Just splitting this off from the police questions topic:

I don't agree with it, not because I don't think some people who *are* guilty of some crimes would be better off removed from this planet, but rather because of the many convictions which have since been found to be wrong, and which would have previously attracted the death penalty.

I quoted the recent George Kelly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,974948,00.html) case as an example.

Halevan replied by saying that the conviction was rules as unsafe, and they still don't know who did it, but that's precisely my point - if there's any doubt as to who did do it, you can't go killing people just because it *might* have been them.

Opinions please....

I um and ah over this one. You cannot disagree that the current punishment system for people who HAVE committed awful crimes is a practical joke!!!
For some of these people there is no 'reform'.

My personal example is this. When I was working in Crawley (1999) I was advised NEVER to be on my own in the office with a particular worker. The company were obliged to give him a job, but he had just been released after committing murder and rape. :shock:

Needless to say I was NEVER left alone with him. Last year there was a story in the newspaper detailing the attempted murder and assult of a young female whilst with her boyfriend. He attacked them both but they escaped. Guess who was pictured as the guilty party???

Now that isn't justice either for the person he orginally murdered NOR the two people who he attempted to kill the second time round.

I would feel a lot better knowing that those who seek to harm and cause a trouble in our soceity were either permantly removed or at least being punished - which at the moment they are not.

Moon Maiden

I would argue that a true life-term is a worse punishment than death, but that's a different issue.

There are plenty of criminals who have committed attrocities but have later been rehabilitated back into society. However, there are some prisoners who will never be let out because they will always be a threat to to others.

In any case, I think the death penalty is inappropriate as there is always a slim chance that the wrong person has been committed.

I think the death penalty should be used in some cases.

Rapists, child abusers and some murderers should be sentenced to death. But, only if DNA evidence is found and the conviction is 100% safe. In this day and age it should be possible to remove any doubt, with the use of forensics etc...

I don't believe rapists and peadophiles etc..can ever be rehabilitated, they are to far gone so to speak. What they do is just barbaric.

The problem is the 100% bit.

Fingerprints used to be thougth foolproof and unique - this has since been shown not to be the case.

There are people who have been convicted using dna evidence in the past who, as the technology has been refined, have now been released as it's been realised that the old technology was inadequate.

It is dangerous to assume a technology is mature when somebody's life is at stake.

There are many cases of paedophiles, etc being succesfully reformed, but of course, this doesn't apply to everyone.

I have a friend who is a psychologist who is against the death penalty for a reason I hadn't given any thought to. Their ambition is to study the psychology of serial rapists/murderers and to be able to prevent future rapes/murders by identifying in advance potential r/ms.

Lock them up for life by all means but let's use them to find out what has caused this aberration.

I'm against the death penalty for many reasons but mostly because you can't say sorry.

I am Pro Death Penalty. I think certain crimes warrant the death penalty. In this day and age we have DNA, which is as good as it gets.

An interesting thing is today a court overturned George Kelly's conviction for shooting a man to death while committing a burglary, some 53 years after he had already been hanged. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, citing evidence unearthed in police files in 1991 that was not presented in the original trial. The document, a 1949 statement to Liverpool police, identified another man as admitting to the murder.

I'm not sure whether its a good or bad idea really. I have to say though, that people who have killed others or violently raped others simply don't have the RIGHT to be reformed and given a second chance into society. Whether they are deprived of this via the death penalty or a life sentence that MEANS life is where I am undecided. Whilst I would have no qualms with murderers being sentenced to death, I am concerned about innocent people being found guilty and then being killed. Even with DNA, a person can be set up to look as though they did something if someone hated them enough.

Originally posted by "t020"

I'm not sure whether its a good or bad idea really. I have to say though, that people who have killed others or violently raped others simply don't have the RIGHT to be reformed and given a second chance into society. Whether they are deprived of this via the death penalty or a life sentence that MEANS life is where I am undecided. Whilst I would have no qualms with murderers being sentenced to death, I am concerned about innocent people being found guilty and then being killed. Even with DNA, a person can be set up to look as though they did something if someone hated them enough.

True, people can be set up but that's an entirely seperate issue. For instance some people confess to crimes they haven't committed, perhaps the police put too much heat on them. Take Ian Huntley for example, now if it turns out that he is guilty then I would be in favour of Death Penalty for him. As it stands we do not know the evidence as of yet, but already he is seen as been a guilty man, how on earth can he ever hope of receiving a fair trial? The fact that he has tried to commit suicide means in some peoples eyes that he is trying to take the easy way out and therefore must be guilty, not even considering that he feels he could have been fitted up for the crime and feels he doesn't stand any chance of a fair trial and doesn't want to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

In this day and age we have DNA, which is as good as it gets.

How do you know? That's what people thought ten years ago and since then, convictions based on DNA evidence have since been overturned as more recent technology has found them to be incorrect.

There's no way of telling whether this will happen again in the future.

Even if DNA was 100% accurate and was matched to someone they could still have been set up. For example a hair could've been planted, skin cells, or blood, or any other bodily fluids. I'm not saying it would be easy but it would be by no means impossible if you knew someone and wanted to stitch them up. This really shows that you can't ever be 100% certain, which makes me think life sentencing, meaning LIFE, would be more effective. Furthermore the very fact that Huntley tried to kill himself supports the argument that death is more appealing than a life long sentence, so surely this is a more effective punishment anyway, and if mistakes have been made, they can at least in part be rectified at a later date?

Originally posted by "Mike"

In this day and age we have DNA, which is as good as it gets.

How do you know? That's what people thought ten years ago and since then, convictions based on DNA evidence have since been overturned as more recent technology has found them to be incorrect.

There's no way of telling whether this will happen again in the future.

Because it's considered the biggest scientific breakthrough in crime ever. Statistics speak for themselves, No 2 DNA's same. DNA has solved many crimes and gained convictions for crimes that would have been left unsolved often with the guilty person walking free. The conclusive evidence that DNA provides is almost infallible. Tampering of evidence is always a possibilty but will it ever be possible to totally eradicate that? I think not.

Originally posted by "t020"

Even if DNA was 100% accurate and was matched to someone they could still have been set up. For example a hair could've been planted, skin cells, or blood, or any other bodily fluids. I'm not saying it would be easy but it would be by no means impossible if you knew someone and wanted to stitch them up. This really shows that you can't ever be 100% certain, which makes me think life sentencing, meaning LIFE, would be more effective. Furthermore the very fact that Huntley tried to kill himself supports the argument that death is more appealing than a life long sentence, so surely this is a more effective punishment anyway, and if mistakes have been made, they can at least in part be rectified at a later date?

