Capital Punishment

[Sir David Gray]

Should the death penalty be reinstated in this country?

[--------]

No. :bitchy:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Should the death penalty be reinstated in this country?

No, but something has to be sorted out about prison. Its a picnic camp just now, and prisoners have too many 'rights'.

[Hibrandenburg]

No, but something has to be sorted out about prison. Its a picnic camp just now, and prisoners have too many 'rights'.

Our whole society has too many rights and not enough responsibilties.

[capitals_finest]

Yes for people that repeatedly commit serious crimes against children.

and I would happily pull the trigger/push the button/stick the needle in.:agree:

[PiemanP]

Yes. But for only for the most serious crimes and where the offender has a history and shows no remorse. Also only in cases where there is not a shred of doubt about the offenders guilt (caught red handed basically).

[steakbake]

No, but something has to be sorted out about prison. Its a picnic camp just now, and prisoners have too many 'rights'.

Jails need sorted out. Prisoners need rights - it's the mark of our civil society. Otherwise we'll be back to people dying from "accidents" in prison and even more violence in the jails than there already is.

But no, I would agree with you on the death penalty. We're better than that.

[--------]

Yes. But for only for the most serious crimes and where the offender has a history and shows no remorse. Also only in cases where there is not a shred of doubt about the offenders guilt (caught red handed basically).



Which "serious" crimes? I think there'd be a huge debate about that. I don't see how we could come to a conclusion suiting everone.

Previous offences are on record, so no problem there.

Remorse? If their necks are on the line, most folks can work up a convincing show of remorse - how can anyone know it's sincere, though?

The problem with certainty regarding someone's guilt is that it ultimately depends on human witnesses and their testimony. And human beings lie.

On March 9, 1950, Timothy Evans was hanged at Pentonville Prison for the murder of his infant daughter. The decisive prosecution witness was his landlord, John Christie. Evans initially confessed to the murder of his wife and daughter, but later recalled his confession and accused Christie. There remain huge questions about how the policeobtained Evans' confession - a protracted overnight interrogation, for example. In court Christie's testimony prevailed, however.

The police withheld two major pieces of evidence at the trial - the wife had been sexually assaulted after death, and there were witnesses who were willing to tetsify that the bodies had not been hidden in the place and at the time Christie said they had been. (Christie was a police informer and former special constable, IIRC.)

Three years later, after the discovery of another six bodies in Christie's house and garden, Christie confessed to killing Evans' wife. He was hanged in July 1953. During the search of the premises following Evans' arrest in 1949 the police had failed to notice that Christie had propped up a garden trellis with one of his victims' thigh-bones. The bone was in plain open view.

The thing is that the Evans case was considered an open-and-shut one at the time. Evans maintained his innocence of his daughter's murder to the very end, but nobody believed him, and he was a classic case of "hanging's too good for him". But there had been evidence suppressed, a sloppy search of the murder scene, and false testimony accepted in court. There's a strong possibility that the police didn't question Christie stringently enough because of his status as an informer and special constable - he was "one of their own".

In 2004 the Court of Appeal finally accepted that Evans did not kill either his wife or his daughter.

Evans' executioner, Albert Pierrepoint, wrote in his autobiography in 1974: "I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people... The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off." Pierrepoint carried out over 600 executions by hanging in his career. I respect his opinion.

[Jay]

There is no way we can justify murdering someone. I know some crimes are worthy of it in our hearts but does it make us better people for killing the perpetrator?
Is there ever 100% certainty?
I dont know but I would never be comfortable with us using the death penalty. Is there any evidence it acts as a deterrent in countries it is used in?

Tougher prisons and longer sentences, by all means give them rights but remove the sky telly and the pool tables, the gyms etc.

[mickeythehibbee]

Jails need sorted out. Prisoners need rights - it's the mark of our civil society. Otherwise we'll be back to people dying from "accidents" in prison and even more violence in the jails than there already is.

