I recently been looking at the statistics of capital punishment in American and it got me thinking about how many people would think it's a good idea to have it.

Any thoughts?

Yes Lickszz I do for certain crimes. With DNA technology now it is possible to prove possitively that someone has commited a certain crime. That is of course assuming a trustworthy police force......and we all know that there aren't any bent coppers :wink:

As far as I can see that would be the only stumbling block. There are some people who this world could well do without why should we waste good money keeping them in prison when evidence suggests that the biggest majority of them continue to offend on release. As for peodophiles give me the injection and I'd be happy to administer it myself :twisted: :twisted:

Capital punishment will have to be brought back as the law today is encouraging murder because there is no detterent. The murdering thugs don't care who they kill or maim knowing they will not be hurt.

Lets face it, in any society you have certain people who are more like animals than human being's and if there is no punishment will force their will on other's, whether it be rape, murder, robbery, mugging, if they want what you have they will take it.

In times gone by, you didn't get repeat offender's like today because they were taken out of society and murderer's hung. The human animal can be just like the beast of the jungle and will kill without remorse. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Do you agree with capital punishment or not?

Another of my questions lol...
Its for school work though so can you just post your opinion and vote in the poll.

No Just look at the American Penal system where poor uneducated Black men are unable to defend themselves. You will inevitably get innocents executed. If you were to wrongly execute one innocent person in for every 999 guilty ones it's not worth it.

And if we had Capital pun thease days in uk, all the lawyers would become millionaires and the legal system would go bankrupt, it's much cheaper to imprison for life.

thats the kind of thing i want
Cheers MuddyCoffee

Originally posted by muddycoffee
No Just look at the American Penal system where poor uneducated Black men are unable to defend themselves. You will inevitably get innocents executed. If you were to wrongly execute one innocent person in for every 999 guilty ones it's not worth it.

And if we had Capital pun thease days in uk, all the lawyers would become millionaires and the legal system would go bankrupt, it's much cheaper to imprison for life.

Is it effective to imprison criminals though? Surely the experience of imprisonment should have the effect of stopping the criminal reoffending otherwise you have wasted time and money locking them up.

Capital punishment should be made use of for murder, rape and peodophilia where dna evidence proves that a particular person has carried out a crime.

Before you could be certain someone has comitted a rape the law on rape needs changing.

Rape cases are almost never a matter of proving that a sexual act took place - hence DNA evidence would only very rarely be conclusive.

The crux of almost all rape cases is whether it was consensual sex or not, not whether the act happened or not.

you assume several things there;

1) that there is no possibility of reform for someone committing those crimes.
2) that executing someone is cheaper than lifetime imprisonment
3) that 100% certainty is possible in any conviction

I disagree with all 3 points and have voted that capital punishment should not be used.

I voted No because we have a dreadful habit of getting the wrong person for a crime.

Also, you need to apprehend someone to hang them - if an armed robber has already shot someone, I'd say they're more likely to be literally hung for a sheep than a lamb, as the saying goes, and shoot their way out of possible arrest.

Joe

Personally I'm not in favour - Don't know if you've already heard of Clive Stafford Smith but thought you might find this helpful :

Clive Stafford Smith (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs_20041121.shtml)

Google search on Stafford Smith (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=clive+stafford+smith&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB)

It's expensive, it doesn't stop crime, it turns the whole country into murderers, and you could be killing innocent people.

As someone else said, just look at America. It doesn't stop people killing, it is stupidly expensive because of all the appeals that you have to go through, and the major cause of death on death row is old age.

It isn't something a civilized nation does.

Originally posted by Snook
, it doesn't stop crime,

and prison does?

Originally posted by Mo
and prison does?

Yeah, good argument for killing people that one.

Originally posted by Mo
and prison does?

and your point? you seem to be using the fact that capital punishment is no better than prison as an argument for it.

Surely you would agree that all other things being equal killing someone is worse than not killing someone?

Originally posted by Yodameister
and your point? you seem to be using the fact that capital punishment is no better than prison as an argument for it.

Surely you would agree that all other things being equal killing someone is worse than not killing someone?


Not at all.

Even you must see that if the rate of reoffending is high then what has been the point of locking somebody up for a length of time? If they come out and do the same, or worse again the exercise has been totally pointless and the offender may as well not have been locked up in the first place. How can you support a system that locks scum of the earth peodophiles up for afew months then lets them out to continue their abuse of children.

With supporters like you lot, hardened criminals have very little to fear.

Originally posted by Mo
Not at all.

Even you must see that if the rate of reoffending is high then what has been the point of locking somebody up for a length of time? If they come out and do the same, or worse again the exercise has been totally pointless and the offender may as well not have been locked up in the first place. How can you support a system that locks scum of the earth peodophiles up for afew months then lets them out to continue their abuse of children.

With supporters like you lot, hardened criminals have very little to fear.

What is the re-offending rate for murder? I was under the impression that it was very very low...?

So I am a supporter of hardened criminals because I dare to voice the opinion that killing people should be avoided wherever possible.

I really do find it quite offensive that you are characterising my opinion in that way.

Originally posted by Yodameister
So I am a supporter of hardened criminals because I dare to voice the opinion that killing people should be avoided wherever possible.

I really do find it quite offensive that you are characterising my opinion in that way.

I think it's because some people think like this... 'He thinks killing people (even criminals) is wrong so he must think we should leave the doors of the prisons open and let criminals run free raping and stealing as they like!'

Soon after they start planning to build a safe room and buy a shotgun.

Anyway, back on the subject. I am not 100% against Capital Punishment.

The only time I would allow it however is in the case of "Incitement to Genocide" so the people I would have seen killed would have been Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot and probably only about 20 or so people over the last century.