It's just Life long sentences may not be more appealing for any victims families.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

Because it's considered the biggest scientific breakthrough in crime ever. Statistics speak for themselves, No 2 DNA's same.
As you've just said - almost. Whilst there is still a doubt then you can't just go round killing people.
I know that DNA testing has helped many crimes but it's still an emerging technology.

As I've said twice already, there were people who were convicted using early DNA testing technology who have since been freed as the technology has advanced further and it was realised that the original testing methods were incorrect. As it's still a technology that is being developed and refined, there is no way that you can say that that situation won't arise again.

A solution would be to apply natural justice.
If an executed man is posthumously pardoned, then the judge that handed that sentence down owes the family of the deceased one life.

The executed person's remaining famliy should then have the right to pass a death sentence on the Judge or a surviving relative.

Judges would then think a little more carefully before handing down death sentences.

The death penalty is only acceptable if you believe that executing innocent people is a price worth paying justice.

in other words, if you were innocent and incorrectly convicted for a crime which carried the death penalty, you would accept your sentence being carried out to further the greater good.

I for one do not.

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

A solution would be to apply natural justice.
If an executed man is posthumously pardoned, then the judge that handed that sentence down owes the family of the deceased one life.

The executed person's remaining famliy should then have the right to pass a death sentence on the Judge or a surviving relative.

Judges would then think a little more carefully before handing down death sentences.

The death penalty is only acceptable if you believe that executing innocent people is a price worth paying justice.

in other words, if you were innocent and incorrectly convicted for a crime which carried the death penalty, you would accept your sentence being carried out to further the greater good.

I for one do not.

Of Course giving such a sentence would require absolute concreate evidence with no doubt - beyond reasonable doubt would not be sufficient. I do believe that cases exist where there is no doubt about the outcome. They are probably rare though.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

The conclusive evidence that DNA provides is almost infallible. Tampering of evidence is always a possibilty but will it ever be possible to totally eradicate that? I think not.

DNA evidence is very fallible. The science is good bt poorly understood by juries and is presented to them by expert witnesses, that then use unhelpful and spurious statements like
"the chances of anyone else matching the DNA are 60 million to one".

Which simply isn't true.

The evidence may be faultlessly obtained, but the interpretation of the evidence on behalf of the Jury is often lamentably bad.

Also, it is completely impossible to rule out contamination, so using DNA evidence can lengthen court cases whilst the investigation in court turns to the veracity of testing something invisible to the human eye and trying to establish where it came from.

DNA evidence is useful, but can only really be used in addition to other, more tangible evidence. It is not, as the police hoped, a magic bullet.

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

The conclusive evidence that DNA provides is almost infallible. Tampering of evidence is always a possibilty but will it ever be possible to totally eradicate that? I think not.

DNA evidence is very fallible. The science is good bt poorly understood by juries and is presented to them by expert witnesses, that then use unhelpful and spurious statements like
"the chances of anyone else matching the DNA are 60 million to one".

Which simply isn't true.

The evidence may be faultlessly obtained, but the interpretation of the evidence on behalf of the Jury is often lamentably bad.

Also, it is completely impossible to rule out contamination, so using DNA evidence can lengthen court cases whilst the investigation in court turns to the veracity of testing something invisible to the human eye and trying to establish where it came from.

DNA evidence is useful, but can only really be used in addition to other, more tangible evidence. It is not, as the police hoped, a magic bullet.

I am not totally convinced Phanerothyme. The very thing that DNA has been responsible for re-opening criminal cases, quashing verdicts. Lots of unsolved cases from many moons ago have only been solved through the emergence of DNA.

I don't doubt it, but that doesn't really address the issue.

If anyone here can explain to me exactly how DNA matching works in terms of criminal evidence, then I'd be really interested to hear.

I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself to have a good general understanding of science. Now if a geneticist were to explain to me exactly how DNA 'fingerprinting' (an ill chosen term if ever there was one) is carried out, I have no doubt that he would lose me completely after... The huge genome is cut up with restriction enzymes to produce short, manageable DNA fragments. These bacterial enzymes recognize specific four to six base sequences and reliably cleave DNA at a specific base pair within this span. Cleaving human DNA with one of these enzymes breaks the chromosomes down into millions of differently sized DNA fragments ranging from 100 to more than 10,000 base pairs long.
which is when it starts to get densely technical.

This information then has to be imparted to a jury of people just like you and me, by an expert witness for either the prosecution or defence, although the should be impartial, often they are primed by the legal team.

So the evidence may even be infallible, but it is its interpretation on behalf of a jury that decides how the evidence affects the case.

In a similar vein, there are plans to make special non-jury financial courts because jurors cannot be expected to grasp the insane complications and tonnes of paper evidence often a hallmark of city fraud cases.

Your right and I could see a possibility where that would throw a jury into disorder if explained in such a fashion. I'd like to imagine that this would be broken down with detailed deciphering. It makes sense. :)

Couple of scary stories regarding dna mix ups.

http://www.forensicdna.com/DNAerror.htm

Halevan said, they (the court) said George Kelly was not found innocent either.

The UK justice system doesn't attempt to prove anyone innocent, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, so no court would ever prove anyone innocent.

George Kelly was found guilty and hanged for murder, did the law make a mistake? who knows? the details are lost in the mists of time.

Originally posted by "halevan"

George Kelly was found guilty and hanged for murder, did the law make a mistake? who knows? the details are lost in the mists of time.

No they're not lost at all - the police files contain a statement from another man who admitted to the crime. This evidence never reached court. Did the law make a mistake? Errrr....yes, that is more than obvious.

That does not mean a thing, people have been and still are confessing to murder they haven't commited for years and years. So much so, that the police just ignore them knowing they are just attention seekers.

Ok, so if you think it's ok to hang somebody even though there's been another confession, why do you think the conviction is now considered unsafe?

I don't say the conviction was unsafe, that is what the judge said.

Yes, that's what I asked...if you read what I posted....but I'll clarify:

Why do you think that the conviction is now considered unsafe by the courts?

I will tell you when I know the facts, not having access to all the evidence, I can't say,surely you must realise that both you and I don't know the details so how can we judge?

Oooh this is just the kind of subject I like to get my teeth into :D

As you would expect, having long since marked me as an anarchic libertarian (or whatever the hell it was), I am dead against the death penalty.

1. If an error has been found to occur - the Birmingham six for instance then you cannot put it right after they are dead.

2. If it is wrong to take a life and if all life is sacred then so is the life of the murderer

Do we have to give the death penalty to the hangman ?

3. You cannot rehabilitate a dead villain

4. Despite the families of victims thinking that it will make them feel better to know the villain is dead, in actual fact there is no relief from the pain they feel. When Myra Hindley died in jail one of her victim's parents said she was sorry to think she wasnt still alive and suffering. It is a curious state of affairs and you never know how you would react, but it doesnt bring the peace that victims families think it will bring

5. The methods are all appalling - and in USA they practically sell tickets which is about as un-human rights as I can imagine.