But no, I would agree with you on the death penalty. We're better than that.


Agree with this by and large. Although there are a few number of softer prisons, they do tend to be for lower end offences and i think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who would want to spend any length of time in the massively over crowded and highly unpleasant Bar-L or any other high security prison. :agree:

But the death penalty doesn't work in my opinion. Either a murder is committed in the heat of the moment, in which case there is no detterent effect, or there are the right psycopaths like the Yorkshire ripper etc who would most likely continue to kill anyway.

Personally i think a lifetime in prison with no chance for parole is a greater punishment for these type of people because it's not quick like the death penalty.

[hibsdaft]

some people imo deserve to die for their crimes.

however, where the death penalty exists, innocent people will always die because the justice system is inperfect.

the state should never kill innocent people.

so a "no" from me.

[Austinho]

I favour some cases of eye for an eye retribution, but only if it is proven beyond doubt.

Serial killers and the most evil of murders should IMO have a death sentence, but the problem is, where do you draw the line? I read about a case in the Middle East, where a man who blinded the woman he loved with acid, so no other man would want her. His punishment was to have the same thing done to him.

[RyeSloan]

Murder is murder be that by a state or by a person IMHO.

I'm not saying that you might not want someone to die for a crime they have commited I just think that it shouldnt be allowed.

As a deterent it doesnt work, as retribution it's lowering yourself to their level. The problem is once you do start killing people 'legally' for crimes, who decides what crimes, what evidence is required (the police with their sorry record for mis-carriges of justice?) and where is the line drawn and by who?

[AllyF]

Labour Prisons!

[Sir David Gray]

I do not support capital punishment, at all.

If the death penalty was a real deterrent (which is an argument for it being implemented), then places that have capital punishment would surely have a lower murder rate than places without it, which is not the case.

People found guilty of murder, rape, terrorism etc. should be jailed for the rest of their natural life and should die in prison. The justice system in this country is a joke, when you get sentenced to just 15-20 years for murder.

No-one has the right to take the life of another human being, and that includes the state.

There is also a chance of innocent people being executed, which is completely unacceptable. Even one innocent person being put to death would be enough for me to oppose capital punishment. Being sent to jail for a crime you haven't committed is bad enough, but at least you could eventually be set free. If you're killed for a crime you haven't committed, it's too late.

[Hibrandenburg]

I do not support capital punishment, at all.

If the death penalty was a real deterrent (which is an argument for it being implemented), then places that have capital punishment would surely have a lower murder rate than places without it, which is not the case.

People found guilty of murder, rape, terrorism etc. should be jailed for the rest of their natural life and should die in prison. The justice system in this country is a joke, when you get sentenced to just 15-20 years for murder.

No-one has the right to take the life of another human being, and that includes the state.

There is also a chance of innocent people being executed, which is completely unacceptable. Even one innocent person being put to death would be enough for me to oppose capital punishment. Being sent to jail for a crime you haven't committed is bad enough, but at least you could eventually be set free. If you're killed for a crime you haven't committed, it's too late.

:agree:Add to that if you take a life then you relinquish your right to rehabilitation.

[Chez]

I do not support capital punishment, at all.

If the death penalty was a real deterrent (which is an argument for it being implemented), then places that have capital punishment would surely have a lower murder rate than places without it, which is not the case.

People found guilty of murder, rape, terrorism etc. should be jailed for the rest of their natural life and should die in prison. The justice system in this country is a joke, when you get sentenced to just 15-20 years for murder.

No-one has the right to take the life of another human being, and that includes the state.

There is also a chance of innocent people being executed, which is completely unacceptable. Even one innocent person being put to death would be enough for me to oppose capital punishment. Being sent to jail for a crime you haven't committed is bad enough, but at least you could eventually be set free. If you're killed for a crime you haven't committed, it's too late.

:agree: Absolutely - the state IMHO should be focussing on the cause of crime rather than punishments, prevention is better than cure :agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

If we had capital punishement Colin Stagg would be dead. We would know by now that he was innocent, but he'd still be dead. The worst of the thing is though, that the woman he was convicted of murdering would also be dead.

