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 ?

I don't feel compassion for the perps, I value ALL LIFE. I have also said that I think they should remain in prison. The website is run by a guy who lost his Father to murder and HE and many others have been helped to accept what has happened. It is not possible to compensate for the loss of a loved one. EVER ! Unless you can bring the victim back to life, and an execution is not going to achieve that. Killers on death row receive no help whatsoever (and don't go and read that as me saying that I think they should receive every conceivable help!). They are stripped of everything and thrown away. Perhaps as it should be ? But once you cock up once and execute an innocent person then you've proved the whole system a failure. I agree with you Killian that in this country we are too lenient with crims and murderers and that there is not enough done to support victims families. Is there support for the family who loses and innocent son/daughter to execution ? There are only ever more and more victims. Maybe start another thread on how we can improve our justice system to provide more support for those who need it and find appropriate 'punishment' for criminals.

Originally posted by Killian
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.

I know its way off topic - but how do you compensate for the death of someone?

Originally posted by Killian
and how exactly are the victimes families helped? Answer - they're not.
Actually some of the families of the victims tend to feel a sense of closure when they know the 'killer' is no longer breathing the same air as them.
They can sleep soundly at night knowing that this evil person can no longer have the chance to do the same to another family....

So YES it DOES help 'some' families.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Actually some of the families of the victims tend to feel a sense of closure when they know the 'killer' is no longer breathing the same air as them.
They can sleep soundly at night knowing that this evil person can no longer have the chance to do the same to another family....


Wouldn't the same be achieved if a life sentance actually meant a life sentance?

...and would the murder victims family not relive the trauma if they were to find out, some time later, that the State had executed the wrong guy ?

www.forejustice.org/wc/george_kelly.htm

www.ccadp.org/botchedx.htm


...and ironically and unbelievably I have just learned that one of the men for whom I was a State Coordinator and with whom I have exchanged many letters over the past few years is scheduled to die on 8 June. My attention now lies elsewhere.

I voted No.

However, I do believe that life should mean life - you come out of jail in a coffin. That way if the system screws up, we haven't killed another innocent victim - we can still let him or her out and at least try and make some amends.

I also voted no... Although in some cases I would be in favour of the death penalty but only as a VERY last resort.... Cases such as Myra Hindley or Fred and Rose West for example.

For other crimes such as paedophiles, they should get their *ahem* bits, chopped off so they can never perform in the bedroom again, whether lawfully or unlawfully... Dirty gets that they are... Can't get it from people their own age so they try and get it from kids, it's disgusting.

I think aslong as a 110% conviction can be made without a doubt it should be the death penalty!!

I dont understand you people that say put a killer in jail for the rest of his/her life. Get them under the axe! Im sure the prison wardens have enough to do helping the ones that can be helped without the do-gooders interfering and messing life up for the rest of us law abiding people.

I just want to be safe and if you put someone in jail then I still dont feel safe, after being attacked would you?

The threat of death is more than a deterrant it brings into it the darwinian principle the strongest will survive, not the mentally corrupt. We have to wean these animals out.

Originally posted by fuzbuz
I think aslong as a 110% conviction can be made without a doubt it should be the death penalty!!

I really hope this doesnt mean you want Juries full of football comentators!

Originally posted by Hadron
The threat of death is more than a deterrant it brings into it the darwinian principle the strongest will survive, not the mentally corrupt. We have to wean these animals out.

One - the death sentance isn't a deterrant - if it were it wouldn't be used which it patently is and two the logical concluion of your argument is to scrap all laws and let evolution take its course - which would probably be great for the 'animals' you want to wean out as they would be amoungst the strongest and most ruthless and hence the most likely to survive...

Originally posted by Babooshka
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.

If my parents did kill, I'd be sad to see them killed in return. But on the other hand - they would have committed a terrible act for which they should be heavily punished.

I think life without parole should only be applicable in certain cases. As I, and others have said, victims families will seek different justices. Some will want the perpetrator locked away, others executed. Justice should be for the families and that's why they should have some say.

Originally posted by dinp
Justice should be for the families and that's why they should have some say.

Justice is blind - and must be - bring the victims families into it and you move into the realm of revenge not justice....

You don't say ! You'd be SAD to see your parents executed ?
You never cease to amaze me. How do you think the victims family would feel if they witnessed the execution...then, a bit later on found out that the REAL guy who did it was out there and they had executed the wrong guy ! Hypothetically, maybe your parents DIDN'T commit the crime, got executed..then they realised that the murderer was still loose. I assume you think that this is acceptable? Would you be all right about being executed if you knew you were innocent...in the name of vengeance or justice or whatever they call it. Of course you would coz you would be helping a family get over the murder of their loved one...which someone else did by the way !

Originally posted by Babooshka
You don't say ! You'd be SAD to see your parents executed ?
You never cease to amaze me. How do you think the victims family would feel if they witnessed the execution...then, a bit later on found out that the REAL guy who did it was out there and they had executed the wrong guy ! Hypothetically, maybe your parents DIDN'T commit the crime, got executed..then they realised that the murderer was still loose. I assume you think that this is acceptable? Would you be all right about being executed if you knew you were innocent...in the name of vengeance or justice or whatever they call it. Of course you would coz you would be helping a family get over the murder of their loved one...which someone else did by the way !

Your tangling this up some, murderers are a different type of person to you, me and my parents. If they had committed murder and the DP was suggested as an option, the victim's family should have the final say on whether they'd prefer prison or not.

I'm not suggesting we execute every murderer, because the evidence surrounding some cases is far too sketchy to make such a final decision. I'm suggesting this for extreme cases, where evidence is strong to blatantly obvious.

Out of curiosity, which part of Northants are you from?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Justice is blind - and must be - bring the victims families into it and you move into the realm of revenge not justice....

As it stands though, the criminals get lenient sentences or let off and the families have NO say. That isn't justice, its purely trauma for the family and 'lets find a loophole' for the criminal.

There has to be flexibility in the system and capital punishment should be an option to use if deemed necessary.

We cannot be afraid of making mistakes, if so we would never have flown or reached the corners of the galaxy. We must pursue justice for the majority. There will be mistakes made.

A military leader will send his 3000 troops into battle if it will save the life of 3 million.

Hadron, you obviously feel that a few executions of innocent people is okay. Do you actually know what you are saying ?
is that not the same as a murderer planning to murder a victim. An innocent person ?