6. I think I will go back to 2 again. I think life is sacrosanct and could never condone taking someone else's life, legally or illegally.

Cheers

Should we bring the death penalty back? or harsher penalties for criminals.

Yes for serious crime.

Serial Killings and what not.
Or maybe keep the fact they we don't have a death penalty... but lfe is to mean life. No chance of repreave or paroll. That I would like to see.

I think the figures are in "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore, that it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them imprisoned for life.

However, I am all for the death penalty. The only drawback is making a safe conviction. DNA can help, but only if it isn't tampered with and the 'suspect' is fitted up.

And what of cases like Tony Martin? Would he have got the death penalty if it were still around?

Originally posted by alchresearch
However, I am all for the death penalty. The only drawback is making a safe conviction. that's a pretty big drawback!

i say no - even if it is possible to have 100% safe convictions (which i don't believe will ever be the case) i think the death penalty is barbaric. we shouldn't stoop to the level of killers in the name of "justice".

Perhaps touger sentences are in order.

The death penalty is the ultimate sentence. Making "life" mean life, perhaps in solitary confinemet? People say that prison only hardens people and learns them new criminal skills and turns them into druggies - this wouldn't happen in solitary with no other human contact.

If you are prepared to execute innocent men and women in the greater cause of justice, including yourself and your own children, then by all means support the death penalty.

Otherwise it sucks, and represents what we have been trying to claw our way out of for the last 800 years.

Or, institute the death penalty on one condition : the families of the executed who are later exonerated should have the right of life or death over the judge that passed the sentence; or in the abscence of a living judge, their next of kin. That would be an equitable solution, and the Judges would be DAMN sure the conviction was safe before reaching for the black silk.

Eye for an eye and all that - no 'compensation' payments for executing an innocent - but justice instead.

(DNA evidence is only ever circumstantial BTW)

err NO, under no circumstances

thanks for asking

No.

Those who vote yes - if the death penelty comes back, you've voted for at least one innocent person to be killed.

Originally posted by miss_phaser
that's a pretty big drawback!

i say no - even if it is possible to have 100% safe convictions (which i don't believe will ever be the case) i think the death penalty is barbaric. we shouldn't stoop to the level of killers in the name of "justice".

What if a member of your family was murdered by a brutal robbery? and that person was behind bars and back on the street in 8 years? I agree with a previous comment that life should life, but if life is condemned then isn't it cheaper for all us tax payers for a bullet in the head.

Take a life lose a life.

Originally posted by Andy
No.

Those who vote yes - if the death penelty comes back, you've voted for at least one innocent person to be killed.

Where is the proof in this? R we happy that when convicted, the Soham murderers get away with the brutal massacre of two innocent young girls, and that they would be released back to a "Community" in maybe 10 years or so?

If DNA, and all other evidence is 100% certain then they should be put to death.

I think if it can be proven 100% that someone is guilty of a serious crime,then yes,i'd like to see the death penalty come in to force.
I'd much rather though see much harsher sentances handed out,life should mean life,not 10 years or whatever.With gun crime becoming the norm in most large citys,ours included,i definatlly would like to see thougther sentances need to be handed out,making it not seem so glamorous to be a criminal and teaching people that you cant make a living out of crime.

Originally posted by jjrobbins
I agree with a previous comment that life should life, but if life is condemned then isn't it cheaper for all us tax payers for a bullet in the head. if our justice system worked on the basis of cost, jury trials would have been abolished long ago.

the death penalty would condemn innocent people. no matter how cheap it was, it would come at the cost of innocent people's lives. not so much of a saving to the taxpayer then, huh?

You can't have the death penalty for the simple reason mistakes are made. I don't think we need to start listing examples to prove that.

I believe that in serious cases life should indeed mean life. However, we need to keep some discretion with judges because killing someone doesn't necessarily mean murder and there are all sorts of circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. Whilst it is impossible to legislate for all these circumstance, judges do need to be given clearer guidelines because the public in general are fed up of weak sentencing. Perhaps, in order to make judges more accountable, they should be elected by the public?

The death penalty really is a tricky subject. I detest rapists and child abusers etc...and would want them to be wiped off the face of the earth; but is it our right to take a life? Just because it is state sanctioned murder makes it no better.

Instead I think the justice system needs a complete overhaul.
Sentencing for scum like rapists etc..needs to be toughned. Rapists should get life and that means life not just a couple of years. Same goes for child abusers and serial killers and also cold blooded murderers.

Also we need a more diverse set of judges. If you look at the judges we have in this country, more often that not they are white middle class middle aged men. These men have led sheltered lives. They go from public school to the best universitys and then to the golf club. They have no proper interaction with the real world or real people. They can not identify with the prostitute who sells herself to feed her kids, or the shoplifter who steals to feed his family or in most cases his drug habit.

They sentence a weed grower/smoker to 5 years but a rapist to 3 years, they have no idea at all of how most people live.

Someone must have stolen Steelblade's identity and posted that last message.

For the first time in living memory I agree with her totally

Well said

Originally posted by LouiseB
Someone must have stolen Steelblade's identity and posted that last message.

For the first time in living memory I agree with her totally

Well said


LOL There's a first time for everything LouiseB! :D

Let's have a look at some selected countries that still have the death penalty and the ones that don't: ( a full list is available here at the Amnesty site (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng))

Just on this simplistic basis, I know which list of countries I would rather be in. (hint = the second one) Not a scientific argument, I know, but it strikes me that the most foward thinking modern countries have abolished the death penalty, and even those that still have it have informal judicial agreements not to use it.

No conviction is ever 100% safe, it is only ever proven beyond reasonable doubt in light of available evidence.

If we have the death penalty we will execute innocent men and women. No question; it must happen, and it must be a price that the pro-execution lobby must be happy to accept, even if they themselves are accused, wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. The will walk to the gallows willingly knowing that their execution, whilst unfair, does further the cause of justice as a whole, and a few innocents are a fair price to pay for whatever benefits there are with the death penalty (more on the lack of benefits later now the list: )

Do have Death Penalty:

Afghanistan
Algeria
China
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Indonesia
Iraq
Japan
Libya
Myanmar (Burma)
Nigeria
Pakistan
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Tunisia
Uganda
United States Of America
Yemen
Zimbabwe

Dont have Death Penalty:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Vatican City State

I voted no without hesitation.

Where's the logic in killing someone to show that killing someone is wrong?

And stats in the US show that black people who kill white people are sentenced to death in a hugely disproportionate amount to white people who kill black people.

The prejudices which pervade society (particularly white rich society which most judges are from) are all too well represented in who is killed by the state.

Inrterestingly, the US is one of only two countries in the whole world who still execute children.

A difficult one really, I voted yes.