If those pro capital punishment could tell me what killing murderers achieves, other than revenge, and if they could guarantee that there would be no miscarriages of justice, I'd at least listen to them. Unfortunately their arguments are so caught up in knee jerk, emotional responses, that they defeat themselves the minute they open their mouths.

As for those who say they'd happily do it, they should do a bit of research into the life histories of the hangmen. Most signed up as gung ho young men, only to end up emotionally disturbed as they grew older and had time to think about what they were doing. The king of them all - Pierrepoint, is a good example. It was he who said that capital punishment is nothing more than revenge.

It's easy to say kill murderers, but how many of the people saying it have any idea at all what it is like to watch someone die?

[--------]

If we had capital punishement Colin Stagg would be dead. We would know by now that he was innocent, but he'd still be dead. The worst of the thing is though, that the woman he was convicted of murdering would also be dead.

If those pro capital punishment could tell me what killing murderers achieves, other than revenge, and if they could guarantee that there would be no miscarriages of justice, I'd at least listen to them. Unfortunately their arguments are so caught up in knee jerk, emotional responses, that they defeat themselves the minute they open their mouths.

As for those who say they'd happily do it, they should do a bit of research into the life histories of the hangmen. Most signed up as gung ho young men, only to end up emotionally disturbed as they grew older and had time to think about what they were doing. The king of them all - Pierrepoint, is a good example. It was he who said that capital punishment is nothing more than revenge.

It's easy to say kill murderers, but how many of the people saying it have any idea at all what it is like to watch someone die?



Yup - exactly. :agree:

[stu in nottingham]

No for me, for many of the reasons that have already been extremely well articulated.

[Woody1985]

I do not support capital punishment, at all.

1. If the death penalty was a real deterrent (which is an argument for it being implemented), then places that have capital punishment would surely have a lower murder rate than places without it, which is not the case.

2. People found guilty of murder, rape, terrorism etc. should be jailed for the rest of their natural life and should die in prison. The justice system in this country is a joke, when you get sentenced to just 15-20 years for murder.

No-one has the right to take the life of another human being, and that includes the state.

There is also a chance of innocent people being executed, which is completely unacceptable. Even one innocent person being put to death would be enough for me to oppose capital punishment. Being sent to jail for a crime you haven't committed is bad enough, but at least you could eventually be set free. If you're killed for a crime you haven't committed, it's too late.

1. Do these statistics differentiate between pre-mediated murder and heat of the moment? I think there is a difference between the two and for that reason I think there should be CP in certain circumstances.

If the stats are largely the same throughout the world for both it would indicate that a certain % of people are just f'd up we're better off without them.

2. By looking at your point from number 1. If the death sentence isn't enough of a deterrent then why would longer prison sentences be?

I think the law should be more about protecting the inncent people rather than trying to use sentences to act as a deterrent because people will commit crime either way. Longer sentences would mean innocent people are protected from these ****bags for a longer period of time.

Edit: why is sc um starred out? :LOL:

[--------]

1. Do these statistics differentiate between pre-mediated murder and heat of the moment? I think there is a difference between the two and for that reason I think there should be CP in certain circumstances.

If the stats are largely the same throughout the world for both it would indicate that a certain % of people are just f'd up we're better off without them.

2. By looking at your point from number 1. If the death sentence isn't enough of a deterrent then why would longer prison sentences be?

I think the law should be more about protecting the inncent people rather than trying to use sentences to act as a deterrent because people will commit crime either way. Longer sentences would mean innocent people are protected from these ****bags for a longer period of time.

Edit: why is sc um starred out? :LOL:

This may well be so - I'm not disagreeing - but how do we tell who they are? And what if we get it wrong?