These would obviously be tried under international law and not by the national courts.

I am not in favour of capital punishment for any other crime, be it rape, sexual assault of children, murder.

If that means in ayone's opinion I am a "friend to hardened criminals" then so be it. You are wrong if you think that I am.

I would like to weigh in with the right-wing press argument again. The job of the right wing press it to spread worry about crime. Violent or Otherwise.

In fact violent crime (that is, violence against the person, eg assault, murder) accounts for only 1 in 20 of all offences recorded in Britain. This proportion has stayed roughly constant since 1971, and does not indicate that the country is a more violent place to live.

Programmes like Crimewatch UK give the impression that violent crime is committed by complete strangers. But in Britain some 70 percent of murders are committed by an acquaintance of the victim; 20 percent of them by a lover or a spouse.
Despite popular images, it is not the old that are most susceptible to violent attack. Those aged 16-19 are 20 times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than those aged over 65; and men are twice as likely to be attacked than women.

An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.

I agree muddycoffee.

Personally I think the whole article is worth reading:
Stafford Smith - Radleian Society (http://www.radley.org.uk/OR/OldRadleian/2002/lorelei.html)

but these paragraphs make some very valid points



The Death Penalty is all about hatred: How we can take a tiny group of humanity and distil our collective hatred towards them in such a concentrated dose that we actually want to kill them. We all know what it means to hate, of course. The politics of hatred began in the playground, and they still dictate most of the stories in the morning's newspaper.

It is a strange government, of course, that tries to convince its citizens that Britain is a far more frightening place to live than reality would justify. We must ask ourselves what the Government's motive is for perpetrating this monstrous fraud: It is so much simpler to inspire fear and hatred, than offer the constructive solutions necessary to complex problems. So we are raised to hate and fear "criminals" - a small class of people who have very little impact on our real lives - just like the mob outside the jail in To Kill a Mockingbird had been bred to hate their "niggers".

Mo, what is your argument for the case of capital punishment?

And how do you counter our arguments about it being ineffictive, more expensive than lifetime imprisonment and impossible to correct a mistake.

i only believe in capital punishment in certain cases people who have no possiblity of rehabilitation: serial killers, paedaphiles etc.

however, it would be very hard to legislate for this - how could we know for sure there is no chance to be rehibilitated?

I also believe that Life in prisonment should mean this. There has been talk that the mandatory life sentence for murder is to go and will become a discretionary sentence - i think victims families may disagree.

If you read the link I posted above Lee you might be surprised about how opinions of victims' families can change

Does anyone, for or against believe that it will ever reinstated?

It seems to me that doing so is a minefield. Despite the huge cost, more than it costs to put somone in prison for life, there are things like the inconsistancy with which the death penalty can be applied. Around the world, those sentanced to death are almost without exception male. Even in America, I think there have only been three women put to death since 1962.

Most people sentanced to death are poor, and in America they are mostly black. Despite the fact that most people who are murdered in America are young black men, 83% of those on death row are convicted of killing a white person. Unfortunatly justice isn't blind, would things be any better here?

I also think that the family of the person convicted should be thought about. Is there any reason to put two families through the pain and suffering of losing a loved one?

Would be interesting to hear a good argument for, as we haven't yet.

Originally posted by Snook
It's expensive, it doesn't stop crime...

How can you say it doesn't stop crime? Obviously it prevents that particular murderer from repeat-offending, which a few years in prison will obviously not prevent.

Originally posted by Patchy
How can you say it doesn't stop crime? Obviously it prevents that particular murderer from repeat-offending, which a few years in prison will obviously not prevent.

Ok, it doesn't stop a person committing a crime. Look at the murder rate in America.

Again, what are the re-offending rates for murder in this country? I have never once heard of a murderer being released after finishing a life sentence and being re-convicted of murder. Any links to these cases?

It seems like you either get the pro capital punishment argument or you don't.

There seems to be very little conversation here without name calling eg anyone who is generally anti capital punishment is "on the side of the criminal" anyone who is generally pro capital punishment is "barbaric"

Is it possible to debate this issue without that unpleasant undercurrent?

Originally posted by Cyclone
you assume several things there;

1) that there is no possibility of reform for someone committing those crimes.
2) that executing someone is cheaper than lifetime imprisonment
3) that 100% certainty is possible in any conviction

I disagree with all 3 points and have voted that capital punishment should not be used.

There is no possibility of reform for Paedo's, they are looney freaks who need wiping out of existence, once a nonce always a nonce....

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
There is no possibility of reform for Paedo's, they are looney freaks who need wiping out of existence, once a nonce always a nonce....

very helpful contribution to the discussion.

There are plenty of sex offenders who do not reoffend, there are less drastic corporal ways of altering their behaviour.
And there is still plenty of scope for convicting and executing a paedeatrician. If they're in jail you can let them out and compensate them, if you killed them all you can do is say "oops".

You can't wipe out societies problems by killing people, that's Nazism.

If you contend that Paedos are loony freaks, then you are admitting that it's not their fault.

I think that you will find that many of them (women as well as men)are damaged people who have been themselves victims as children.

Noone's suggesting that Serial killers aren't a special case. But Most murderers are people who are driven to distraction, by someone who is bullying them or who are being aggressive at the wrong time, and usually they have a drug or mental problem too.

Again a problem with society.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Mo, what is your argument for the case of capital punishment?

And how do you counter our arguments about it being ineffictive, more expensive than lifetime imprisonment and impossible to correct a mistake.

1. Capital punishment is highly effective at removing the perpetuators of the most gross crimes in our society. Once a criminal is killed he/she can't commit further crimes. You can't get more effective than that.
Singapore is acknowledged to enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the world and it is a country where the death penalty is used.