I rozzer voting for the death penalty. Wouldn't you get fired for having such an opinion in the force?

removed by spook

But you've put it on a public worldwide forum. Hence no more thoughts required. You've written your opinion in plain english!

And, I've quoted you:
Originally posted by spook1210
A difficult one really, I voted yes.

removed by spook

Originally posted by spook1210
yes and your point is?
i speak as an individual not a representative of any Police Force.
It's the sort of subject that crops up in the pub isn't it and everyone talks about it.
I'm not an avowed member of the 'eye for an eye' brigade and I am open to constructive argument from either camp, I merely voted on my gut instinct which is to bring the death penalty back as a deterrent for the most serious crimes. However which crimes fall into that category is a moot point really. I've had a conversation with a murderer who I would quite happily have gone for a pint with he was that sort of bloke, and I've met another who I had a degree of sympathy with, but at the the end of the day they still killed people.

Have the distinct feeling I may shortly require a bigger spade :o
Hey I'm not disagreeing with you. Just asking a question! :P

I think it is worth looking at whether the death penalty actually is a deterrent. Intuitively it would be, but from what I've read, it seems not - although these have been partisan reports (Liberty, Amnesty etc.)

Would the death penalty be a deterrent?

Look at the states. Is it a detterent over there?
I dont think it is you know. That country has the most serial killers, murders anywhere. Ok it's a lot bigger country so relatively speaking it would do. But still they have the death penatly and I dont see it as much of a detterent.

But then, maybe thats because they have laws like, if someone is on your property univited you can shoot them.

Hanging is not a deterrent because, get this, murderers do NOT INTEND being caught when they commit their murder

Likewise any other crime;

According to my Mum the former Probation Officer,
the criminal either

a. thinks they are smart and will get away with it.
b. did it in a moment of passion/rage etc and didnt even know what they were doing
c. are so desperate that being caught is the last of their worries

At one time I would have voted yes to this but now I find it a difficult decision to which I think I would vote No but I am willing to listen to both sides.

For quite a while now I have been occasionally taking a look at the 'Texas correction centre' website.

It gives names, ages, ethnic origin, dates of offences, the length of time they have been incarcerated, details of offences and photo's of all those on death row. You can also view details of those previously executed, this includes all of the above information + last meal request info.

At this time, in Texas alone, there are several hundred awaiting execution.

One thing that strikes me is the same old faces are there month in month out. Year in year out. Nothing changes. Except the new additions.

Personally, I think that alone is punishment enough, when they are killed, it is over for them, done and dusted.

I now feel that those who advocate the death penalty are making it easy for them, life inside is a worse fate. Yes? Although I accept that some people can cope with doing time.

I contacted them once (they are very forthcoming with polite info) I wanted to know how much money those on death row were allowed to live on.

It works thus;- If, on the outside, they have someone with the means of giving them some monetary support, they may do so. The money is held for the prisoner in a 'Fund' to be drawn on by application and what the inmate wants to purchase from the in prison facility.

What they can purchase is limited to prison regulations.

If they have no-one on the outside, then they get prison food and lodging, nothing else.

If it is wrong to kill, punishable by a court of law, then it cannot be right for that same court to sanction a killing or execution.

A thought - if a judge decides on the death penalty, which the executioner carries out, is that conspiracy to commit murder?

I would bring in being hung drawn and quartered for anyone wishing to watch for

peodofiles :evil:
Anyone purposely destroying the health and wellbeing of the British Isles ATM - the sherriff of nottingham and his destructive cronies at Bellway homes :evil:

Moon Maiden

In my opinion, anyone who kills someone else cannot be thinking rationally to do it. Therefore it's not right that they should be put to death just for a moment of madness.

Originally posted by Sidla
In my opinion, anyone who kills someone else cannot be thinking rationally to do it. Therefore it's not right that they should be put to death just for a moment of madness.

And, as someone pointed out earlier, if they weren't thinking rationally when they committed the act is it likely that they were thinking rationally about any potential punishment? That does somewhat undermine the deterrent argument.

Capital punishment is, I feel, pointless. There are only two things I'd like to add to all the valid points made so far. Many criminals don't see death as a deterrent. I'm thinking more of the likes of the Bali bombers than UK criminals here - though I'm grateful that they've been brought to justice I think it would have been far better for them to be incarcerated than killed. They know that they will be martyred by their followers and their gleeful responses to their convictions demonstrates this. Ditto the September 11th terrorists. If they hadn't killed themselves in the attack is it really likely that they would have been uncomfortable with the idea that they would be executed for their crimes?

Secondly, the USA's pre-occupation with executions is deeply disturbing. What help does it give to the family of a murder victim watching the murderer die? This only breeds thoughts of violence and revenge, and that in turn is no better than the tit-for-tat killings that go on between terrorist groups. By all means give the criminals what they deserve - in no circumstance should a criminal get away with anything less than appropriate punishment - but from the victim's point of view the aim should be to make sure they know they are safe and the criminal is being suitably punished. That seems to be most people's concern.

Originally posted by jjrobbins
Should we bring the death penalty back? or harsher penalties for criminals.

Yes! when there is irrefutable evidence that the person accused is guilty I.E. D.N.A. or indisputable eye witness corroboration, sadly,a certain section of society will always be willing to Murder!!!

Originally posted by halevan
Yes! when there is irrefutable evidence that the person accused is guilty I.E. D.N.A. or indisputable eye witness corroboration, sadly,a certain section of society will always be willing to Murder!!!
Bu what makes you think the death penalty is a good idea?

Yet another reason why we should never bring back the death penalty:

Hanged man was innocent (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_833079.html?menu=)

A miscarriage of justice 50 years too late for the deceased which once again emphasises why we, in Britain, are right not to have the death penalty as an option.

Funny you should bring this up. I was going to suggest it to Phan as a proposition for the 'debate' forum.

We've already had 2 polls on this subject though interestinglly with different results....see:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1937

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3425&highlight=hanging

Nomme

I'd like to think police detection methods and pinning the crime on the right man has improved somewhat over 50 years.

Originally posted by alchresearch
I'd like to think police detection methods and pinning the crime on the right man has improved somewhat over 50 years.
It'd be nice to think that.

Originally posted by alchresearch
I'd like to think police detection methods and pinning the crime on the right man has improved somewhat over 50 years.
How can pinning the crime on the right man get any better than hanging him?

Originally posted by max "Attempted Murder - 2 years enough?"
I'm quite happy with the judiciary we've got. To paraphrase what Hal said in another thread "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
If people didn't challenge the decisions of the judicial establishment then such injustices would never come to light and you wouldn't be able to argue against the death penalty!