Well, if you would be prepared to go to the electric chair knowing you were an innocent man then of course you should well be in favour of the DP. However,how you can say the erroneous taking of a life is just 'a mistake' I will never understand. Life obviously is of little value to you. I pity that.

Dinp..I'm actually from Sheffield. Aye born and bred. However, I know live in a town called Brackley. Do you know the area. Pretty....pretty dull that is ! We need a good hanging around here (hee hee couldn't resist!) Would do anything to be back up in the North!

i remember when ian brady wanted to starve himself to death. i think it was about 4 years ago. I figure if he considered life imprisonment worse than death, we must have been doing something right.

Ironically, didn't the public want him to be force fed in order to keep him alive so that he didn't take the easy option and use death as a way out ?

Yes I think so. I think that proves quite a major point. If such an evil person wants to die, make them live I say. As you pointed out, thats what the rest of the country said.

Originally posted by Babooshka
Hadron, you obviously feel that a few executions of innocent people is okay. Do you actually know what you are saying ?
is that not the same as a murderer planning to murder a victim. An innocent person ?

Well, if you would be prepared to go to the electric chair knowing you were an innocent man then of course you should well be in favour of the DP. However,how you can say the erroneous taking of a life is just 'a mistake' I will never understand. Life obviously is of little value to you. I pity that.

Dinp..I'm actually from Sheffield. Aye born and bred. However, I know live in a town called Brackley. Do you know the area. Pretty....pretty dull that is ! We need a good hanging around here (hee hee couldn't resist!) Would do anything to be back up in the North!

I've never been to Brackley but I have heard of it, is it close to Northampton. In case you haven't seen my profile, i'm from glamourous Corby, have you ever been?

Corby is quite notorious for savage murders and that's probably part of the reason why i'm so in favour of harsher sentencing, a couple of those murders have been quite close to home so to speak. The offenders got puny sentences, begged for mercy et all and will be back on the streets within 10 years.

But each case has to be assessed differently. If I was that barbaric i'd condemn all of them.

you can be afraid of making mistakes when the mistake will be permanent and could easily be avoided.

I have heard of Corby. I have never been but I have heard that it is somewhat 'rough'. Must do a bit of recky round the county. Anywhere you can recommend ?

went to a wedding in Corby once. we were in a pub the night before and the girl behind the bar had a strong Scottish accent. out of politeness i asked whereabouts in Scotland she came from, to which she replied " i don't come from Scotland, I was born here".

from what i could figure out the majority of the population of Corby is Scots (moved down for the steel industry) and people born there speak with a Scottish accent. Quite a unique situation i would have thought.

watch out - the 'keep on topic' police are about - you know who you are!

Originally posted by Hadron
The threat of death is more than a deterrant it brings into it the darwinian principle the strongest will survive, not the mentally corrupt. We have to wean these animals out.

Let's assume for a moment that convicted murderers are executed before they have a chance to have children, then all you would do is weed out the stupid murderers, euthanasiatists, perpetrators of crimes passionel (sp?) etc. i.e the ones that got caught All the really cunnning muderers would live on and pass their cunning murderer genes onto their kids...

So a bit of a washout as a darwinian method of reducing crime.

In fact, everything we do in this society is geared around defeating darwinian imperatives, from gene therapy to glasses for the myopic and mobilty aids for people who cant walk.

If you are seriously suggesting some kind of 'survival of the fittest' attitude to crime fighting, you are suggesting that criminality is genetic - which is a load of cobblers. Genes are unaware of the niceties of British Criminal Law...

Like someone pointed out, if the death penalty was a deterrent then Texas would have a murder rate close to 0. Needless to say, it does not.

Originally posted by dinp
As it stands though, the criminals get lenient sentences or let off and the families have NO say. That isn't justice, its purely trauma for the family and 'lets find a loophole' for the criminal.

I personally dont think that the families SHOULD have a say - by doing that you bring a huge amount of partiality into a justice system and hence becomes revenge rather than justice. For a justice system to work as a proper justice system (and I would have to say ours doesnt at the moment) it MUST be impartial and equal to all.

Originally posted by Killian
went to a wedding in Corby once. we were in a pub the night before and the girl behind the bar had a strong Scottish accent. out of politeness i asked whereabouts in Scotland she came from, to which she replied " i don't come from Scotland, I was born here".

from what i could figure out the majority of the population of Corby is Scots (moved down for the steel industry) and people born there speak with a Scottish accent. Quite a unique situation i would have thought.

watch out - the 'keep on topic' police are about - you know who you are!

Yeah my dad is Scottish as are both sets of grandparents. The town is kinda unique - sadly for the wrong reasons usually. Freak crimes are too commonplace, hence my stance on wiping some of this type of scum out.

To Babooshka, try Kettering for a night out and Rockingham Speedway for racing/music.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I personally dont think that the families SHOULD have a say - by doing that you bring a huge amount of partiality into a justice system and hence becomes revenge rather than justice. For a justice system to work as a proper justice system (and I would have to say ours doesnt at the moment) it MUST be impartial and equal to all.

That assumes that all victims families want sweet revenge, when many would prefer to see a more fitting punishment.

Originally posted by dinp
That assumes that all victims families want sweet revenge, when many would prefer to see a more fitting punishment.

Nope it assumes some will want revenge and some will want other punishments - hence the partiality.

I know that if someone murdered anyone in my family I would no doubt fly in to a fit of rage and hatred. I might even wish that person dead in the most gruesome way....which is why I am glad that I would NOT have a say because irrationality takes you over and all you can think of is revenge. Nope, leave it to the system.
Otherwise, I would regret it later and hate myself for stooping to level I never wanted to reach.

Isn't Kettering miles away ? I'm 20 miles south of Northampton. Never mind scum. This places is full of inbreeds !

Originally posted by evildrneil
Nope it assumes some will want revenge and some will want other punishments - hence the partiality.

If you were the victim of a crime, would you want a say in how the offender was dealt with. I would.

Originally posted by dinp
If you were the victim of a crime, would you want a say in how the offender was dealt with. I would.

I'm sure that I would be angry and want my pound of flesh yes - however I don't think that I should be allowed to extract revenge as that undermines a fair and impartial justice system. Yes I know this may appear to be inconsistant, but inconsistancy and emotional response is all part of being human (even if you are male!) and a justics system isn't about an emotive response to a crime its about a just and even punishment for a crime regardless or race, creed, colour, social status and beliefs of either the criminal or the victim. And yes that is cold - but thats the only way these things work properly...