I'm not very happy with the idea of "criminal" people and "innocent" people, actually. I'd say we're all just "people" - sometimes we behave well, sometimes badly. IMO we all have the capacity to do terrible things to one another. We're all potential ****bags - nurture and the accidents of history and the lottery of our genetic make-up decide whether we stand or fall.

"I myself am indifferent honest, yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me...."

[mickeythehibbee]

1. Do these statistics differentiate between pre-mediated murder and heat of the moment? I think there is a difference between the two and for that reason I think there should be CP in certain circumstances.

If the stats are largely the same throughout the world for both it would indicate that a certain % of people are just f'd up we're better off without them.

2. By looking at your point from number 1. If the death sentence isn't enough of a deterrent then why would longer prison sentences be?

I think the law should be more about protecting the inncent people rather than trying to use sentences to act as a deterrent because people will commit crime either way. Longer sentences would mean innocent people are protected from these ****bags for a longer period of time.

Edit: why is sc um starred out? :LOL:

Theres no evidence it is but in has 2 inherent advantages over the death penalty i.e.

1. No matter what people say the prison system is not a complete failure and can in fact rehabilitate some people. Surely if we manage to rehabillitate someone and then release them to the benefit of society that can only be a good thing?

2. It's the ultimate insurance policy in case we make a mistake. How could we as a society condemn murderers of innocents when we may inadvertently do the same?

Although i do understand the views of those who claim the death penalty, i'm afraid i just can't do it as i could never support the extinguishing of a human life against that persons will. I just don't see it as the answer in a fair and moral society (whether ours has eithers of these qualities is debateable of course:wink:).

[Hannah_hfc]

If we had capital punishement Colin Stagg would be dead. We would know by now that he was innocent, but he'd still be dead. The worst of the thing is though, that the woman he was convicted of murdering would also be dead.

If those pro capital punishment could tell me what killing murderers achieves, other than revenge, and if they could guarantee that there would be no miscarriages of justice, I'd at least listen to them. Unfortunately their arguments are so caught up in knee jerk, emotional responses, that they defeat themselves the minute they open their mouths.

As for those who say they'd happily do it, they should do a bit of research into the life histories of the hangmen. Most signed up as gung ho young men, only to end up emotionally disturbed as they grew older and had time to think about what they were doing. The king of them all - Pierrepoint, is a good example. It was he who said that capital punishment is nothing more than revenge.

It's easy to say kill murderers, but how many of the people saying it have any idea at all what it is like to watch someone die?

Exactly, I've still to hear a reasonable well thought argument for capital punishment.
Excellent post FR, sums it up in a nutshell for me :agree:

[Woody1985]

This may well be so - I'm not disagreeing - but how do we tell who they are? And what if we get it wrong?

I'm not very happy with the idea of "criminal" people and "innocent" people, actually. I'd say we're all just "people" - sometimes we behave well, sometimes badly. IMO we all have the capacity to do terrible things to one another. We're all potential ****bags - nurture and the accidents of history and the lottery of our genetic make-up decide whether we stand or fall.

"I myself am indifferent honest, yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me...."

I agree that there is a fine line in some cases but perhaps only for the most severe instances for CP. For example, a guy goes out and murders 8 people or systematically abuses someone in the way Fritzl did then I think they should be prime candidates for CP. IMO these people cannot be rehabilitated and perhaps do not deserve the chance to be (but that's a different debate).

[Woody1985]

Theres no evidence it is but in has 2 inherent advantages over the death penalty i.e.

1. No matter what people say the prison system is not a complete failure and can in fact rehabilitate some people. Surely if we manage to rehabillitate someone and then release them to the benefit of society that can only be a good thing?

2. It's the ultimate insurance policy in case we make a mistake. How could we as a society condemn murderers of innocents when we may inadvertently do the same?

Although i do understand the views of those who claim the death penalty, i'm afraid i just can't do it as i could never support the extinguishing of a human life against that persons will. I just don't see it as the answer in a fair and moral society (whether ours has eithers of these qualities is debateable of course:wink:).