Originally posted by Zamo
If people didn't challenge the decisions of the judicial establishment then such injustices would never come to light and you wouldn't be able to argue against the death penalty!
Our current system works which is why such injustices come to light. You were arguing to change the system in a way which would ensure that injustices would not come to light. If an election were coming up any injustices would be hurriedly covered up.

Originally posted by max
Our current system works which is why such injustices come to light. You were arguing to change the system in a way which would ensure that injustices would not come to light. If an election were coming up any injustices would be hurriedly covered up.
How would the CPS and judges being made more accountable and having to explain their decisions (where there is reasonable cause) lead to unjustices not coming to light? The reverse I'd have thought.

Here is an interesting link. Some might find it depressing though.

http://www.privatehand.com/flash/request.html

i would like to ask some of you who said no, say if a loved one, some one close to your heart, ie.. son, daughter, mom, dad, gets killed by someone who shows no remorse for the life they have taken, well i would like to ask you again. do you think that person has a right to live anymore? or should it be an eye for an eye?

Also why when there is someone like that should we spend millions putting them up in prison when snuffing their life out would save us a fortune.

I would change the law so it makes it cheaper, find out they are guilty, 6 months cooling off period, then fry them, total cost reasonably low I would say

Originally posted by kats
i would like to ask some of you who said no, say if a loved one, some one close to your heart, ie.. son, daughter, mom, dad, gets killed by someone who shows no remorse for the life they have taken, well i would like to ask you again. do you think that person has a right to live anymore? or should it be an eye for an eye?Yes, they do have a right to live. As much as a right to live as that someone close to your heart had before they were framed for murder and executed, despite being innocent.

Also you can't just execute people for showing no remorse, as remorse is easy to fake, and no doubt most people would if it would mean escaping a death sentence.

Also why when there is someone like that should we spend millions putting them up in prison when snuffing their life out would save us a fortune.
It's actually cheaper to keep them in prison, unless you dispense with lengthy appeals processes designed to stop innocents being wrongy executed.

I would change the law so it makes it cheaper, find out they are guilty, 6 months cooling off period, then fry them, total cost reasonably low I would say

Ok, presumably the families of executed innocents will have the same right of life or death over the judge that passed the erroneous sentence? Eye for an Eye after all.

Ooh can I come in on this as I hadn't seen this thread before and this is a subject very close to my heart.

I'm definitely on the "No" side, in all circumstances. Why? Because I think we (humans, societies, whatever) should strive to be the best we can be, (i.e. civilised). That means having a generous, forgiving (but not stupid) approach to wrongdoing. If someone is convicted for murder, yes the immediate reaction may to execute them horribly, but I think if we are to be the best we can be, we'll view their behaviour as a malfunction and put them out of harms way (i.e. keep them in prison for as long as they are danger to society).

What's vengence got to do with it? What does it solve? I can understand victims families in their pain anger and grief calling for vengence, but the rest of society need to remain calm and rational and civilised. That's what leaders and governments are for. Otherwise we're heading back to being a mob, lacking in the qualities that have made Britain a truly great civilisation.

Maybe you flog em & hang em types would like to see the return of trial by ordeal, burning at the stake, the electric chair (still legal in some parts of the world!!!) & hanging drawing & quartering? I'm sure they're all very cheap forms of justice too!

Cheers

Zeddy

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin

Maybe you flog em & hang em types would like to see the return of trial by ordeal, burning at the stake, the electric chair (still legal in some parts of the world!!!) & hanging drawing & quartering? I'm sure they're all very cheap forms of justice too!

Cheers

Zeddy

No death by lethal injection will be fine.

To be brought in for all sexual/murder crimes against children, rape and murder. Whether it acts as a deterrent is immaterial to me. If it takes that one person out of society so that they cannot commit further crimes then it has done it's job.

Reasons for not having the death sentence, in no particular order:

1. Cost in monetary terms in the US has proved to be many times higher due to all the appeal processes. It's cheaper to keep people imprisoned for life than to condemn them to death.

2. Despite improvements in forensic science there is always the possibility of executing the innocent.

3. Psychologists need to have access to convicted killers to study them, much as you would a lab rat. Insight into the way their minds work has helped prevent the release of potential killers back into society once they have been 'cured'.

4. It's wrong to take an eye for an eye. Christ said we should turn the other cheek. It shocks me how 'christians' can pick and chose those parts of his preaching to suit their own prejudices.

5 - 1000. Left intentionally blank as there are more reasons which others have/will put more eloquently.

Many murderers are mentally ill

If we are to start putting the mentally ill to death, then where will it end?

People with warts? people with one leg longer than the other? fat people who show their midriff?

Originally posted by Mo
No death by lethal injection will be fine.

To be brought in for all sexual/murder crimes against children, rape and murder. Whether it acts as a deterrent is immaterial to me. If it takes that one person out of society so that they cannot commit further crimes then it has done it's job.

interestingly a life (means life) sentence will do exactly the same thing without the huge cost.

Or is it that you want them dead?

Originally posted by Belle
Many murderers are mentally ill

If we are to start putting the mentally ill to death, then where will it end?

People with warts? people with one leg longer than the other? fat people who show their midriff?

I would hope that hasn't been suggested by the proponents of the DP on this thread - there would be a "defence" of insanity available to the accused. But what happens, as with the current Ruth Ellis case (whose appeal was dnied just this morning), when new evidence arrives posthumously??

Phan. above has hit the nail on the head - all the studies show no link between introducing the death penalty and a decline in recidivism, and I can only conclude that its sole purpose is to give the families a feeling of redress. Which, quite frankly, is pitiful.

People who commit crimes against children give up their right to life as far as I'm concerned. If it was possible to know 100% that someone was guilty then I would say yes but obviously that isn't possible so I'll reluctantly say no - you can't risk the chance of killing an innocent person.

Sorry, I always seem to be playing the Devils Advocate, but I must give my honest opinion. The death penalty should be there to be activated,as in case of the recent murder of the milkman on Prince Of Wales Road where a you black man and his moll attacked that poor man on his way to work.

But not judicial hanging, they should both be made to suffer as they made him suffer, have a sword stuck into them over and over again until they died in agony whilst they died slowly with their life blood oozing away and crowds to cheer as they struggled for life and then have his family to spit on their graves and the EVIL B******* condemned for eternity.

But if they were given the death penalty they wouldn't suffer.

The reform system needs reworking from the bottom up!

Who is gonna volunteer to fund their own ideal solutions and others though?

One of the biggest problems with crime is... not the punishment that is the deceiding factor to committing a crime, it is the chances of being caught.

We do not reform hardened criminals very well, we do not keep many of them in prison very well. We dont catch many of them very well. Some people just cause violence and pain.

I could go on but.... Death should be an option!

I'd like to have a society where I feel safe for me and my family to go about our business safe in the knowledge that if anyone tries to harm us they will get a swift, decisive and just punishment.