No I would not. All I would want is revenge and that is what it is NOT all about. That is what my justice system is there for. No personal vendettas. If this happened to me and I lived in the US and I was given the option to decide the killers fate it would send me insane. I think it is a very bad idea. You would want them dead out of hate and revenge to try and make you feel better. Hate and revenge doesn't make you feel better. Adding to the list of people killed could only make me feel worse and I would be disgusted at myself for going against everything in which I believe. No way should victims get a say when it comes to something like this.

I tell you what is good though...and apparantly very very effective. The YOT (Youth Offending Team) here in Northants. I became a panel member but then couldn't find the time to do it...but....young offenders meet in a room with some YOTs AND the victim of their crime (we are talking stealing cars, vandalism etc etc for under 18s). They get the chance to talk with their victim who is allowed to tell them ExACTLY how they feel (no physical abuse though) and you have a chat for about 20 mins/ At the end of the 20 mins you draw up a contract. The contract consists of a list of approx 4 things that the youth has to do within a certain time period. The youth is referred to this meeting as an option instead of standing before a magistrate. If the youth fails to accept the conditions of the contract, or fails to see it through, then they automatically go back to court. The contract contains certain tasks, something which is achievable being the most important. Something which means they are giving up there time, something which is putting something back in to the community/giving something back to the victim, and something which will arm them with a skill, and something which is. dare I say it, semi-interesting to them. Apparently, it has been a great success and the re-offending rate has dropped right down.

It was sad, however, to see some of the kids parents (they get to come with one parent). When one kid's Father was asked what he thought would be a suitable punishment for his son he said, 'I don't want 'im, his Mum dunt want 'im. Send him darn'. Now, I can't imagine why this kid turned his attentions to vandalismand other activities, can you ?

I digress.

My point is, that in this type of thing victim intervention is good as the kid is seeing just how his/her actions have had an effect. However, this is very much different to deciding to squeeze the air clean out of someone.

Fair point, but shouldn't those who wish to have a say be allowed? If you and others don't want to, then you shouldn't have to, but i'd like some kind of option.

I don't think it would be right that only some murderers then received the DP. You have to have one rule for all or it is open to abuse.

emotionally we'd all like to have a say.
Then we think about it more rationally and see that such a system would be unfair and unworkable. That's why we say we and no-one else should have a say.

there are for and against of it

for

less of taxpayers money goes to wasting away killers

against

wrong coviction

it goes both ways, but i personally tyhink that people who have been convicted and there is no doubt about them, e.g ian Huntley, they should bring it back.

its was in the papers a few weeks ago. Maxine Carr has £1 mil of tax payers money being spent on her for protection

except that there is little evidence to suggest that incarceration actually costs more than the death penalty. Despite DBs rough calculation.

There is no such thing as a 100% safe conviction. And even if there was, someone has to decide when it's that sure, and then they have to decide what penalty to apply.

So basically no change from the old system unless you introduce a new person into the procedings who's job is to determine how 'safe' a conviction is....

There have been two high profile cases recently where the wrong person has served upwards of 15 years for murders they didn't commit. Given your way, they would be dead, because for 14 of those years the authorities insisted that the convictions were perfectly safe.

Originally posted by mr craig
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.........

only problem with that is any conviction is supposed to be based on proof "beyond reasonable doubt" - which is pretty much the same thing.

Yet we still have miscarriages of justice

an mp has said they should bring back the death penalty for killing police officers,well i personally think it should be for all who murder,id do a poll, but dont know how too :)

No! an eye for an eye leads to a world of blind people.

Social reforms, end of capitalism and a move to equilibrium is the key to reducing crime.

I agree though, why should a Police officers life mean more than mine?

Made me mad earlier when i read about it. Why should killing a police officer be judged any worse than killing anyone else?

I bet Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman's parents were feeling the same as i do after reading about it.

I bet Tom, Dick and Harry's parents weren't too happy either.

Every murder is equally as bad has anyother. It just seems that Class etc. dictates the amount of publicity each individual case recieves.:o

By this I mean, I remember some innercity kids being murdered around the same time, yet they only made a small paragraph a few pages inside the national newspapers. Such a small story, I can't even give the full detail now MMMMmmmm......:(

I agree in principle that the death sentence for murder ought to be reinstated, however it has been said that a jury is far less likely to decide on a guilty verdict if they know that they are sending the accused to the gallows if they convict.

Would you be able to live with that ? because I am not sure if I
could.

I exclude from all the above, any person who would attempt to kill one of my family, and for those I would happily pull on their feet to make sure they died.

I think the death penalty should be reinstated, I know in the past some people got it wrong and innocent people were put to death ,
but now they have more evidence through D,N,A would this not make a difference?.
The other alternative would be life sentences, not just a few years locked up then released after a couple of years,life should mean life without all the luxuries that they have now.

The problem with the death penalty is that, if a person is executed, then found to be innocent, how do we bring them back?

It's all very well saying "oh, irrefutable evidence/ dna etc" but Evidence can be falsified or witheld. Look how many cases were highlighted through programmes like "Rough Justice" where there was a wrogful conviction

There were cases like that of Stefan Kischku who was convicted, wrongly, for the murder and rape of a child, Lesley Moleseed, about 30 yrs ago.

The police KNEW he was innocent, because the forensic tests proved that the man who raped and murdered her was "potent" (he produced sperm in his semen) where this chap, Kischku was impotent and sterile,and therefore could not POSSIBLY havecommitted this dreadful crime, yet this information was KNOWINGLY withheld from the jury who convicted him.

This man spent many years in gaol, for something he had not done. As it was, his life was taken from him cos he died just 18 months after his release.

The Supposed IRA bombers; the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham six... were convicted unsoundly, on false evidence, and false confessions. how would we have brought them back had we executed them?

It's the same with that spate of cases of supposed baby killers, whose convictions were found to be wrong, like Trupti Patel, and others. The "expert" evidence, from a jumped up so-and-so, caused innocent women to serve time in gaol for what was actually the cot- death of their baby. How would we have brought them back, had they been put to death?

I agree the death penalty would relieve the burden on the state, of keeping convicted rapists or murderers in prison, and that yes, perhaps a lot of those *are* wastes of space, who arguably oughtn't to be drawing breath...

But sadly, miscarriages of justice happen both ways. Innocent people get convicted, just as guilty parties get to go free.

Sadly, justice is probably better served keepng the guilty alive, than risk the deaths of innocent people.

Life should be a full life-sentence, like in the USA, I feel...

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
The problem with the death penalty is that, if a person is executed, then found to be innocent, how do we bring them back?