1. I think that some people cannot be rehabilitated (as per my above reply) but agree that some people should be given the chance. However, are there lots of examples of serial killers / child abusers etc being rehabilitated after spending 20 years behind bars?

2. I agree that being in jail gives people the chance to be set free if it can be proved that the jury were wrong / not all evidence provided etc. How many people find themselves in this situation.

IMO it's a pretty shtty insurance policy that could see you inside for 20 years, especially if you are say 35 when you were convicted. I'm not even convinced it is better than death because of the things that no doubt go on inside jails, the boredom, missing family, being locked in a cell etc for that length of time. Although it's hard to weigh them up and could only really be answered by people in that situation.

[mickeythehibbee]

1. I think that some people cannot be rehabilitated (as per my above reply) but agree that some people should be given the chance. However, are there lots of examples of serial killers / child abusers etc being rehabilitated after spending 20 years behind bars?

2. I agree that being in jail gives people the chance to be set free if it can be proved that the jury were wrong / not all evidence provided etc. How many people find themselves in this situation.

IMO it's a pretty shtty insurance policy that could see you inside for 20 years, especially if you are say 35 when you were convicted. I'm not even convinced it is better than death because of the things that no doubt go on inside jails, the boredom, missing family, being locked in a cell etc for that length of time. Although it's hard to weigh them up and could only really be answered by people in that situation.

I disagree fairly vehemently with this.

I think you'll find that most miscarriage of justice victims would far rather live to see both their name cleared and their family again. When you get to the situation where you see the argument "Oh well if there's a miscarriage of justice maybe it's more merciful to kill an innocent person than to live for twenty years in jail", your in dangerous territory.

Given a choice between life and death i think you'll find that most innocent people would rather stay alive and fight to clear their name and get to see their families again.

[Woody1985]

I disagree fairly vehemently with this.

I think you'll find that most miscarriage of justice victims would far rather live to see both their name cleared and their family again. When you get to the situation where you see the argument "Oh well if there's a miscarriage of justice maybe it's more merciful to kill an innocent person than to live for twenty years in jail", your in dangerous territory.

Given a choice between life and death i think you'll find that most innocent people would rather stay alive and fight to clear their name and get to see their families again.

How can you vehemently disagree when I've said that I'm not convinced either way and said that only someone in that situation could confirm :confused:

* Have you asked every person who has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice?
* How many people who have been in that situation have committed suicide?

I'm not saying that I think people should die because they've been convicted rightly or wrongly.

[danhibees1875]

Yes, but only for serious crimes like murder, paedophilia, rape etc and when it is proved beyond doubt that they are guilty.

Also think that prisoners should have less 'rights' aswell as mentioned above.

Also a viable alternative to the death penalty could be scientific testing.

[Killiehibbie]

The threat of the death penalty never stopped a crime from happening so no it should not be reintroduced. Too many innocent people have been executed in the past.

[--------]

I agree that there is a fine line in some cases but perhaps only for the most severe instances for CP. For example, a guy goes out and murders 8 people or systematically abuses someone in the way Fritzl did then I think they should be prime candidates for CP. IMO these people cannot be rehabilitated and perhaps do not deserve the chance to be (but that's a different debate).


I see your point.

Can I draw your attention to my original quote from Albert Pierrepoint's book?

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people... The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."

The trouble is, who gets to decide which offenders are the ones who deserve to die?

AP started off in complete agreement with the principle of capital punishment. He took the view that if the courts had condemned a man or woman to death, someone would ave to be found to carry out that sentence, and that that someone should be competent, efficient, and decent in the way he went about it.

He was appointed to carry out the sentences of the British War Crimes Tribunal at Hamelin after the war, executing about 200 convicted Nazi war criminals. Most folks would have no argument with those sentences, and AP was hailed as a hero when he came home. Ten years later he was the target of abuse as a 'murderer' after his involvement in cases like those of Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, and Ruth Ellis. Evans was almost certainly entirely innocent of murder; Bentley was also innocent, and probably unfit to plead; Ellis would today almost certainly be convicted of manslaughter, not murder, on the basis that she acted while the balance of her mind was disturbed. In all three cases there are serious questions about the conduct of certain police officers in regard to the investigation of the crimes.