I dont agree that a person who has killed another through hate, jealousy or robbery should be ever allowed back into normal society. The cost to keep these people in jail is enormous and the money could be used for better purposes like hospitals or schools.

I would like to see the death penalty back and will vote for any political party that does.

I would also like to see the driving laws changed to reflect this when loss of life has occured. There are too many drivers on our roads that drive with neither common sense or respect for others.

I voted no, because you will execute innocent people, and it is lowering yourself to their level.
I also disagree with the 'Life should mean Life' argument. Our justice system is about reforming people in addition to punishing them. You cannot claim to have reformed someone (or even tried) that you locked up until they died.

Reform may be possible in some cases, but far too many people who are "reformed" come back out and commit the same crime again.... or an even worse crime!

And if the death penalty is brought back for murderers etc, that is not stooping to their level at all..... a murderer kills for an unjust reason, which isn't the case if the law executes someone who has committed a murder.

Actually, Sidla..if given the death penalty they WOULD suffer. Do you find the prospect of inhaling noxious gas quite pleasant ? Or perhaps having X amount of volts of electricity run through your body nice ? Have you read about the repeatedly botched executions by lethal injection ?

It is substantially cheaper to keep someone in prison than it is to execute them.

Those who say that you should not condemn them to death UNLESS 100% certain of their guilt...well, the lawyers HAVE proved 100% their guilt. That is their job. You don't get a conviction without 100% guilt proved. However, that does not mean that the person on trial is always guilty. Remember the Edward Earl Johnson case (14 days in May). The person who witnessed the crime was 100% certain it was him. He was executed. The she realised she had made a mistake and they caught the real guy. How in Gods name does Edward's family get over that ? How?????????? He was as innocent as you or me.

Belle...they already do execute the mentally retarded in some states.

Mo, keeping them locked up in prison forever would make sure they did not harm another human being..not just taking away their life. Anyway, I thought you were pro-life, having read your postings on abortion. You don't agree with the removal of cells in a body yet you condone the execution of a full grown human being ? Interesting. And you would execute someone for rape ? Even though THEY haven't killed anyone ? Rape is often dodgy ground as it is !

Originally posted by Babooshka

It is substantially cheaper to keep someone in prison than it is to execute them.
I have asked you about this in the 'lifelines' thread in the Noticeboard forum but you still haven't delievered.
Would you please back up your claims that it is cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to execute them.

I just can't see that being possible.

I think we all feel that we could kill someone who hurts one of our family but that is the emotional knee-jerk reaction. In the cold light of day capital punishment is wrong. Too many wrong convictions. You cannot put things right once they have gone wrong.

There are many different levels of violence and many reasons people do violence. I am not a "liberal" or a "do-gooder" just someone who believes imprisonment is the only way for the truly violent. People commit murder for many reasons. Capital punishment takes nothing into account only the crime itself and there are lots of variables. Dead is dead. It is too late for saying "Oooops."

Yet another case in the news supporting the abolition of the death penalty. In this case it's a Briton who has been on death row for 17 years:

New hope - The Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1203003,00.html)

I wonder about the US of A's judicial system when I read statements like this (from the article):

It (the Ohio appeals court) accepted the argument by prosecutor Dan Gershutz that 'even though this new evidence may establish Richey's innocence, the Ohio and US constitutions nonetheless allow him to be executed because the prosecution did not know [at the time of the trial] that the scientific testimony offered at trial was false and unreliable'.

I believe the governor of Iowa recently used his pardon to give clemency to all the prisoners on death row, in his last day in office. A group of law students found that half of all convictions were false, with many people being fitted up by police, on dodgy evidence, etc, etc. Rather than execute dozens of innocents, the governor pardoned them all. But he had to wait until the last day of his office because he knew there would be public uproar. Several other states then followed suit.

Additionally, the USA also executes juveniles. Not even the Chinese or the Libyans do this.

Phanerotymes' post of 'which group of countries do you want to be a part of' was particularly good.

In Britain, the Birmingham 6 and Guildford Four would certainly have been executed by corrupt coppers for the crimes of being Irish.

Here are a few facts and figs for you then dabouncer. Far too many to quote them all.

Capital cases are, on average, 70% more expensive than non-death penalty murder cases. The average death penalty case costs $1.2 million, compared to $740,000 for a non-death murder penalty case.

Pre-trial costs amounts to 49% of that figure, the appeals processes 29% and the incarceration and execution 22%.

California spends an average of $90 million a year on death penalty cases.

Have you got a link to these 'facts' then please, which would help us all judge for ourself.

I don't want to come across as calling you a liar cos that's not my intention. It's just that many times on here people have claimed this fact and these figures without actually being able to provide 'evidence' (like a link to an official site) which can backup the claims.

I could say that 90% of people on this board who claim facts to be actual facts are actually lying. However this statistic is just from my head and I have no proof what so ever so back it up.

See my point!

From the pages of The Battalion (a Texas online newspaper)..... various government entities have estimated the total cost of death penalty cases at anywhere from $1-3 million, while the total average cost of a life imprisonment is around $500,000.

Plus these sites:

http://www.indianacc.org/tables/death.html

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/deathpenalty.htm

http://www.phadp.org/fiscal.htm

Well while you’re searching away for your facts I’ll post some of my own to add into the mix.
Taking aside the difference in costs for the trail (the difference being $460,000).

It costs on average to keep a prisoner on in prison $20,965.60 (http://www.in.gov/indcorrection/facts/faqs.html) per year in the state of Indiana (it would take forever to locate facts and figure for ALL states so I’ve stuck with what I cam up with).

On average a prisoner will remain on death row for 12.01 years (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/#Statistics) (according to the state of Florida). Although I realise this can go on for longer, but can be a lot quicker too. Swings and roundabouts.

So shall we say that if the same prisoner that would have been given the death penalty just gets given life (lets say life means life and they’re never released.) The said prisoner who is on average 30.44 yrs of age when committing the crime (according to previous link to Florida Correction Website). Now instead of serving 12.01 yrs (which would have been the average on death row), they would serve until their death… shall we say they die at aged 70. That means the prisoner in question served 39 yrs (give or take) which equates to $817,658.40 of tax payers money. That’s just one prisoner! Now that same figure minus the difference of the trail ($460,000), gives us a figure of $357,658.40 more that the tax payer has paid because this prisoner had not been given the death penalty.

Now… it seems to me, that it IS in FACT cheaper to execute a death row prisoner than it is in the long term to keep them inside.

I apologise but I haven’t taken into account inflation during the time the prisoner has remained inside… I used today’s figure…. Thus giving overall a lesser cost :P


For anyone interested in a 'Virtual Death Row' tour... please see pics on this (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/vtour/index.html) site :thumbsup:

Its wrong to kill.

Chris.