2. I would say that it is debatable whether it is more expensive to carry out the death penalty than a lifetime in prison. This argument is usually based on the American system of appeal after appeal being allowed to go on for many years. This would need not be the system here indeed it wasn't when we had the death penalty.

3. I accept that it may be difficult to determine in some cases whether a murder or manslaughter has been committed and that does give me a reservation. However cases of rape and abuse of children present with indisputable evidence via dna analysis.

Originally posted by Mo
1. Capital punishment is highly effective at removing the perpetuators of the most gross crimes in our society. Once a criminal is killed he/she can't commit further crimes. You can't get more effective than that.


Yeah....pretty final isn't it ?

But you haven't replied to the most serious point about how you undo a wrong conviction.


"Unreliable Confessions And Miscarriages Of Justice In Britain" Gisli H. Gudjonsson, ISSN: 1461-3557

"This paper summarises the salient British research and reviews briefly 23 highprofile murder cases where convictions based on confession evidence have been quashed on appeal between 1989 and 2002"

Just 23 'high profile" reasons against the death penalty. There are also quite a few cases where conviction has been secured on false evidence and some cases where evidence that would have secured an aquittal was withheld by the prosecution.

Many of these cases only got to appeal because the people supporting them had the time to persist. to double and triple check the evidence.... the convicted were doing 'life' instead of 'death'.

Originally posted by Snook
Again, what are the re-offending rates for murder in this country? I have never once heard of a murderer being released after finishing a life sentence and being re-convicted of murder. Any links to these cases?

Obviously if a murderer finishes a life sentence he or she is not going to be re-convicted of murder. However, if a murderer is released before the sentence is complete, then there is every chance he or she will reoffend. There are only two ways of stopping that happening... either lock them up for life (even if people decide they may not be a danger any more after a few years), or you execute them.

Originally posted by Mo
With supporters like you lot, hardened criminals have very little to fear.

But with you in charge we would all have something to fear.

depends on the aim - it's been proven many times that it doesn't deter crime, (the 'man on the street' may still be debating it, but in criminological circles the argument is all but over in relation to deterrence). however, if you simply want to cut administration and detention costs, well that's another matter, and there's also the issue of incapaication as well as exacting retribution...

Originally posted by Mo
1. Capital punishment is highly effective at removing the perpetuators of the most gross crimes in our society. Once a criminal is killed he/she can't commit further crimes. You can't get more effective than that.
Singapore is acknowledged to enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the world and it is a country where the death penalty is used.

2. I would say that it is debatable whether it is more expensive to carry out the death penalty than a lifetime in prison. This argument is usually based on the American system of appeal after appeal being allowed to go on for many years. This would need not be the system here indeed it wasn't when we had the death penalty.

3. I accept that it may be difficult to determine in some cases whether a murder or manslaughter has been committed and that does give me a reservation. However cases of rape and abuse of children present with indisputable evidence via dna analysis.

1A. a criminal who remains locked up cannot commit further crimes (only one who is released or escapes).

1B. the USA is acknowledged to suffer from one of the worst crime rates in the world and it is a country where the death peanlty is used.

2. I would agree that this is debatable

3. mistakes have been made with dna, for example the story of the dna evidence found at the scene of a burglary in the north of england - according to that evidence, the burglar (who had scaled a wall to break in), was a wheelchair bound man in the south of England who could not possibly have committed the crime

Originally posted by ANVIL
3. mistakes have been made with dna, for example the story of the dna evidence found at the scene of a burglary in the north of england - according to that evidence, the burglar (who had scaled a wall to break in), was a wheelchair bound man in the south of England who could not possibly have committed the crime


unless it was Andy off Little Britain!!!

dna cannot prove a rape.
it can prove that sex took place.

as anvil said, it is not an effective deterant, so does not reduce crime.

and as someone else said, most people who have served a life sentence for murder do not re-offend. So you would have executed a whole bunch of people who can and do sucessfully reintegrate with an become productive members of society.
The only reason for that is revenge. Our law is based on a system of punishment and rehabilitation, not revenge.

Viper_GTSR, you said you are doing this "for school work" but what exactly is the work you have to do? Are you just supposed to carry out an opinion poll to find out what proportion of people support the death penalty and what proportion of people oppose it or are you supposed to give arguments for or against the death penalty? If you are supposed to give arguments for or against the death penalty do you have to write an essay or do you have to make a presentation in front of your class? If you are just conducting an opinion poll that's okay. However, if you are going to give arguments for or against the death penalty I'm sure that I and other posters can give you help with that. Has everyone else in your class been given the same piece of work about the same subject or have you chosen the subject of the death penalty yourself?

By the way, I know this may seem like a patronising question but roughly how old are you? I'm asking because I can tell you where to find lots of data from credible sources that is highly relevant to the death penalty argument (such as the number of homicides in each state of the USA in each year since 1976) but analysing that data takes time and knowledge of subjects such as statistics and spreadsheets. I can give you links to relevant data and explain what you need to do with the data to enable you to make comparisons and how that can be done but unless the piece of school work you are doing is a project for A Level Sociology I doubt that doing that much work will be worthwhile.

Morning all. First time on for me, saw this thread and thought i'd put my two penneth in.