It's not an easy question to answer, I know. The Wests, Hindley and Brady, Manuel, Christie - I couldn't argue that any of them didn't deserve to hang. Yet only Christie did so, and that after swearing away the life of Timothy Evans.

I just feel it's safer for us as a society to refrain from executing criminals. It's safer for the people who have to carry out the executions, for the police who have to investigate and process the crimes, for the prison officers, and for us as individuals with moral cosnciences.

Life sentences under a strict but humane regime (stricter that is than prison is now) would seem to me to be the answer, but I can't dismiss your position.

[Woody1985]

Doddie,

I appreciate everything you've said and you obviously know a lot about the subject.

Do you know a lot about the stance in the countries that employ this just now and what opinion is in those places?

I think until the law became infallible we'll always be in murky waters (and probably even after). We all know the law won't become 100% accurate so this debate will no doubt go on for generations.

[--------]

Doddie,

I appreciate everything you've said and you obviously know a lot about the subject.

Do you know a lot about the stance in the countries that employ this just now and what opinion is in those places?

I think until the law became infallible we'll always be in murky waters (and probably even after). We all know the law won't become 100% accurate so this debate will no doubt go on for generations.


From all I've read and heard about the US, I'd say that Pierrepoint's conclusion I've quoted is pretty accurate. In Islamic countries, I'd guess the same. I don't know much about African countries that employ it, I'm afraid.

The difficulty I see is that many anti-execution campaigners seem to forget all about the victims and the victims' families, while many pro-execution advocates fail to bear on mind the shortcomings of the police and judiciary, and also tend to demonise all offenders - "these people" is the phrase, when in fact any one of us could find ourselves accused falsely, or indeed any one of us could find ourselves actually guuilty of taking a life.

You have a PM, btw.

[mickeythehibbee]

How can you vehemently disagree when I've said that I'm not convinced either way and said that only someone in that situation could confirm :confused:

* Have you asked every person who has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice?
* How many people who have been in that situation have committed suicide?

I'm not saying that I think people should die because they've been convicted rightly or wrongly.


My apologies, i misunderstood you, i was under the impression that you were saying you supported the suggested view. i was just meaning i am generally against the idea of that in some situations it was better to die than live.

I guess i should read something properly before posting a rant :doh:

Again apologies!:agree:

[Woody1985]

My apologies, i misunderstood you, i was under the impression that you were saying you supported the suggested view. i was just meaning i am generally against the idea of that in some situations it was better to die than live.

I guess i should read something properly before posting a rant :doh:

Again apologies!:agree:

No worries.

I take your point but was just trying to look at it from an objective point of view. If someone had been given a life sentence incorrectly then it may actually be hard for them to accept it and live for 20/30 years in a cell.

I suppose that might throw up another interesting question. I wonder how many people have commited suicide knowing that they were innocent but couldn't bare to live like that knowing the had little or no chance of true justice.

[mickeythehibbee]

No worries.

I take your point but was just trying to look at it from an objective point of view. If someone had been given a life sentence incorrectly then it may actually be hard for them to accept it and live for 20/30 years in a cell.

I suppose that might throw up another interesting question. I wonder how many people have commited suicide knowing that they were innocent but couldn't bare to live like that knowing the had little or no chance of true justice.

I thought that as well. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything on it when i looked. Plus the clamour to look for evidence to acquit would probably end with their life so i'd imagine even of those you cold find there's a fair argument for claiming that it's too low and unreliable.

Not that i'm any expert tho? :dunno:

[capitals_finest]

If we had capital punishement Colin Stagg would be dead. We would know by now that he was innocent, but he'd still be dead. The worst of the thing is though, that the woman he was convicted of murdering would also be dead.