..... various government entities have estimated the total cost of death penalty cases at anywhere from $1-3 million, while the total average cost of a life imprisonment is around $500,000.
That's assuming life means only 15 yrs inside. Are we talking life meaning life? In which case I suspect the costs would be higher.

In either case, if you do the calculations as per my previous post you will see the facts display a different picture.

Bringing back the death penalty would obviously reduce the amount of re-offenders which would make the country safer. It would also lead to a reduction in crime schools - where inmates will undoubtedly share their experiences with, and learn from each other. Prisons will be less full and as a result, will be able to house other offenders. You can't put a price on what this'll mean to the country.

The death penalty isnt for everyone though. Some lunatics will see it as an easy way out of the world - so each case needs to be assessed and I also think the victims of the initial crime should have some say, based on this assessment.

To others, it WILL act as a deterrent.

Sadly some innocent people would be executed, but surely lie detector testing is now adequate enough to prevent any significant quantity of people being unfairly executed.

So I voted yes, but its not a decision made lightly.

Sadly some innocent people will be executed ? SADLY!!!! Holy crap ! I can't believe I just read that ! You wouldn't mind then if it was your Mum or Dad or someone ? For justice's sake, you know. Keeping people in prison for life would reduce the amount of reoffenders as they wouldn't be on the streets! It is not the executing people that makes the country safer. It is the imprisonment. The DP does not deter murderers one jot. If you are going to kill then you do not think of the consequences. Nor can you have one rule for some and another for others.

dabouncer...try the dpic. Death Penalty Information Center. That has everything on in the country. Let me find the exact address.

Originally posted by dinp
... but surely lie detector testing is now adequate enough to prevent any significant quantity of people being unfairly executed.
Ha. They could go live on Trisha for the results aswell, uh?

Chris.

I voted yes because i believe some crimes are so disgusting there can be no justification for allowing the offender to continue to breathe.but tho i believe in capital punishment,i dont think it will ever be used here for the reasons stated in other posts,that is the mistakes that cannot be corrected.

if life meant life(ie lock em up and throw away the key) then there would be no nead for it. Unfortunately there are too many do gooders who believe these people are basically nice people really and deserve compassion.

how many here think ian huntley aint such a bad guy really, or how many like me think he should be shown the same compassion he showed to jessica and holly.

if we cant execute them then build a prison that they will never ever see the outside of again. forget re-habilitation, and that includes the two that murdered jamie bulger,who are now living very nicely at our expense.

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

www.ncadp.org

www.lifelines.org

Originally posted by dinp
Sadly some innocent people would be executed, but surely lie detector testing is now adequate enough to prevent any significant quantity of people being unfairly executed.

which we see as a very common tool in our courts today? No, I wonder why (actually I know why), did you bother to wonder why though?

Bringing back the death penalty would obviously reduce the amount of re-offenders which would make the country safer. It would also lead to a reduction in crime schools - where inmates will undoubtedly share their experiences with, and learn from each other.

I don't think this really happens with murderers. Most murders are crimes of passion. This is not seeking to excuse them in a do-gooder way, just an observation that most capital crimes fit this pattern. Prisoners do not swap tips about how to get really riled up and kill someone. Gangland killings are probably different though, and people certainly do make connections there.

I'm unsure why people are talking about the recent high profile paedophilia cases. The poll is about reintroducing the death penalty, not bringing it back and massively expanding the renge of crimes that it shoul cover. As far as I remember, it only covered murder, piracy and treason. I can't think of many other countries where it includes other crimes against the person.

Originally posted by Babooshka
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

www.ncadp.org

www.lifelines.org
Like I say babooshka I'm not disputing the moralities of the death penalty (although in some circumstances I feel it is justified), I am disputing the cost effectiveness claims, which I think my facts outweigh those you pointed out.

However discussing the morality issue, I do agree that there will be and are flaws in the death penalty issue (as outlined in the news feature max linked to). The system needs a whole overhaul and tightening up, making sure full evidence and facts relating to each individual case have been seen, checked, double checked and checked a third time before sentencing without a shadow of a doubt someone who deserves the penalty.

Yes I feel some people should receive it, I think the victims families outweigh the families of the killer (or criminal... depending on crime I suppose). However if the victims family pleaded that the criminal in question should be given mercy and not given the death penalty then this should be taken into account by the court too.

The system needs resorting and bringing up to date, however I feel the death penalty (in the states at least) should stand!

Bringing it back in the UK... well... I'm not too sure.
If it was done correctly, without the falws as affore mentioned, then yes I agree!

Well, maybe send your calculations off to the people in the various institutions who have spent years studying this and prove them wrong.

I dont need to. Just look at the 'official' prison websites and get there figures. Then do some math... it aint hard... jeez :rolleyes:

Do we really value a persons life in terms of money anyway ?

Originally posted by Babooshka
Sadly some innocent people will be executed ? SADLY!!!! Holy crap ! I can't believe I just read that ! You wouldn't mind then if it was your Mum or Dad or someone ? For justice's sake, you know. Keeping people in prison for life would reduce the amount of reoffenders as they wouldn't be on the streets! It is not the executing people that makes the country safer. It is the imprisonment. The DP does not deter murderers one jot. If you are going to kill then you do not think of the consequences. Nor can you have one rule for some and another for others.

dabouncer...try the dpic. Death Penalty Information Center. That has everything on in the country. Let me find the exact address.

The chances of my parents being framed for murder are super slim to none and if they did murder someone, they'd deserve punishing.

As is stands, lengthy sentences are passed for muderers and their length can vary. So there is no standardised rule. Other things are taken into consideration. So why can't we go one step further and say some should be executed and some not. Tony Martin, for example, shot and killed a teenager in self defence. He would most likely be spared the penalty. People like Harold Shipman however, deserve to be dead (yes I know he is) as there is no chance of him returning to the streets. It would be a waste of finances and a prison cell to keep him for all those years.

Lie detectors don't have to be in court, they can be part of the police process. If you know irrefutable reasons why they cant use lie detectors then please say, holding back the info isnt doing any favours.

Of course prisoners will discuss their crimes. They won't skate around the topic forever.

Originally posted by dinp
So why can't we go one step further and say some should be executed and some not.
Because to cut a long story short - killing someone is wrong.

Originally posted by dinp
People like Harold Shipman [...] It would be a waste of finances and a prison cell to keep him for all those years.
Its not our place to take someones life away just because there is a lack of finance and no prison cells. How crude is that? We're not medieval anymore, i hope we've evolved a little since then.

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
Because to cut a long story short - killing someone is wrong.


Its not our place to take someones life away just because there is a lack of finance and no prison cells. How crude is that? We're not medieval anymore, i hope we've evolved a little since then.