Do I think we should have capital punishment back. No, and this is speaking as someone who has first hand experience of loosing a family member to a violent unprovoked attack by a stranger in the street. The risks of executing an innocent person are just too great despite technological advances in DNA etc.
Personally I think persons convicted of the serious crimes you are discussing should be locked up and in some cases the key thrown away.
I have never had any experience of the prison system, I would hope it deters people from re-offending but from what I hear and read it doesn't and is therefore failing the majority of the law abiding public.
What would I do with the crims? Put the sane ones in solitary confinement cells therebye removing the academy of crime; with a steel toilet, wash basin and drinking tap so they can't smash it up. Give them one bland tasteless meal a day with enough calorific content and vitamins so they don't starve or become ill. Spend as little on them as is possible without compromising their safety or our security and deny them their human rights. Let them do nothing, no drugs, no visits, no work, just time to reflect on the waste they have made of their life.
For those whos crimes did not involve murder, rape or other such violence, let them out after an alloted period of time ( serving a full sentence mind ). Hopefully by then the crim will realise its better to work with society and not against it. If they fail to realise this then back they go.

Feeling sleepy now.

Night Night.

Originally posted by Dirtydog
Morning all. First time on for me, saw this thread and thought i'd put my two penneth in.

Do I think we should have capital punishment back. No, and this is speaking as someone who has first hand experience of loosing a family member to a violent unprovoked attack by a stranger in the street. The risks of executing an innocent person are just too great despite technological advances in DNA etc.
Personally I think persons convicted of the serious crimes you are discussing should be locked up and in some cases the key thrown away.
I have never had any experience of the prison system, I would hope it deters people from re-offending but from what I hear and read it doesn't and is therefore failing the majority of the law abiding public.
What would I do with the crims? Put the sane ones in solitary confinement cells therebye removing the academy of crime; with a steel toilet, wash basin and drinking tap so they can't smash it up. Give them one bland tasteless meal a day with enough calorific content and vitamins so they don't starve or become ill. Spend as little on them as is possible without compromising their safety or our security and deny them their human rights. Let them do nothing, no drugs, no visits, no work, just time to reflect on the waste they have made of their life.
For those whos crimes did not involve murder, rape or other such violence, let them out after an alloted period of time ( serving a full sentence mind ). Hopefully by then the crim will realise its better to work with society and not against it. If they fail to realise this then back they go.

Feeling sleepy now.

Night Night.

Just one thought - if you lock them up throw away the key and forget about them how are miscarriages of justice going to ever come to light?

I don't believe I said anything about forgetting about them. Let the legal process take its due course by all means, but for the career criminal who re-offends as soon as they are released and show no signs of changing their habits then lock them up in the manner I suggested. If they do not learn their lesson when released and commit more crime then back they jolly well go, for a longer period of time if necessary until the message sinks in, that society will not tolerate their behaviour and if push comes to shove we can happily function without their presence for quite a while.

By all means provide them with support on their return back to society using whatever methods are deemed appropriate by the authorities; it seems a little unfair just to turf them out after all.

Just sit and think what it would be like for a moment. No contact with anyone, always hungry but never starving, nothing to do but look at four walls, only natural light so when its dark - its dark, no television, no radio, no books, papers or anything else to occupy your mind - just boredom and time to think.

You would be providing the prisoner with basic human rights ie the right to safety - no one is going to rape them in the shower block, shelter, sustainence and sanitation. Thats still a heck of a lot more than some poor sods in the world get.

Make it known to everyone, children in school, new immigrants and the general public that this is what happens if you are found guilty and sentenced.

Prehaps the sentences would be so traumatic that we could afford to shorten the time served for some crimes.

I don't agree with it.

Call me a hippy but it's impossible to put things right if you execute the wrong person.

Shame it costs so much to keep people locked up - but what else can you do... they need to be away from the rest of us.

Oh come on...is this the PC help page or something? How can peolel say that all offenders need the chance to change? In the case of nonces, the chances are that they have either ruined someones life or killed them...especially when kids are the victims we need to go back to our style of yesteryear...lock em up and keep em there so they can abuse each other...not let them out to offend again...its the bleeding heart brigade that have helped make this country's legal system a mockery...get real and stop living in la la land, and also have some care for the victim and not the dirty scumbag offender

good example

pc ian broardhurst this man was hard working and a excellent member of the commity , the most upsetting thing is this country is protecting his killer why tax payers and even police officers are paying to shelter , feed , and look after this man .
I bett right now he his watching tv and ordering his christmas dinner what justice has pc ian broardhurst really had !

send him back to america where at least juctice will be done.

This has been done before (several times I think!) But NO I don't agree with it! If capital punishment truly was a deterrent it would never be used. And if its not a deterrent (which it isn't) it's revenge not justice...

Originally posted by evildrneil
This has been done before (several times I think!)

Last time about two weeks ago.

Don't agree with it for any crime.

capital punishment costs more than lifetime imprisonment.

There is no such thing as 100% sure of guilt.

Most murderers do not reoffend.

Were there any more points offered in favour?

Originally posted by Cyclone
capital punishment costs more than lifetime imprisonment.

There is no such thing as 100% sure of guilt.

Most murderers do not reoffend.

Were there any more points offered in favour?
You are talking through an orifice that should only be used in private...If a criminal has caused the death of someone else..or in the uk a whole family..as what has happened in the not too distant past......he or she should be put to death...not given a community service sentence of 18 months or so as they dont do that anyway!!
if the punishment cost more than a a lifetimes imprisoment please give a figure on the lifetime......at present you can kill anyone and get around 7 years.......in some cases less than 2 years.
is you families life worth this???
as far as murderers do not re offend...do me a favour....if the sentence of life is imposed then how can they re offend...however because there are so many do gooders around...they get let off with minimum sentences and they do...... re offend as they know that they can get the easy life in prison if they are caught.

the way the uk is going ......you can kill anyone and get away with it...as the sentences are light.......no. detterent at all....

Capital punishment ONLY works when your judicial system is fair and is without prejudice and corruption. Since such a legal system does not exist...I don't think that it should be used. In Illinois, where I live, it has been banned.