The Supposed IRA bombers; the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham six... were convicted unsoundly, on false evidence, and false confessions. how would we have brought them back had we executed them?



Life should be a full life-sentence, like in the USA, I feel...

PT

I agree with most of what you say PT, but do you not think that the release of the Guilford four & the Birmingham six was more to do with a political solution in Northern Ireland than actual guilt ?

Secondly, and I am sure that one of our friends from the other side of the big puddle will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that all convicted murderers in the USA actually do stay in prison for all of their lives.

Apologies, owdlad, if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, It's just that you see, on tv, these cases in the states where the convicted person is sentenced to terms such as "99 years plus life", or, another e.g:- one murderer got 985 years plus life" or something equally ridiculous as his sentence.

And, in agreement with your point... maybe there *was* more than a whiff of political expediency in the release of the alleged IRA bombers, but, there is proof that their confessions were falsified/ extracted under duress, and that it was something of a "conviction of someone, anyone, at any cost".

PT

I completely agree with PT's points here... However, the amount of money that it costs us to keep people in prison for life is overwhelming. I read an article a few months ago, that detailed how these people live and in some prisons, life is very comfortable for them .
Based on that, I would say that we should bring the death penalty back. Especially so for people like Ian Huntley or Roy Whiting (who had been convicted and set free before he killed Sarah Payne); people who *are* convicted irrefutably and who committed such heinous crimes with no remorse.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
[B]
I agree the death penalty would relieve the burden on the state, of keeping convicted rapists or murderers in prison, and that yes, perhaps a lot of those *are* wastes of space, who arguably oughtn't to be drawing breath...

But sadly, miscarriages of justice happen both ways. Innocent people get convicted, just as guilty parties get to go free.

Sadly, justice is probably better served keepng the guilty alive, than risk the deaths of innocent people.

Life should be a full life-sentence, like in the USA, I feel...

PT

Originally posted by stars_gazing
I completely agree with PT's points here... However, the amount of money that it costs us to keep people in prison for life is overwhelming. I read an article a few months ago, that detailed how these people live and in some prisons, life is very comfortable for them [btw. why do people in prison need Televisions?].
Based on that, I would say that we should bring the death penalty back. Especially so for people like Ian Huntley or Roy Whiting (who had been convicted and set free before he killed Sarah Payne); people who *are* convicted irrefutably and who committed such heinous crimes with no remorse.

What do you think about the fact that taxpayers in california have paid more than $250 million for each of that states 11 executions? Or that in florida, enforcing the death penalty costs $51 million to enforce beyond what it would cost to keep all first degree murderers in prison for life? Source of stats (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf)


Police chiefs in America have also placed it last in a list of things that help to deter people from crime (same source) Criminologists seem to share the same opinion.

There are also interesting figures about race, for instance, a recent survey in California showed that those who killed whites were over three times more likely to be put to death than those who killed blacks, and four times more likely than those who killed latinos.


I dont want it in this country. Think about how much of a media circus there would be. It has been proved that in America governers often execute more people around election time than they do any other time of year. Its too expensive and too open to abuse by the prevailing political wind.

Comparatively, giving someone a TV for their cell costs around 30 quid.

Also, if this were to come into law, imagine how much time would have to be spent in parliament! They spent months debating fox hunting, FFS!

I totally agree with your second point (this country really should be more decisive!).

But, re: the TV - why should someone *in prison* need a TV??? Surely if prison was a bad place, more people would be afraid of going there! From reports I have read: they get three square meals, a televison, a place to do sports, presents/luxuries and communal activities every so often [FREE!] - some people don't have it that good!
The way I see it, if prison was such a horrible place to everyone (ie. a room with a bucket), we wouldn't need the death penalty. We need the death penalty to act as a deterrent to crime (something has to!).

ALAS - that raises the question: What right does somebody have to sentence another human being to death??


Originally posted by kathythebean
Comparatively, giving someone a TV for their cell costs around 30 quid.

Also, if this were to come into law, imagine how much time would have to be spent in parliament! They spent months debating fox hunting, FFS!

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, for the very reasons already mentioned on here.

I would however welcome back the stocks.

Imagine some chav car criminal being put in stocks for 24 hours while the whole of sheffield could throw rotten veg at him, jeer and abuse him, or urinate on him.

It would make him think twice I reckon.....

To be honest, I can't remember exactly how much it costs to keep someone in prison for life - but I can tell you, that it would be a lot less than killing them (apologies for sounding brutal).
Think of all the costs involved in maintaining a person; food, clothes, health care (including drugs), prison accomodation, luxuries - all of this for the rest of their lives (well, until they show remorse and are set free).
It makes me shudder that all of this money is being spent on somebody who robbed a family of one of its members!

I would also like to point out that the money spent on enforcing the death penalty in certain States' figures includes high legal costs and the costs of providing a "humane death" - bring back the guillotine!

Originally posted by kathythebean
What do you think about the fact that taxpayers in california have paid more than $250 million for each of that states 11 executions? Or that in florida, enforcing the death penalty costs $51 million to enforce beyond what it would cost to keep all first degree murderers in prison for life? Source of stats (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf)


Police chiefs in America have also placed it last in a list of things that help to deter people from crime (same source) Criminologists seem to share the same opinion.

There are also interesting figures about race, for instance, a recent survey in California showed that those who killed whites were over three times more likely to be put to death than those who killed blacks, and four times more likely than those who killed latinos.


I dont want it in this country. Think about how much of a media circus there would be. It has been proved that in America governers often execute more people around election time than they do any other time of year. Its too expensive and too open to abuse by the prevailing political wind.

Originally posted by stars_gazing
To be honest, I can't remember exactly how much it costs to keep someone in prison for life - but I can tell you, that it would be a lot less than killing them (apologies for sounding brutal).
Think of all the costs involved in maintaining a person; food, clothes, health care (including drugs), prison accomodation, luxuries - all of this for the rest of their lives (well, until they show remorse and are set free).
It makes me shudder that all of this money is being spent on somebody who robbed a family of one of its members!

I would also like to point out that the money spent on enforcing the death penalty in certain States' figures includes high legal costs and the costs of providing a "humane death" - bring back the guillotine!

what's the cost when you get it wrong and it turns out that you killed an innocent person?

