Thats how I should have said it, nice quote!

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.

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:

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.

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

HunterICX

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

Nope
too many innocent folks were executed in past. "The Snaggletooth Killer" 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Screenshotted the 50-50 whilst it lasts :lol:

Oh, I forgot to vote.

*Ruins his fun*