However, I feel that there are some situations in which retribution against a murderer should be allowed. For example, if someone killed your wife or child in front of you, you the individual should be allowed take vengeance without fear of incarceration or liability. ( The US is a very litigious society....)

if you have to descend to petty insults to win an argument then it's a good indication that your argument isn't very strong.

Based on american figures where life does mean life (here it means 15 years?) it costs more to execute someone than to lock them up for life. It would certainly be a higher difference here because life only means 15 years.

It's a fact that most murderers do not reoffend. Contact the home office and check it out rather than just waffling on about community service.

And you ignored the fact that no conviction is 100% sure. There have been several cases recently of people having served long jail sentences only to be aquitted. Difficult to put it right if they've been dead 15 years.

Originally posted by Delboy3
You are talking through an orifice that should only be used in private...If a criminal has caused the death of someone else..or in the uk a whole family..as what has happened in the not too distant past......he or she should be put to death...not given a community service sentence of 18 months or so as they dont do that anyway!!
if the punishment cost more than a a lifetimes imprisoment please give a figure on the lifetime......at present you can kill anyone and get around 7 years.......in some cases less than 2 years.
is you families life worth this???
as far as murderers do not re offend...do me a favour....if the sentence of life is imposed then how can they re offend...however because there are so many do gooders around...they get let off with minimum sentences and they do...... re offend as they know that they can get the easy life in prison if they are caught.

the way the uk is going ......you can kill anyone and get away with it...as the sentences are light.......no. detterent at all....

I dont fully agree with it in most cases, but when people get life and it is LIFE as in the judge said they will never leave prison then why the f**k don't we just give them the death sentance so we don't pay for this suckers food and clothing for the next 40 years? seriously, if they're not going to come out then why bother putting them in?

thats my views, I dont think it should be used lightly, but in cases of serial killers, or a mass pheodophile, I think it might be just

So how would you feel, if someone like this had killed your father/partner? I know what this mongrel deserves.

Killer car thief blamed his palA JOYRIDER ploughed into a Sheffield dad's car at 80mph - then callously blamed a 'friend' while his victim lay dying yards away.
Banned motorist Anthony Smith, aged 19, was driving a stolen Vauxhall Astra without insurance when he smashed head-on into Alan Bullock's vehicle in Middlewood.
Mr Bullock, aged 46, died in the wreckage on Middlewood Road North.
His daughter, Laura, 16, was trapped on the back seat with cuts and bruises. Her 15-year-old boyfriend, Michael Morris, was unconscious and spent 11 days in hospital with head injuries. He still suffers memory problems almost nine months later.
As firefighters battled to free the victims, Smith and his passenger Kenny Petch told police a friend called Tom was responsible, Sheffield Crown Court heard
Despite claiming to be remorseful, Smith, who has dozens of convictions, was back before magistrates three months later after being caught behind the wheel of a car while still banned.
Jailing him for six years, Judge John Swanson said: "Nothing you can say or feel can ever undo the wrong-doing you did to the Bullock family."
Smith, of Norfolk Park Bail Hostel, Norfolk Park, stole the Astra from outside a house in Upperthorpe in March, and picked up Petch.
Laura told officers: "I looked up and I saw the car coming towards us. We didn't have time to swerve, that's how fast it was."
A retired nurse going home from church found Mr Bullock's car embedded in a wall. Wreckage of the stolen vehicle was strewn across the road.
Petch, 22, of Norman House, Upperthorpe, was seen hiding a pair of gloves and a car stereo.
A police officer pulled Laura out through the boot, while firefighters cut away the car roof to free Mr Bullock and Michael.
Petch, described as "foolish and immature" by his own barrister, swaggered into court late and laughed and joked.
After the hearing Mr Bullock's widow Christine said: "I am devastated and disgusted with the outcome of the sentence.
"Alan was a good honest man and as a result of the actions of Anthony Smith and Kenny Petch, my daughter and I are left to suffer a life sentence."
Smith, who has appeared in court 14 times in four years, admitted causing death by dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified and without insurance and aggravated vehicle taking.
He was banned for five years.
Petch, who has three previous convictions for assault with intent to rob, was jailed for nine months and ordered to serve 91 days of a previous sentence after admitting being carried in a stolen car. He was banned from driving for a year.

Courtesy of the Sheffield Star

I also think that capitol punishment ought to be brought back,and has been said before, provided the conviction is backed up with DNA evidence then yes it shoul'd be used.
I'm sure if the public had the chance to vote on this issue then the vast majority woul'd be in favour.

The key here, and which none of the flog 'em brigade have managed to answer is there can never be 100% conclusive proof of guilt. Even DNA evidence can be open to corruption, we all seen the trials wherby the defence and prosecution enlist the help of so-called 'experts'. For this fact alone we can never put to death anyone and be sure we havent made a mistake - at least with the present system they can be freed.

Delboy, are you stupid? You cant just make figures up and class them as facts. At least RoyJames is more eloquent in his argument - but I would imagine that actually more people would be against Capital Punishment. They have no problems in America with murder do they? Must be the detterent of the Gas Chamber. :loopy:


So how would you feel, if someone like this had killed your father/partner?

Its really difficult to keep a level head when you think of someone you love being murdered - I would probably agree if I was in that position, I would want to end his/her life myself....BUT as a society we have to level headed and not reactionary, we have to show that we are 'better' than these 'people'.

Perhaps what we really need to do is to have more understanding of the root causes of things like serial murder, child abuse and peodaphilia (sp), not just react to them with the same old argument. If we understood why 'they' did it, they we could start address the problems in society which cause it.


Mat

well said Matt.

for those in support have (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/19/ixportal.html) a read of this story in todays telegraph.