Originally posted by stars_gazing
To be honest, I can't remember exactly how much it costs to keep someone in prison for life - but I can tell you, that it would be a lot less than killing them (apologies for sounding brutal).
Think of all the costs involved in maintaining a person; food, clothes, health care (including drugs), prison accomodation, luxuries - all of this for the rest of their lives (well, until they show remorse and are set free).
It makes me shudder that all of this money is being spent on somebody who robbed a family of one of its members!

I would also like to point out that the money spent on enforcing the death penalty in certain States' figures includes high legal costs and the costs of providing a "humane death" - bring back the guillotine!

No no, the money spent is on appeal after appeal - lawyers are expensive you know! You have to have a far more rigourous trial if you want to put someone to death. Then you have to organise 'the event'.

The relative cost of three meals a day and a television is tiny compared to the amount of hassle that goes into death penalty cases.

I voted 'NO' for one simple reason... What happens if after some years new evidence suggest the person accused was innocent... This has happened many times in the past, and especially during the past few years, because of the advances in forensic science (biology, DNA matching etc)

From what I understand, prison and the death penalty aren't really good deterents to crime.

In Brazil, prisons are horrible , but they still have crime. In thailand, prisons ming , but they still have crime.

I wouldn't deny someone in prison a TV. People are hardly going to stop, mid-crime, and go 'oh, you know, I won't get to watch the bill inside, so, I'm going to stop this crime and start a new life'.

Originally posted by kathythebean
What do you think about the fact that taxpayers in california have paid more than $250 million for each of that states 11 executions? Or that in florida, enforcing the death penalty costs $51 million to enforce beyond what it would cost to keep all first degree murderers in prison for life? Source of stats (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf)


Police chiefs in America have also placed it last in a list of things
There are also interesting figures about race, for instance, a recent survey in California showed that those who killed whites were over three times more likely to be put to death than those who killed blacks, and four times more likely than those who killed latinos.




yes, you have a good point, there.....

Ask the dear, sweet man, Governor J Bush of Florida, (yep, Dubbya's likkle bruvver) about the policy of execution in florida.

IN the U S A, there are some, (aren't there Jed?) who think it's acceptable to execute minors (don't you Jed?) or people who are what used to be termed "mentally handicapped" (Don't you Governor Bush?)

Statistics show that, in cases of a death penalty being handed down, you are much more likely to get a DP if you are

a) black
b)poor
c) male and
d) educationally subnormal

(And if you are all four, then hell! Just assume the frickin' position, "boy"! end of story.)

Go straight to gaol, do not pass go, and do not collect $200.

And on the other hand, if you are rich, amd particularly if you are white then you'll get a much more lenient sentence... (isn't that right, Lyle and Eric Menedez?)

PT

Ten quid says the next post is

"Uh oh...I smell the PC brigade"

:hihi:

I don't think this thread should have been merged :confused:

Just for the record, there are now 123 votes, 52 in favour, 71 against.

It's a pretty good sample for SF and one taken in the light of the shooting a couploe of days ago.

Originally posted by stellstar
I think the death penalty should be reinstated, I know in the past some people got it wrong and innocent people were put to death ,
but now they have more evidence through D,N,A would this not make a difference?.
The other alternative would be life sentences, not just a few years locked up then released after a couple of years,life should mean life without all the luxuries that they have now.

DNA is a relatively new science and as such we are only just beginning to find the pitfalls of it. For example, a DNA profile matching that found on Millie Dowler's clothing was found on some goods stolen from a church. However police were later able to rule out any connection between Millie, her murderer, the church and the burglars.

This is just the tip of the iceburg. We are approaching a potential timebomb where another discovery will (or has already but is confidential) be made, which will enable many people convicted solely on DNA evidence to appeal or to have their convictions quashed.

No, not ever.

For a start morally it's not right, no matter what someone may have done they do not deserve to die because of it.

The best argument against it is sheer probability - it is not possible to be 100% always correct with this sort of thing... if nothing else then because of human error (but also because people lie, evidence may not be available/found/fully understood etc).

As soon as you punish someone using the death penalty incorrectly that effectively makes you a murderer - and given that you too should then be given the death penalty (as murder is one of crimes most often argued that it should be applied).

Also, as little chance there may be that a criminal will reform, that chance should be given in my opinion.

Death Penalty?

Just this once......for Gary Glitter!!!

Originally posted by saxon51
Death Penalty?

Just this once......for Gary Glitter!!!

Why - what makes him any worse than another person who has done exactly the same thing??

The only difference is he used to be famous so you've heard all about it - hardly a valid reason for killing him.

As vile as it is what he's done - I would not want to lower myself by murdering him because I thought "he deserved it"

Originally posted by Plain Talker
yes, you have a good point, there.....

Ask the dear, sweet man, Governor J Bush of Florida, (yep, Dubbya's likkle bruvver) about the policy of execution in florida.

IN the U S A, there are some, (aren't there Jed?) who think it's acceptable to execute minors (don't you Jed?) or people who are what used to be termed "mentally handicapped" (Don't you Governor Bush?)

Statistics show that, in cases of a death penalty being handed down, you are much more likely to get a DP if you are

a) black
b)poor
c) male and
d) educationally subnormal

(And if you are all four, then hell! Just assume the frickin' position, "boy"! end of story.)

Go straight to gaol, do not pass go, and do not collect $200.

And on the other hand, if you are rich, amd particularly if you are white then you'll get a much more lenient sentence... (isn't that right, Lyle and Eric Menedez?)

PT

You would be OK then on those grounds. Most murder victims are innocent.

Originally posted by craigb
Why - what makes him any worse than another person who has done exactly the same thing??

The only difference is he used to be famous so you've heard all about it - hardly a valid reason for killing him.

As vile as it is what he's done - I would not want to lower myself by murdering him because I thought "he deserved it"

You are entitled to your opinion, and I honour that.........it just doesn't agree with mine.

I agree with Saxon here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm

But then again, I am in favour of the Death Penalty.

Originally posted by craigb
Why - what makes him any worse than another person who has done exactly the same thing??

The only difference is he used to be famous so you've heard all about it - hardly a valid reason for killing him.

As vile as it is what he's done - I would not want to lower myself by murdering him because I thought "he deserved it"

Originally posted by craigb


As soon as you punish someone using the death penalty incorrectly that effectively makes you a murderer - and given that you too should then be given the death penalty (as murder is one of crimes most often argued that it should be applied).


People appointed in the court of law are empowered by the people to make such decisions. Sometimes innocent people are accused of crimes they have not committed. This is the reason that I said that the proof should be concrete. I see no reason why, with the level of technology we have now (not to mention that which is around the corner) we cannot make highly accurate convictions - and yes, I mean convictions that are concrete enough (pardon my bluntness) to stake a life on.