If those pro capital punishment could tell me what killing murderers achieves, other than revenge, and if they could guarantee that there would be no miscarriages of justice, I'd at least listen to them. Unfortunately their arguments are so caught up in knee jerk, emotional responses, that they defeat themselves the minute they open their mouths.

As for those who say they'd happily do it, they should do a bit of research into the life histories of the hangmen. Most signed up as gung ho young men, only to end up emotionally disturbed as they grew older and had time to think about what they were doing. The king of them all - Pierrepoint, is a good example. It was he who said that capital punishment is nothing more than revenge.

It's easy to say kill murderers, but how many of the people saying it have any idea at all what it is like to watch someone die?

True but so what? I m not religious. If someone was to purposely hurt any of my family for no good reason with intent to kill them or seriously damage/hurt them then i would want to hurt them back. Especially if the victim was a child. If this makes me an animal then so be it.

TBF though i have seen many a debate on here about the subject and i think we are probably a better society for not using capital punishment. As people have said it is ok in certain extreme circumstances but where do we draw the line? That is the problem.

The thing that annoys me about the anti death penalty brigade is the fact that we indirectly kill innocent people every day of the year by doing nothing, little or less than we could do. We are all murderers. Yet you can spend time arguing and defending the right for the sickest nastiest motha ****a you can ever imagine to live and defend the costs of caring for them while millions starve because of yours and my ignorance.

In conclusion, i have nothing against taking a bad person’s life, i just don’t know if we can trust the state in doing so in a fair and consistent manner. If we could develop a 100% mistake free system of eradicating the nastiest of the nastiest bassas - which we probably can nowadays with forensic science, cctv and above all common sense when it comes to repeat offenders- then we should be taking out these people Why are their lives more important than the lives of the people that are dieing from lack of clean water, food, shelter, any medical careetc. We should be more concerned about saving their lives. We live in a far from ideal world where we need to make choices. I choose the goodies.

[capitals_finest]

From all I've read and heard about the US, I'd say that Pierrepoint's conclusion I've quoted is pretty accurate. In Islamic countries, I'd guess the same. I don't know much about African countries that employ it, I'm afraid.

The difficulty I see is that many anti-execution campaigners seem to forget all about the victims and the victims' families, while many pro-execution advocates fail to bear on mind the shortcomings of the police and judiciary, and also tend to demonise all offenders - "these people" is the phrase, when in fact any one of us could find ourselves accused falsely, or indeed any one of us could find ourselves actually guuilty of taking a life.

You have a PM, btw.

Good point and one i agree with.It is a great old debate and is difficult to really get your head around. Like most things though neither side are really right i think we need to meet in the middle somewhere. I just hate the way people immediately become all high and mighty lade-da guardian reading know alls just because they are anti death penalty. I m not directing that at anyone on here btw (far from it) more people i know outside .net (in the real world :wink:).

[Mike777]

Labour Prisons!

Hard Labour!!

this current prison system is a shambles, criminals have no fear going up to court, Life sentances really mean 10 years.
it's us the tax payers who pays the price, we have to pay for there time lazying about doing nothing.

We should be given life and meaning it. And it should always be HARD LABOUR. 10 hours a day. we should be sending are rubbish to them, instead of india or china let them sort it out.

In malawi you can get 5 years plus Hard labour or stealing a bike!
i got the chance to view the insides of Blantyre prison and it really is a ugly site, Overgrowding, No food, No Clean Water, No Doctor or Medication.
The place stunk, on average 3 people died per week, Rape levels are extremly high as with Stigma.


So Yes for Hard Labour.

[RyeSloan]

Doddie...some excellent points and some superb quotes to back them up. Although there is always the desire for revenge I think your points portray exactly why that should never be enshrined in law.

:top marks

[GhostofBolivar]

From all I've read and heard about the US, I'd say that Pierrepoint's conclusion I've quoted is pretty accurate. In Islamic countries, I'd guess the same. I don't know much about African countries that employ it, I'm afraid.