Does anyone think it's a co-incidence that since the death penalty ceased in 1964,the Murder rate in the U.K. has soared.?
Admittedly,there have been miscarriages of Justice in the past 30 years but before 1964 juries were nearly always more careful as they knew someone's life was at stake.The police ,since 1964 have also been a bit more slapdash in getting a conviction as they know if it's overturned,the victim can be released and compensated.
Also,if there were less murders,the police could be more thorough and they would be under less pressure to catch somebody---anybody !
People seem to kill each other almost casually these days . If they knew there was the chance of being strung up or REALLY spending the rest of their days behind bars,maybe they'd have second thoughts. There will always be the "red mist " killers who will kill no matter what the penalty but the more calculating,merely reckless killer might be put off by the rope.
When hanging was stopped the general idea was that killers would normally serve life imprisonment.
Now, killers often get out sooner than serious fraudsters.In any case,life in the Nick with good food ,gymnasiums, the telly ,telephones and recreation is hardly likely to scare anybody,is it ?

I'm all for the death penalty in certain cases, but it does cost more for us tax payers, they stay on deathrow for 20 years or more before execution.

I know earlier I said I am for the death penalty in some scenario's... but who's watched/read The Green Mile? that film does open your eyes to how wrong you/we can be :?

Originally posted by xafier
I know earlier I said I am for the death penalty in some scenario's... but who's watched/read The Green Mile? that film does open your eyes to how wrong you/we can be :?

The "GREEN MILE" was a propergander movie against the death penalty, hollywood liberals at work again.

How do you know it was propaganda - bet ya got a leaflet through your letterbox telling you so:D

Originally posted by mat1978
How do you know it was propaganda - bet ya got a leaflet through your letterbox telling you so:D

No dear, I watched the movie, didn't take a brain sergeon the figure it out.

Dear mr sheffexpat - do you have the figures to back up the 'soaring murder rate'? I would be interested to know if this actually is the case or is a result of the media overkill of crime. I would also debate whether you idea of 'a 'slapdash' approach to crime is accurate - there are plenty of dodgy convictions pre-64 (e.g. Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis, Timothy Evans etc. etc.)

Originally posted by Cyclone

for those in support have (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/19/wiran19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/19/ixportal.html) a read of this story in todays telegraph.


I think there was a recent execution of a girl in Iran for prostitution where the judge who tried her and imposed the death penalty had been one of her clients !!

Strange how women can be stoned to death for adultery and yet the men get off scot-free :rolleyes:

DNA profiling isn't guaranteed to make an ID 100% certain, although it will reduce the number of erroneous convictions. But we'll still have situations where no DNA is left behind, and where other evidence is shakey.

We cannot be 100% certain of the guilt of a person, so we shouldn't do something that's irrevocable. Therefore, life sentences to mean life with no parole for pre-meditated murder or unlawful killing during a crime, life sentence with the possibility of parole for manslaughter / crimes of passion / heat of the moment issues.

I'd not want to be on a jury that was responsible for producing a verdict on that might mean someone is executed - perhaps a re-introduction of capital punishment might lead to a reduction in convictions?

So, not in favour of bringing it back.

What will do more to reduce the rise in serious crimes against the person in the UK is more convictions, more clear-ups and more of a 'ero tolerance' approach to behaviour likely to lead to these crimes in the first place.

Joe

i don't have figures to hand, but I think you'll find that the number of murders has gone up in the US by more and they didn't repeal the death sentence. So that shoots that argument in the head (metaphorically speaking).
You might also note that the population in the UK has risen a little since 1964, so considering the absolute number of any crime is pointless, you need to look at crime figures/capita.
You also confuse the roll of the police in the criminal justice system, they don't 'get convictions' they gather the evidence and pass it (along with a recommendation) to the cps, who then take the person charged to court. The court is responsible for conviction or not.
There is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty would reduce the level of any crime, so no reduction in the amount the police have to investigate.

Originally posted by sheffexpat
Does anyone think it's a co-incidence that since the death penalty ceased in 1964,the Murder rate in the U.K. has soared.?
Admittedly,there have been miscarriages of Justice in the past 30 years but before 1964 juries were nearly always more careful as they knew someone's life was at stake.The police ,since 1964 have also been a bit more slapdash in getting a conviction as they know if it's overturned,the victim can be released and compensated.
Also,if there were less murders,the police could be more thorough and they would be under less pressure to catch somebody---anybody !
People seem to kill each other almost casually these days . If they knew there was the chance of being strung up or REALLY spending the rest of their days behind bars,maybe they'd have second thoughts. There will always be the "red mist " killers who will kill no matter what the penalty but the more calculating,merely reckless killer might be put off by the rope.
When hanging was stopped the general idea was that killers would normally serve life imprisonment.
Now, killers often get out sooner than serious fraudsters.In any case,life in the Nick with good food ,gymnasiums, the telly ,telephones and recreation is hardly likely to scare anybody,is it ?

We had capital punishment for tens of thousands of years and it didn't seem to make a dent in the murder statistics. We've only not had the death penalty for 40 years and already the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade are saying it isn't working. Perhaps if they allowed a 1000 years before passing judgement then we might take them more seriously.

Originally posted by poppins
The "GREEN MILE" was a propergander movie against the death penalty, hollywood liberals at work again.

I'm not sure Stephen King would consider himself a 'Hollywood Liberal'.

All films have a view, because they are written by somebody, they can't be completely objective.

I think it made a good example about the death penalty, and how (especially in the past) it was misused in the US.