Chris.

so you think giving Jamie Bolger's killers a new identity and a wad of cash, jobs etc while his poor parents are left devastated with little thought can be classed as civilised behaviour? give me medieval anyday.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
Because to cut a long story short - killing someone is wrong.

Of course it is. But until a shocking deterrent is found, be it the DP or otherwise, we have to drain resources on a growing minority of - dare I say it - SCUM.

If a good alternative to the death penalty can be found, i'd probably support that instead. But as I said, my answer to the question was 'yes' and not taken without thought.

I'm sometimes sickened by how the justice system fails its victims, until this is rectified people will continue to exploit it.

i am just waiting for cloning to be legalised, so we give these perpetrators a 2nd or third chance.
if it is inherent in them...then the final big injection.
so guess who's side i am on?

Cloning is about as popular as the death penalty it seems, I'm never going to be cloned so its not an issue I take interest in.

I'm not trying to be an ambassador for the 'Bring back the death penalty' crew, I would, however, like to see more effective sentencing and methods of punishment.

Originally posted by dinp
I'm sometimes sickened by how the justice system fails its victims, until this is rectified people will continue to exploit it.
I've placed my argument, you know where i stand. All i can add is that killing a murderer will do nothing to help the victims. If they think another murder is justice then its a justice they don't deserve.

Chris.

There will never be a deterent. A murderer will kill.
There is a good alternative to the death penalty...it is called Life without the possibility of Parole.

Also, just because the chance of your parents being framed for murder is slim does not make someone who HAS been framed for murder any more guilty. If your parents had murdered someone would you want to see them executed ? People think these things until it happens to them.

there will always be a deterant if you remove the problem after the first kill.

That is not the definition of a deterent! A deterent is something that deters other people from committing the crime. The incarceration is what STOPS the person who has committed the crime to do it again. The execution is pointless and serves no purpose.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
I've placed my argument, you know where i stand. All i can add is that killing a murderer will do nothing to help the victims. If they think another murder is justice then its a justice they don't deserve.

Chris.

and how exactly are the victimes families helped? Answer - they're not.

An execution does not help families.

It just makes more people suffer.

Originally posted by Babooshka
That is not the definition of a deterent! A deterent is something that deters other people from committing the crime. The incarceration is what STOPS the person who has committed the crime to do it again. The execution is pointless and serves no purpose.

and what of the many cases of the incarcerated being released to kill again.? what words of wisdom do you have for these victims families?

Only innocent people on death row have been released Killian, and not all of THEM unfortunately.

incarceration has not stopped deaths in prison. these people are going to do it anyway, it is in the genes...

Surely you would approve of that though miko. If all death row inmates are together what the hell do you care if they kill each other inside ?????????????????????? You want them to die anyway.

Originally posted by Babooshka
Only innocent people on death row have been released Killian, and not all of THEM unfortunately.

didn't realise we had a death row in Britain. you seem to have lots of answers for the perpetrators, but still no answers for the victims families, but then I don't suppose they count for much, do they?

who suffers in an execution anyway?

This is not an issue for the UK now is it, obviously. Why are you being so obtuse ? Why do you think that because I don't agree with state sanctioned murder that I don't care about victims families ?

nice point babooshka...
anywhere i can make a donation to the situation

Miko are you having a laugh ? Who do you think suffers ?
You fancy a stint in the gas chamber do you ?
Or maybe you can live with having watched one?

It is just time that all this killing and wanting people dead stopped!

as for who suffers, it's just an injection
we may have to wait a while for cloning, we won't see it in our lifetime.

It is just time that all this killing and wanting people dead stopped! you ask
sure, i am all for it, but only for the innocents...please!!!

anyway, who stands up for the chickens?
it is still a life after all...

Did you know that it is not just an injection. Have you bothered to read about the many botched executions by lethal injection ? Did you know that now that lethat inj is now an option it is not always used. Each state in the US has an old method...gas chamber...electric chair. The prisoner is often asked how he would like to die. They have the option to ask for lethel injection...being the least barbaric in some people's eyes. Because most inmates do not wish to play a part in the way that they will die, they decline from making that decision. When this happens the State automatically reverts back to the old method of execution ie the gas chamber...the electric chair. That is how it works. You don't think they suffer ?

What have chicken got to do with the importance of human life ?
The vegetarians and the animal rights people stand up for them since you ask just like I stand up for human life.

their choice surely?

the victims have no choice
at all...ever

Check out the website for Reconcilliation for Murder Victims Families and speak to Renny Cushing.

chickens...yes
still a life,
veg, ...no
we are not talking about murder then eating the corpse afterwards

this is way to complex for me at this hour
let's not loose the real plot

As evildrneil once nicely put...'if it was a deterent it would never be used'. It is there solely for that reason and NOT as a means of revenge. You misinterpret its' meaning.

If the death penalty was a deterant it would never be used - but it is - and if you screw up (and you will - can you say miscariage of justice) can you put it right?

Once you can bring someone back to life if you cock up then and only then can you start thinking about the death penalty...

Originally posted by Babooshka
This is not an issue for the UK now is it, obviously. Why are you being so obtuse ? Why do you think that because I don't agree with state sanctioned murder that I don't care about victims families ?

because you have offered not one word of compassion for the victim's families - only compassion for the perpetrators - or even attempted to explain how they should be dealt with, except quote some meaningless website which does nothing to compensate them for the trauma and loss of their loved ones. Killers are offered every conceivable help in prison while the victims families have their lives crash around them from which they never recover in most cases. Does anyone really care? Not a lot of evidence of it as far as I can see.

Originally posted by Killian
because you have offered not one word of compassion for the victim's families -

I think that goes without saying. Is there anyone here who would not feel at least some sympathy for the family of a murder victim, no matter how repellent the family or victim (even if they were chavs, scum, car theives, burglars etc)? No. I think everyone on this forum would have some feeling for them.

Those that support the death penalty must accept a certain level of erroneous executions of innocents. This is the 'price to pay' for ultimate justice. No legal system can be perfect, and miscarriages of justice will always occur.

So by extension, those that support the death penalty would accept their own execution as the 'price to pay' despite being innocent. Which is fair enough, I suppose, but a rather extreme level of sacrifice for my taste.

How do you deal with murderers. Well prevention is better than cure, more often than not, and I don't think murder is an exception. But you'd have to ask a criminologist.

Anyone?

i don't support the death penalty. just think we are far too lenient with murderers with not enough care or compensation for the victims families - eg the jamie Bolger case I quoted earlier.

In my opinion, a life sentence needs to mean exactly that, 20 years should be 20 years, no problem there at all.
What I do have a problem with is the taking of human life, whatever the circumstance. Violence begats violence and killing is killing no matter who is doing the killing. As someone else said, why stoop to the criminals level. Aren't we supposed to try, as a civilised society to "rise above " a criminals warped thinking and behaviour, otherwise what's makes us so different ?