Also, as little chance there may be that a criminal will reform, that chance should be given in my opinion.

Why should someone who robbed another person of their life continue to live?

The answer is simple: They shouldn't.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme a few years ago
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.

I am a pacifist- I believe that killing is wrong, and that totally apart from the argument that once somebody's dead it's a bit late to apologise if you got it wrong, state sponsored killing is still killing, and if we can learn from people who kill (to prevent future killing) then they will serve a purpose by being kept alive.

I also believe that there are worse things than death- like a long long life to contemplate what one has done wrong, whilst locked away and denied joy. I DO believe that there are people who should never be let loose on the community again.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
yes, you have a good point, there.....

Ask the dear, sweet man, Governor J Bush of Florida, (yep, Dubbya's likkle bruvver) about the policy of execution in florida.

IN the U S A, there are some, (aren't there Jed?) who think it's acceptable to execute minors (don't you Jed?) or people who are what used to be termed "mentally handicapped" (Don't you Governor Bush?)

Statistics show that, in cases of a death penalty being handed down, you are much more likely to get a DP if you are

a) black
b)poor
c) male and
d) educationally subnormal

(And if you are all four, then hell! Just assume the frickin' position, "boy"! end of story.)

Go straight to gaol, do not pass go, and do not collect $200.

And on the other hand, if you are rich, amd particularly if you are white then you'll get a much more lenient sentence... (isn't that right, Lyle and Eric Menedez?)

PT

I thought this was supposed to be about bringing back the death penalty in the UK.

How is it every time, someone brings up:

A. The death penalties in some American states, and how it's a dismal deterrent to crime.

B. How uncivilized, racist, and unenlightened those yanks are compared to us. Because we don't have the death penalty, you see. We are oh so moral compared to them. They need to be like us!

C. How George Bush and his kin only execute:

1. children
2. african americans
3. poor african americans
4. uneducated african americans
5. poor, uneducated, african american children

Apparently, the Bush's invented the death penalty.

D. How death rows are filled with only the above. All wrongly convicted, all arrested while sitting in a church pew, with a bible in one hand, and a rosary in the other, and of course, all innocent victims of America's unfair, racist, white male christian society.

There are more young black men in prison in the US BECAUSE THEY COMMIT MORE CRIME! Quite a bit of which is black on black. If I were a victim of a violent crime? God forbid! It wouldn't matter to me WHAT color the perpetrator was.

Lyle and Erik Menendez? At least they're incarcerated!

How about Mr. Orenthal James Simpson? (OJ) He didn't even go to jail! He's walking around free as a bird! Isn't he white? I forget. :rolleyes:

Oh. He's NOT white. But then, how did he get all that money? Aren't all black people in America poor? And downtrodden because of all that racism?

Scott Peterson is sitting on death row in San Quentin right now. He's white, financially well off (well, not anymore) and well educated. How did he get there?

And as a taxpaying resident of Stanislaus county, IN CALIFORNIA. My husband and I are paying for his trial.

Probably our KIDS will still be paying for his trial. Anyone wanna send me any donations to help defray the expense? My taxes are high enough, thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

You want to complain about the death penalty or human rights violations? Look at China or Iran or Afghanistan. Good Lord. Women are still stoned to death in Iran for adultery.

The only places in the world where the death penalty is effective, are those places where it's carried out RIGHT AWAY. Within 24 hours.

Leave George Bush out of this. He has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the death penalty in the UK. If you want to take a poke at him, start another thread. Since you're not an American, don't live here, DON'T pay taxes here, don't worry about it. It's not your problem.

Oh. And it's Jeb Bush. Not Jed.

Sierra

no one has the write to kill someone even if they have done a terrible crime. no deserves to die. you may not agree with me but although i hate what these people do i still do not wish death on them because killing someone, although they have done a bad thing, is still murder, pure and simple.

Originally posted by Ditz
no one has the write to kill someone even if they have done a terrible crime. no deserves to die. you may not agree with me but although i hate what these people do i still do not wish death on them because killing someone, although they have done a bad thing, is still murder, pure and simple.

Totally agree - I'm really worried about how many people are saying they're in favour of it... I thought we were more educated and morally sound these days - seems not :loopy:

Originally posted by stars_gazing
I see no reason why, with the level of technology we have now (not to mention that which is around the corner) we cannot make highly accurate convictions - and yes, I mean convictions that are concrete enough (pardon my bluntness) to stake a life on.



Like DNA which I mentioned in my previous post, much of the technology we have is relatively new and thus not necessarily as safe as we think it is. Yes, on the surface it seems highly accurate but there are one or two cases in every couple of thousand in which this evidence really isn't safe.

I certainly would not put someone's life on the line on the basis of DNA or other forensic evidence.

i voted no but...........

i heard on the news last night that Gary Glitter could face death by firing squad for his recent escapaes in a small far eastern country,........i found myself jumping for joy

Originally posted by rocketpig
i voted no but...........

i heard on the news last night that Gary Glitter could face death by firing squad for his recent escapaes in a small far eastern country,........i found myself jumping for joy

I would say that says more about you than it does about him in my opinion :loopy:

Originally posted by craigb
I would say that says more about you than it does about him in my opinion :loopy:


yeah, I.'d like someone to be shot by firing squad because they've had intercourse with a 12year old, and he's a repeat offender, and he's admitting it,...........perhaps one could think that one should lose all human rights in such cases, therefore not be treated like a human being, more like a dog thats bit too many people.........what do we do to them?

However, of course its not black and white, there's usualy no way of being 100 % certain that someone is guilty, and i think you can't go to the extreme of death unless you are 100% certain, this is why generally i'm against it but it some, very extreme casses......bring it on

Originally posted by craigb
Totally agree - I'm really worried about how many people are saying they're in favour of it... I thought we were more educated and morally sound these days - seems not :loopy:

so those who don't agree with you are illeducated and not morally sound?

obviously they have different morals, so it's not suprising to consider them immoral, certainly over such an emotive subject if they disagree.

Originally posted by Cyclone
obviously they have different morals, so it's not suprising to consider them immoral, certainly over such an emotive subject if they disagree.

immoral means lack of morals......not different morals so it is surprising to consider them immoral.

am i missing a trick here?