Well I dont think you can compare what happens in one country[U.S.A.&U.K.] with what happens in another.Also it is more complicated because in the U.S. there are different laws in different states.I admit that the death penalty may not be the ONLY reason that murder figures go up or down.However the debate was only about Capital Punishment---bringing in other factors,complicates it all much more.
Obviously,I haven't got the figures in front of me but I don't think anyone argues that crimes of all types of violence haven't shot up since the '60's.From 1945 till about 1960, the normal figure for murder convinctions in the U.K. was about 150 per year. Britain was known throughout the developed world as a very safe place to live. That's why the Bill didn't carry guns except in very rare circumstances. Now'there are loads of shoot-outs.,almost every week---apart from all the others.
I know the police don't actually convict people---or I wouldn't have mentioned juries but they do gather the evidence and untill recently they presented it in court[before the C.P.S.] Therefore they have a massive influence on who gets charged and what evidence is used,what is discarded...etc...If they had less cases,they would perhaps be more accurate.
Yes, people were ,perhaps wrongly convicted in the past and that is thebest argument against capital punishment.There is the new D.N.A and going on sheer numbers,you could argue that letting people out of prison at all,once they've killed someone,has led to even more deaths 'cos some of them kill again.So if you do have no death penalty,you'd have to agree to locking all killers up for ever because every system will have errors.
Ruth Ellis admitted killing her victim[from School Road in Sheffield] and would not even appeal against her death sentence.Christie admitted killing Mrs. Evans but always said that Evans killed the baby.Certainly,Evans behaved very oddly if he was completly innocent.

Do I agree with capital punishment?

Yes.

Anybody who can not capitalis correctly should be punished. ;-)

I haven't got the figures in front of me but I don't think anyone argues that crimes of all types of violence haven't shot up since the '60's.From 1945 till about 1960, the normal figure for murder convinctions in the U.K. was about 150 per year. Britain was known throughout the developed world as a very safe place to live. That's why the Bill didn't carry guns except in very rare circumstances. Now'there are loads of shoot-outs.,almost every week---apart from all the others.

I think there is a difference in what the 'real' figures are and those that are printed in the 'Express'.



There is the new D.N.A and going on sheer numbers,you could argue that letting people out of prison at all,once they've killed someone,has led to even more deaths 'cos some of them kill again.So if you do have no death penalty,you'd have to agree to locking all killers up for ever because every system will have errors.

Exactly, I think that is what we are saying. If you are found guilty of Murder then I would say the sentence should be Life (meaning life). There are grey areas though, as Joe pointed out above. Your point that every system has errors is exactly why we should never re-introduce the death penalty.

Mat

Originally posted by sheffexpat
Obviously,I haven't got the figures in front of me but I don't think anyone argues that crimes of all types of violence haven't shot up since the '60's.

Actually I think you will find many people would argue with that. What has shot up is media coverage of crime and news-tainment!

Yes ,Mat ,I see what you mean and it must be horrible for someone to be hanged by mistake.
The problem now is that peple see murderers not only not executed--but released from prison afterX number of years. Some of them go on to kill again and the relatives of a second victim must feel as bad as the relatives of those hanged by mistake.
One other factor no--one's mentioned is the feelings of the mothers,fathers,sisters,wives.....etc...of those murdered.
Should their opinions be taken into account on the sentencing level ? Aren't they the most important people to consult ?
In some countries...Saudi Arabia...for example the family of the victim have the final say if the killer gets the chop or not-----not in political cases....only the family-type killings.Interesting concept.!
Someone said the death penalty had not stopped murder even though we'd had it for thousands of years. Well,yes---but if there had been no death penalty ,the numbers could have been greater.
The fact is that killings have increased in this country[even by government figures !] since the death penalty was abolished. My original remark was the Question "Is it a co-incidence?" The population increase is irrelevant. Now,it's about 59 million,then it was about 55 million. The killing rate has increased by much more than 10%.

I really wouldnt know if the murder rate has risen by more than 10% but if it has I still wouldnt agree this is because the death penalty was abolished. I would suggest that there have been many changes in society since the 60s - to our detriment. I would argue that we dont have a caring, socially just country anymore. I would blame this on Thatcher (it may seem farfetched but I do believe it), she was responsible for not only mass unemployment and poverty (I cause of violent crime, I guess) but moreso she inbuilt this 'I dont give a toss about anyone else - I'm alright' ethos. The result of this has seen IMO the real reason why Violent crime has risen.


Should their opinions be taken into account on the sentencing level ? Aren't they the most important people to consult ?

No, I think they would be the last people who should be considered when sentencing. Imagine how you would feel, as I said before we need -as a society - to be better than the perpetrators of these abhorent crimes.

Mat

It'd be useful if we could get some hard facts and figures on homicide statistics 1945---2004.
One clue is that Oppositions have often accused governments of being responsible for rising crime.Usually governments have answered,not by denying the fact but accusing the Opposition of being even worse when they were in power. No government has denied that murders have risen since 1964 and surely they would do as they would claim the credit.
I would hazard a guess that crimes of murder were climbing,1964--1979 but Mrs. Thatcher didn't even gain power until 1979. Wasn't the country fragmented during the Winter of Discontent ? e.g.?
The Press will always go for the dramatic,obviously,but they don't invent things out of thin air.They had circulation battles before 1964 but they were about what concerned and interested people at that timei.e. the H-bomb threat ; general political battles between and inside the Parties e.g. Suez,the Profumo scandal.They did cover murder trials and rackateering but they couldn't invent widespread murder---it just didn't exist.
You can't seriously blame poverty for killings. ! There doesn't seem to be any correlation at all---certainly not in Britain.
Millions were on the breadline or worse inpre-1945 days but it was perhaps Britains most crime---free period. Internationally? The U.S.A. poor?
I agree that Capital Punishment is not likely to be the only factor affecting homicide figures but other factors don't point to Thatcher or poverty either.

you neatly dismiss any possible counter to the argument that the change in the amount of murders is due to the abolition of the death penalty by declaring that we can't compare the uk and any other country.

