oneteaminglasgow Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Certainly in this country, it was all pre-DNA which has made a massive difference to solving a lot of crimes, certainly the serious ones. I'm for it under some circumstances, there are people that we're never going to let out, serial killers, beasts etc, we're not going to 'fix' them and even if we could, they've been put away for the rest of their lives for a reason, its not just about rehabilitation, its also about protecting the rest of us and reinforcing the message of what our society deems unacceptable behaviour. So, to reinforce the idea that we, as a society, think that killing people is wrong, you think the state should be given the power to murder people? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, rhliston said: Yes their should be Capital Punishment for certain types of crime, such as for serial killers, child killers, Police Killers, Prison Officers, where it can be proven that the killer/Killers deliberately went out of their way to kill people. "there" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Just now, Romeo said: "there" People who can't differentiate between "their", "there" and "they're" should definitely be banged up 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, rhliston said: Yes their should be Capital Punishment for certain types of crime, such as for serial killers, child killers, Police Killers, Prison Officers, where it can be proven that the killer/Killers deliberately went out of their way to kill people. How would you put people to death without deliberately going out of your way to kill people? Killing people is either wrong or it isn't wrong. You're saying "Killing is wrong when the public do it but it's OK when the government does it." Even if you 'are' willing to overlook that double standard, do you really trust the government to determine who should die and who should live? Or are you happy to take the American approach where guilt or innocence is less important than the skin colour, wealth and social status of the accused? There are some interesting stats here, for those interested.Innocence and Death Penalty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 The problem of being wrongly convicted is the main thing that has me against the death penalty. If only one person is ever sentenced to death, that's one person too many. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 38 minutes ago, chomp my root said: I'm for it under some circumstances Can I just say, this shocks absolutely nobody. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Equalizer Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 50 minutes ago, rhliston said: Yes their should be Capital Punishment for certain types of crime, such as for serial killers, child killers, Police Killers, Prison Officers, where it can be proven that the killer/Killers deliberately went out of their way to kill people. What about killer police? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 1 minute ago, The Equalizer said: What about killer police? Send them to the USA... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhliston Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 15 minutes ago, The Equalizer said: What about killer police? HANG THEM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 1 hour ago, The Moonster said: Can I just say, this shocks absolutely nobody. And why's that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richey Edwards Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Adam said: Whilst I agree with your post completely, there are a number of prisoners within the United Kingdom (less than 100), who are serving whole life tariffs, therefore it is not an open and shut case that the emphasis has moved completely away from the removal of offenders from society. I know there are people who have committed horrific crimes who will never be released. People who have committed mass murder, serial killings, horrific acts of abuse are most likely highly disturbed and have minimal chance of being able to reintegrate back into society. However, that does not mean that they should be executed. Under no circumstances does anyone have the right to take another person's life, whether that be through murder or through "legal" means like the death penalty. As much as people might think that it is unjust that murderers and abusers can live out the rest of their lives in prison while their victims are either dead or have to live with the abuse for the rest of their lives, putting them to death would also be unjust. The old saying that two wrongs don't make a right is true. Edited January 11, 2018 by Richey Edwards 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Fire this into the Junior forum and see what the responses are like.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said: Fire this into the Junior forum and see what the responses are like.. They probably don't know its banned. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) No. When you think about it there isn’t much of an argument to support it. It doesn’t act as a deterrent to crime, one look at the USA can show us that. The murder rate is consistently higher in states with the death penalty than without it. (From here: Death Penalty Information Center). Many of the people sentenced to death, end up jailed on Death Row for a significant period of time as well. Unless the UK came up with a different system (generally losing the right to appeal as I think it’s often appeals that keep them on Death Row for a number of years) so we wouldn’t end up saving much money from not having people in jail. As said already, there is also too much danger that an innocent person could be executed and later pardoned, when it’s too late. I think the only argument for it is that it’s “an eye for an eye” which is understandable but as said before, two wrongs don’t make a right. It can’t be that killing is wrong unless we are the ones doing it to punish people. Edited January 11, 2018 by Jambomo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 12 minutes ago, Jambomo said: No. When you think about it there isn’t much of an argument to support it. It doesn’t act as a deterrent to crime, one look at the USA can show us that. The murder rate is consistently higher in states with the death penalty than without it. (From here: Death Penalty Information Center). Many of the people sentenced to death, end up jailed on Death Row for a significant period of time as well. Unless the UK came up with a different system (generally losing the right to appeal as I think it’s often appeals that keep them on Death Row for a number of years) so we wouldn’t end up saving much money from not having people in jail. As said already, there is also too much danger that an innocent person could be executed and later pardoned, when it’s too late. I think the only argument for it is that it’s “an eye for an eye” which is understandable but as said before, two wrongs don’t make a right. It can’t be that killing is wrong unless we are the ones doing it to punish people. I think that's the wrong justification myself, a society saying that someone who commits certain crimes isn't fit to be among us is where we are at the moment, that society then says they will pay a large amount of money to keep them in confinement until they die (we're not talking about many people admittedly). Just because you have a death penalty as a form of punishment doesn't mean that it would be getting dished out willy nilly, if there's doubt then there would still be life imprisonment. Here's a leftfield alternative, seeing as how as a nation we're comfortable with private companies being paid to look after our prisoners, why not 'outsource' it to other countries, I reckon The Philippines might be a cheaper option and willing to take our 'nawty' boys and girls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 10 minutes ago, chomp my root said: doesn't mean that it would be getting dished out willy nilly, 11 minutes ago, chomp my root said: The Philippines 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, chomp my root said: I think that's the wrong justification myself, a society saying that someone who commits certain crimes isn't fit to be among us is where we are at the moment, that society then says they will pay a large amount of money to keep them in confinement until they die (we're not talking about many people admittedly). Just because you have a death penalty as a form of punishment doesn't mean that it would be getting dished out willy nilly, if there's doubt then there would still be life imprisonment. Here's a leftfield alternative, seeing as how as a nation we're comfortable with private companies being paid to look after our prisoners, why not 'outsource' it to other countries, I reckon The Philippines might be a cheaper option and willing to take our 'nawty' boys and girls. 1. How do you determine someone is definitely guilty? 2. How do you avoid undermining guilty verdicts if you have a weird system where you say there is a doubt despite the fact they’re guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Edited January 11, 2018 by The OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, The OP said: 1. How do you determine someone is definitely guilty? 2. How do you avoid undermining guilty verdicts if you have a weird system where you say there is a doubt despite the fact they’re guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 1. Really ? For starters, a guilty confession backed up by DNA. 2. See 1. -------------------- 3. It ain't gonna happen anyway so don't get too wound up about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 1 minute ago, chomp my root said: 1. Really ? For starters, a guilty confession backed up by DNA. 2. See 1. -------------------- 3. It ain't gonna happen anyway so don't get too wound up about it. Not getting wound up, just testing your idea because this is a discussion forum. People confess to things they didn’t do for various reasons and DNA evidence is circumstantial. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Just now, The OP said: Not getting wound up, just testing your idea because this is a discussion forum. People confess to things they didn’t do for various reasons and DNA evidence is circumstantial. People also commit crimes, its a pickle alright. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.