The difficulty I see is that many anti-execution campaigners seem to forget all about the victims and the victims' families, while many pro-execution advocates fail to bear on mind the shortcomings of the police and judiciary, and also tend to demonise all offenders - "these people" is the phrase, when in fact any one of us could find ourselves accused falsely, or indeed any one of us could find ourselves actually guuilty of taking a life.

You have a PM, btw.

"I also became involved with the victim's family and saw how the death penalty had nothing to do with their healing. If anything, it prolonged their waiting for this illusory healing, which was supposed to come to them by sitting on the front row and watching [the killer] die."

- Sister Helen Prejean

[Phil D. Rolls]

In conclusion, i have nothing against taking a bad person’s life, i just don’t know if we can trust the state in doing so in a fair and consistent manner. If we could develop a 100% mistake free system of eradicating the nastiest of the nastiest bassas - which we probably can nowadays with forensic science, cctv and above all common sense when it comes to repeat offenders- then we should be taking out these people Why are their lives more important than the lives of the people that are dieing from lack of clean water, food, shelter, any medical careetc. We should be more concerned about saving their lives. We live in a far from ideal world where we need to make choices. I choose the goodies.

It's all down to the human factor for me. Humans make mistakes and that's why they can't be trusted. I agree with you, there are more positive things we should be thinking about than executing bad people. To my mind, they are few and far between and we spend too much time worrying about them.

The United States executes more people than anywhere else than China, as far as I know. They also have one of the highest homicide rates in the world. What does that say about CP as a deterrent? I think it's a much more complex issue than an eye for an eye, and as humans we should be able to move beyond that, accept that sh*t happens and use all our energies for making the world better for those who are affected by these crimes. Sod the criminal, they don't deserve to be spoken of ever again. Lock them away and pretend they never existed.

[Hibrandenburg]

Doddie...some excellent points and some superb quotes to back them up. Although there is always the desire for revenge I think your points portray exactly why that should never be enshrined in law.

:top marks

Maybe it's the "Old Testament Atheist" in me :wink:but the urge for revenge can be so strong that it can be much more powerful than the offenders motivation in the first place.

I realise that the eye for an eye argument is madness and find Gandhi's argument against it the most convincing. Still deep down inside the craving for self justice can be irresistable.

[--------]

"I also became involved with the victim's family and saw how the death penalty had nothing to do with their healing. If anything, it prolonged their waiting for this illusory healing, which was supposed to come to them by sitting on the front row and watching [the killer] die."

- Sister Helen Prejean


Prejean admits that at the beginning of her involvement with condemned prisoners she ommitted to contact the victims' families, for the very good reason that she felt her presence would be unwelcome to them.

Once she reaised that victims' families want and need synpathetic contact, she made it her business to contact the victims' families as soon as she had made contact with the killer in prison. I believe she still leaves it to them whether they make closer contact - she doesn't visit unless she's asked.

She also makes the very cogent point that the move in the US from hanging/ electric chair/ gas chamber to lethal injection isn't for the 'benefit' of the condemned man or woman - it's to spare the feelings of the witnesses and make it easier for the state to continue to execute.

Logically, as soon as the US moved towards lethal injection as being more 'humane' than the other methods, those other methods were rendered unconstitutional as being ipso facto 'cruel and unusual' - John Grisham floats that idea in "The Chamber". The US Supreme Court as assembled by Reagan and Bush #1, of course, has thrown that idea out.

[sKipper]

Never, under any circumstances.

[HibsMax]

This old chestnut. LOL.

I can't answer the question because in "this" country (USA) it is already legal in some states. But to answer a slightly different question, I agree with the death penalty...in an ideal world where mistakes are not made. But in a perfect world people wouldn't kill one another....

[NAE NOOKIE]

No

Killing is wrong unless your life or that of a loved one is in danger and you do it in self defense.