Originally posted by rocketpig
immoral means lack of morals......not different morals so it is surprising to consider them immoral.

am i missing a trick here?

missing the moral that makes me think that society killing someone is just as bad as someone killing someone. It kindof strikes me as a little bit hypocrytical, not to mention ultimately unsafe, afterall someone human has to make the decision as to when it really is 100% sure that they were guilty, and humans aren't 100% right, ever, so it stands to reason that innocent people would be killed (murdered if you like) by the state.
I wouldn't choose to use the immoral though, I was just trying to show how someone might think that.

Immoral would actually mean that someone has violated a moral code and therfore has done something considered wrong. To have no morals means someone is amoral.

Sorry to split hairs :P

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


i thought the members of the jury would be in that situation after all hes only passing judgement not deciding it

Originally posted by Twiglet
Immoral would actually mean that someone has violated a moral code and therfore has done something considered wrong. To have no morals means someone is amoral.

Sorry to split hairs :P

fair enough, immoral would be correct then, they'd be advocating murder which is against my moral code.

Originally posted by rocketpig
i voted no but...........

i heard on the news last night that Gary Glitter could face death by firing squad for his recent escapaes in a small far eastern country,........i found myself jumping for joy

have to agree. I voted no as I'm againt it but if another country wishes to kill that monster then it's more than fine by me.

Oh, it is getting a lot better. I have peers studying in this field and Scientists are verging on technology with the ability to form full digital reconstructions of an entire murder scenario (currently they can determine the type of killer that has committed murder in certain cases). Forensic evidence is near flawless and in murder cases cross-referenced and checked vigarously. I find it odd that we can have evidence concrete enough to send someone to jail for life and not enough evidence to permenantly rid the world of them. If this is the case, then our justice system needs *a lot* of improvement.

Like DNA which I mentioned in my previous post, much of the technology we have is relatively new and thus not necessarily as safe as we think it is. Yes, on the surface it seems highly accurate but there are one or two cases in every couple of thousand in which this evidence really isn't safe.

I certainly would not put someone's life on the line on the basis of DNA or other forensic evidence.

Originally posted by craigb
Totally agree - I'm really worried about how many people are saying they're in favour of it... I thought we were more educated and morally sound these days - seems not :loopy:

Please do not insult other people, by claiming that because you have a view contrary to theirs, they have no morals. Others may argue that you have no morals (but may have the decency not to)!

I would be very interested to know how many of those against the Death Penalty have actually gone through the experience of having somebody close to them murdered.

People forget that when someone murders another human being, they are robbing a person of their mother/father/sister/brother/cousin etc. These innocent people enter into a(n actual) life sentence - they will suffer psychologically and never, EVER recover. Yet the brute who robbed them of their loved one will (in max) 25 years be free again. Perhaps to kill again. Perhaps to re-intergrate into society - whichever they choose. How is this any form of justice?

Also, I put this to everyone who is against the Death Penalty - what about those who freely admit to murder? Those who tell you that they would do it again if they could. Should they set free after a while behind bars? What do you say after they have killed again? Do we go through the same motions? Lock them up for longer? Hope they'll change? But set them free even if they don't?

missing the moral that makes me think that society killing someone is just as bad as someone killing someone. It kindof strikes me as a little bit hypocrytical, not to mention ultimately unsafe, afterall someone human has to make the decision as to when it really is 100% sure that they were guilty, and humans aren't 100% right, ever, so it stands to reason that innocent people would be killed (murdered if you like) by the state.

This is why we have a judge & jury. A human does not decide another's fate. An independent panel of Average Joes & Janes does - and only after thoroughly examining the evidence presented to them. A sentence is only ever imposed if the jury can agree with one voice.

I would also like to point out that I feel the Death Penalty should only be issued to those who kill others. Gary Glitter may deserve a lot of things (oh, say to be sexually assualted by big burly... gorillas) but not death by firing squad.

Originally posted by stars_gazing
Oh, it is getting a lot better. I have peers studying in this field and Scientists are verging on technology with the ability to form full digital reconstructions of an entire murder scenario (currently they can determine the type of killer that has committed murder in certain cases). Forensic evidence is near flawless and in murder cases cross-referenced and checked vigarously. I find it odd that we can have evidence concrete enough to send someone to jail for life and not enough evidence to permenantly rid the world of them. If this is the case, then our justice system needs *a lot* of improvement.

I lecture and research in forensic science :D

It is absolutely not near flawless. We do have some very effective and accurate techniques and in the majority of cases this is more than adequate. But you cannot justify killing sombody on the basis of evidence that possibly could be flawed, however small that possibility is.

Of course we can have evidence concrete enough to send someone to jail for life and not to permanently rid the world of them - because a decision to send them to jail for life is a reversible one. It is not always about how concrete the evidence is anyway - it is about how well this evidence is put to a jury and how convinced they are by it.

Originally posted by panda79
i thought the members of the jury would be in that situation after all hes only passing judgement not deciding it

It's the Judge who passes sentence, the Jury return the verdict. AFAIK.

Originally posted by Twiglet

Of course we can have evidence concrete enough to send someone to jail for life and not to permanently rid the world of them - because a decision to send them to jail for life is a reversible one. It is not always about how concrete the evidence is anyway - it is about how well this evidence is put to a jury and how convinced they are by it.

As far as I am concerned - if you can be sure enough to lock somebody up for the rest of their lives, you should be sure enough to exterminate them.

Otherwise if we have it wrong, 20 years later do we say, "Sorry you went to prison for all these years... but, hey, at least we didn't kill you, eh?".

I do agree with the point:
It is not always about how concrete the evidence is anyway - it is about how well this evidence is put to a jury and how convinced they are by it.

This is true; a person may be damned if though innocent, they have a bad lawyer. This is why I said concrete evidence - and I sincerely believe that there is such thing. To people who speak only of forensic evidence; there are other types: eg. eye witness accounts, CCTV & confessions (to name a few). In cases where the person is guilty without a doubt - are you saying they do not deserve Capital Punishment?

To mention a few famous cases (as most people have heard of them):
- The murder of little Jamie Bulger.
- The murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son.
- The murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.

Do you not feel the monsters in all of these cases should no longer be allowed to draw breath? I don't mean to sound like a psycho :suspect: but it really does make me ill to look at the victims and then their killers, knowing that the innocents are dead and the guilty still alive.

As far as I am aware most people against the Death Penalty, have not survived a murder attempt/had somebody close to them die at the hands of another. Thus, can they really be justified to argue that such evildoers should not be wiped off the earth/should be given a chance to change?

Food for thought: (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/16/peterson.case/)
Read the comments made by Laci's family.

