt, Think it was 3 maybe 4 lashes across backside, My crime was to have shouted "bloody bitch" to me mom when i was around 12yrs old

Never did me any harm, And i know many a school friend who had good hidings off their parents and all turned out very decent people, But abuse obviously should not be tollerated


Only way the UK will get the DP is if politicians get to grips with what the majority of their voters want (this is as likely as me landing on mars) (as said EU law etc so we are destined for more general decay os society and more libs saying ohh they didn't realise what they were doing)

Kill someone in uk your out in 9yrs Rob a bank or do a paper-crime you fubared dude bigtime

Ohh and as for sex offenders that wait until their victims are 13 before raping/mollesting them because it's a lesser punishment when victim is 13 and over i say hang em slowly while a rotty chews on their scrotes

Please Have Fun

Ciao

Def

[mrbeast]

The argument that the death penalty should be used if 'they are 100% sure' doesn't hold up to scrutiny. This is because guilty or not guilty do not work on a continum, its either 100% this way or 100% that way. Theres no 'well we think he might have done it but not sure, so we'll bang him up just in case. If there is doubt its a not guilty verduct.

I think you will find that the authorities felt that all those people who turned out to have been innocent in the end were 100% guilty at the time.

Also it would not do faith in the leagal system much good if the punishment was comuted to a lesser one because they are not sure if he did it.

[fredbass]

Look: the legal system with a jury of ones peers has found the defendant guilty of Murder. One can argue all day that the jury could have made a mistake. You can't ignore a conviction because there's a small chance that the verdict is wrong. The guilty party should receive an appropriate penalty which is death for death. And until the execution is carried out, the convicted has numerous opportunities of appeal in the USA, which some say are far too many opportunities. So given the vast amount of appeals, once all opportunities have been forgone then the execution should be carried out.

A life sentence is not appropriate for murder.

[mrbeast]

Look: the legal system with a jury of ones peers has found the defendant guilty of Murder. One can argue all day that the jury could have made a mistake. You can't ignore a conviction because there's a small chance that the verdict is wrong. The guilty party should receive an appropriate penalty which is death for death. And until the execution is carried out, the convicted has numerous opportunities of appeal in the USA, which some say are far too many opportunities. So given the vast amount of appeals, once all opportunities have been forgone then the execution should be carried out.

A life sentence is not appropriate for murder.

But the chance still remains.

[bradclark1]

A life sentence is not appropriate for murder.
I think it is. A death sentence is an easy way out. If I was given a choice between a miserable boring existence in a limited space with no stimulation for the rest of my life and a quick death I believe I would choose death.

[Tchocky]

The guilty party should receive an appropriate penalty which is death for death. Rape the rapist, anyone?
Have you ever gotten in a fight, and regretted it afterwards?

And until the execution is carried out, the convicted has numerous opportunities of appeal in the USA, which some say are far too many opportunities. If the state decides it's allowed to kill you, you should get as many appeals as you like.

agreeing with mrbeast here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=790555&postcount=62

[fredbass]

A life sentence is not appropriate for murder.
I think it is. A death sentence is an easy way out. If I was given a choice between a miserable boring existence in a limited space with no stimulation for the rest of my life and a quick death I believe I would choose death.

I still believe death is appropriate for death, but I too would prefer death rather than a life sentence, given a choice.

[fredbass]

The guilty party should receive an appropriate penalty which is death for death. Rape the rapist, anyone?
Have you ever gotten in a fight, and regretted it afterwards?

And until the execution is carried out, the convicted has numerous opportunities of appeal in the USA, which some say are far too many opportunities. If the state decides it's allowed to kill you, you should get as many appeals as you like.

We're talking about death or no death aren't we? Don't confuse the issue.
I believe the death penalty is only appropriate for murder. If one is convicted of rape or child molestation, then a difference sentence should be applied.

And so you believe in an endless amount of appeals. If that was the case, then noone would be executed unless they stopped appealing, would they.

[August]

I believe the death penalty is only appropriate for murder.

One could say that 60-80 years stuck inside a drab 8x10' cell is a kind of living death...

[Sea Demon]

I believe the death penalty is only appropriate for murder.
One could say that 60-80 years stuck inside a drab 8x10' cell is a kind of living death...

Could be very expensive for taxpayers though. Taxes going to house these types is not money well spent. And for most of these types, do you believe any can be rehabilitated? Dollars to donuts that figure would be rather low statistically.

[fredbass]

And on a slightly tangent curve: Could killing a sole or spirit of someone leaving them in complete depression thus not able to live an enjoyable life be considered a form of murder? Should we consider executing someone for commiting such act?

Just something to think about.

[Tchocky]

Losing my fish would indeed be depressing. Hang 'em.

[fredbass]

I believe the death penalty is only appropriate for murder.
One could say that 60-80 years stuck inside a drab 8x10' cell is a kind of living death...

Could be very expensive for taxpayers though. Taxes going to house these types is not money well spent. And for most of these types, do you believe any can be rehabilitated? Dollars to donuts that figure would be rather low statistically.

Irrelevant to me. They don't deserve to be rehabilitated. And yes, tax payers should not have to pay to keep them alive.

[Urspankd]

Interesting Tidbit I read on CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/28/prison.population.ap/index.html

[mrbeast]

The reason for the rising cost of the prison population is because there are simply too many people sitting in prisons. Surely society would benefit from more constructive forms of punnishment being implemented for lesser crimes. In the UK prisons are bulging with persistant though minor offenders that learn nothing from their incarceration except better ways of commiting crime. IIRC in the US there is the '3 strikes' system which has produced anomalous situations of repeat shoplifters being handed 25 year sentances for example. I would suggest its these people who cost vast sums of funds for prisons not convicted murders on life sentances.

The argument that it is cheaper to sentance someone to death than it is to hand them a life sentance is false.

Sentancing someone to death is not cheap it costs around 2 or 3 million dollars to carry out an execution and pay for all the court costs of appeals added to the cost of housing an inmate while this goes on. Its actually cheaper to keep a prisoner in prison for an average life sentance than it is to put them on death row.

[Stealth Hunter]

Yes.

Reduces population sizes, the size of taxes that are spent on caring for convicted murderers, can increase public order, and it has several other benefits that I'm not going to droll on about.