With reference to those specific cases, I think death is too good for them. I think they should be locked up in a tiny cell in solitary confinement with just a bed for the rest of their lives.

With regard to the types of evidence you mentioned. Yes, CCTV is pretty conclusive. Confessions not so. For every high profile you hear on the news there are one or two nut jobs who will turn themselves in for it. Confessions must be taken in the context of the person being in possession of knowledge only the perpetrator would have. Related to this is 'suicide by cop'. In the States people who cannot bring themselves to kill themselves will take a plastic gun to the streets and aim it at police to get themselves shot. A similiar principle could apply to false confessions, some people crave publicity, whether it be positive or negative.

What about those killers who never reveal the location of a body? Do we execute them, and with them lose any hope of providing the victims family with closure?

I do not believe that we have the right to make the decision to take a person's life. We then create two grieving families instead of one. I also believe that currently, higher profile murder cases receive longer sentences than lower publicised, equally horrific crimes. So would only these few, higher profile crimes receive the death penalty? That would be wrong in so many ways, killing a few just to set an example and to satisfy the public thirst for blood.

Whilst I agree that killers are generally wastes of breath and space ...

On the bring it back/ keep hanging off the books... debate,

I'll see the James Bulger, Laci Peterson, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and I'll raise you a

James Hanratty, Derek Bentley, Stefan Kischku and a Timothy Evans, and add a Doctor Sam Sheppard.... they went to the gallows/served a considerable time in prison, and were innocent.

PT

James Hanratty,
A quick Yahoo found me this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/wales/1980731.stm
Specifically, "Forensic scientists who worked on the case say this is highly unlikely - and in any case, they found no other profile. If James Hanratty was not the killer, then where was the killer's DNA?" -- which quashes the argument that there could have been cross contamination; what, of both seperate pieces of evidence??


Derek Bentley,
From what I have read - the evidence against him was not enough to execute him. I didn't say, let's kill everyone accused of murder - but I do feel that Capital Punishment should be reinstated to kill those who are very obviously guilty of murder. Also, lets not forget that he "had voluntarily gone with an accomplace to break into a warehouse, armed with a knife and a particularly vicious knuckle duster"...

Stefan Kiszko
The new technology that I have been raving on about, is what cleared him. There also was not enough evidence to put him to death... :suspect: But if you look at this article: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/50/50975_stefan__the_other_victim_of_killer.html where the other strongly suspected murderer is chronicled, you will see his later repeat offences. Why? Because he got away with it the first time. I rest my case.

and a Timothy Evans,
Damned by **his own** (as in, not forced) confession. Evidence only circumstantial.

and add a Doctor Sam Sheppard....
Advances using DNA cleared him... Thus, are we saying that DNA is evidence enough to clear someone of crime - but not to convict them? :confused:

they went to the gallows/served a considerable time in prison, and were innocent - hardly! perhaps some were innocent of that which they were charged, but great members of society they were not (ducks flames - no I do not mean they deserve to die regardless).

Presumably, in order to support the death penalty, it is necessary to accept that there will be innocents who are wrongly convicted and put to death by the state?

Given that must be the case, how many people on this thread, who support the death penalty, would want some kind of judicial redress for their family should they be wrongly convicted and put to death themselves?

And if so, what sort of redress would be appropriate?

Originally posted by stars_gazing
James Hanratty,
Derek Bentley,
From what I have read - the evidence against him was not enough to execute him. I didn't say, let's kill everyone accused of murder - but I do feel that Capital Punishment should be reinstated to kill those who are very obviously guilty of murder. Also, lets not forget that he "had voluntarily gone with an accomplace to break into a warehouse, armed with a knife and a particularly vicious knuckle duster"...

Stefan Kiszko
The new technology that I have been raving on about, is what cleared him. There also was not enough evidence to put him to death... :suspect: But if you look at this article: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/50/50975_stefan__the_other_victim_of_killer.html where the other strongly suspected murderer is chronicled, you will see his later repeat offences. Why? Because he got away with it the first time. I rest my case.

and a Timothy Evans,
Damned by **his own** (as in, not forced) confession. Evidence only circumstantial.

and add a Doctor Sam Sheppard....
Advances using DNA cleared him... Thus, are we saying that DNA is evidence enough to clear someone of crime - but not to convict them? :confused:

- hardly! perhaps some were innocent of that which they were charged, but great members of society they were not (ducks flames - no I do not mean they deserve to die regardless).


Apologies for my misspelling of Kiszco. Now, in the Kiszco case, the police had evidence, from the start, that proved he was innocent:- that the rapist/ murderer was fertile, whereas Kiszco patently wasn't. This evidence was witheld at his trial. He would have been spared years in jail, had this been revealed. The police, it seemed were more interested in securing *A* conviction than the conviction of the perpetrator.

Ok, there is still some doubt about the cross contamination of 40-odd year old evidence in the Hanratty case. On that count, we'll never truly know, I suppose.

Sam Sheppard:- His original trial was more about his personal "morality" than the murder of his wife. (he was cstigated for having an affair with a nurse at the hospital where he worked) His injuries, sustained at the time should have been enough to throw doubt on the case. He recieved a broken neck, IIRC, in the tussle wiith the intruder who killed his wife. Who would break their own neck?

Timothy Evans, it is believed, confessed to the death of his wife, because he felt responsible, as (it's alleged) he apparently persuaded her to go to Christie to procure an abortion.
I also didn't mention Steven Dowling, who was cleared after he served 26 years for a murder in Bakewell, which he refused to admit to.

As I have said, before, I'd rather a guilty party live, being jailed, than an innocent party be executed, for a crime they didn't commit.

PT

Originally posted by stars_gazing
As far as I am concerned - if you can be sure enough to lock somebody up for the rest of their lives, you should be sure enough to exterminate them.

Otherwise if we have it wrong, 20 years later do we say, "Sorry you went to prison for all these years... but, hey, at least we didn't kill you, eh?".



yeah, that's pretty much exactly it. You can release someone after 20 years, appologise, give them some compensation and they can at least live the rest of their life.

What do you do when they've been worm food for 20 years, say wups and then execute everyone who was effectively involved in their murder?

On the argument about having survived attempted murder or had someone close to your murdered. In those instances you should specifically be denied any involvement in sentencing or sentencing discussions as you are being emotional about the subject rather than rational.

Mirror today:

Front page pics of what a British prison looks like (taken by an inmate using his cellphone)..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/

See first article.

Still against the Death Penalty, people??