I fail to see why we can't compare them. We might not be identical to America, but we are both relatively liberal democracies with the majority of the population being white and based on a capitalist economic model.

1 still has the death penalty, 1 does not. Violent crime and murders have risen in both. Sounds like a perfectly fair and valid argument to me, and neatly disproves your theory that the deterant of the death penalty has a significant impact on the rate of change of murders.

I believe (although someone googling may correct this) that the government has been claiming for some time that the rate of violent crime has fallen.

If you'd care to do a little bit of research you might find something to refute this (http://www.lawteacher.net/ELS/Sentencing/Principles%20of%20Sentencing.htm) , but I doubt it.

In 1965, the death penalty was abolished as a punishment for murder. Research indicates that this change had no readily definable impact on the rate of murders. This challenges claims that in America, every execution deters seven or eight other murders.
my emphasis


also here are the home office statistics for last year;
The changes in both homicides and firearm offences were small in 2003/04: there was an
increase of less than one per cent in firearm offences, and a fall of around two per cent in
homicides (after excluding retrospectively recorded Harold Shipman murders from the
2002/03 total).

so the rate of homicide fell, at least for 1 year.

Originally posted by Delboy3
You are talking through an orifice that should only be used in private...If a criminal has caused the death of someone else..or in the uk a whole family..as what has happened in the not too distant past......he or she should be put to death...not given a community service sentence of 18 months or so as they dont do that anyway!!
if the punishment cost more than a a lifetimes imprisoment please give a figure on the lifetime......at present you can kill anyone and get around 7 years.......in some cases less than 2 years.
is you families life worth this???
as far as murderers do not re offend...do me a favour....if the sentence of life is imposed then how can they re offend...however because there are so many do gooders around...they get let off with minimum sentences and they do...... re offend as they know that they can get the easy life in prison if they are caught.

the way the uk is going ......you can kill anyone and get away with it...as the sentences are light.......no. detterent at all....

Too right mate...and if the left MINORITY, and there seems to be a few on this board, have their way the perpetrators will soon be able to sue the families of their victims for dying and laning them in the slammer for a few weeks!! I say, even if there are a few mistakes in this system, capital punishment is the best way forward to stop the rise in filth merchants in our society.....the way we are going we will have to commit a crime to move up in the world!

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
Too right mate...and if the left MINORITY, and there seems to be a few on this board, have their way the perpetrators will soon be able to sue the families of their victims for dying and laning them in the slammer for a few weeks!! I say, even if there are a few mistakes in this system, capital punishment is the best way forward to stop the rise in filth merchants in our society.....the way we are going we will have to commit a crime to move up in the world!

I feel sorry for people who are trying to make an intellegent argument in defense of the death penalty, because when there are plebs such as yourself making comments like that you completely undo the the agruments they have put forward. People will see those to the right as draconian, reactionary and out of touch.

Read the whole thread, and you will see that noboby is saying what you are impying.

Mat

Originally posted by mat1978
I feel sorry for people who are trying to make an intellegent argument in defense of the death penalty, because when there are plebs such as yourself making comments like that you completely undo the the agruments they have put forward. People will see those to the right as draconian, reactionary and out of touch.

Read the whole thread, and you will see that noboby is saying what you are impying.

Mat

So youre saying that because I havea strong viewpoint on this matter that I cannot make an argument?! Are you educated? The posts I am reacting to are the ones that signify the attitude of lilly livered PC addicts who, in their own cosy lives, think that its great to give criminals more rights than the victim. I personally am shocked that so many people are against a criminal justice system that actually provides justice for society. Let me tell you this, I am not going to sit back and let my country get ruined by plankton headed buffoons who want to see paedo's, rapists etc reunited within the community 18 months after they have been found guilty and sentenced for their crimes.

Let this be known...if something dark happened to a member of your family would you want the perpetrator to be treated with kid gloves? If you answer yes to that question then you should be ashamed of yourself. and also, dont use the word "pleb"...its only used by spanners who wath Red Dwarf or frequent trekkie conventions....grow up and use your acne cream you moron. ...also...would you say it to my face?bet not.

I think that what he's saying that your frothing at the mouth style posts do nothing to support your side of the argument. They just make it appear that you haven't bothered to read the entire thread and that you are incapable of looking at an issue without being emotive about it.

You posted to support someone who started their response with an insult. Hardly the way to approach an adult discussion on any topic, and not likely to win anyone over to the alternate view.
And then you continue in your post to misrepresent what i've been posting (at least I assume you are referring to me as one of the lefty minority, since the quote you posted was directed at me). If you want to argue the points i've made then go ahead. But you'll need to actually go and read them first rather than making some sweeping assumptions about how I'd like to see criminals treat.

The posts I am reacting to are the ones that signify the attitude of lilly livered PC addicts who, in their own cosy lives, think that its great to give criminals more rights than the victim.

Could you point to these posts, because I cant see where ANYONE has said this, if you read what has been written you will see that noboby has indictaed we should be more lenient with Murderers. Quite the opposite,

If you are found guilty of Murder then I would say the sentence should be Life (meaning life). There are grey areas though, as Joe pointed out above. Your point that every system has errors is exactly why we should never re-introduce the death penalty.

This is what I said. What part of that dont you understand?



Let this be known...if something dark happened to a member of your family would you want the perpetrator to be treated with kid gloves? If you answer yes to that question then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Once again m8 (and this is becoming tiresome) READ THE WHOLE THREAD.

dont use the word "pleb"...its only used by spanners who wath Red Dwarf or frequent trekkie conventions....grow up and use your acne cream you moron.

PMSL - one of the funniest things I have read for ages:thumbsup:

And finally, yes I would say the things I posted to your face - I have nothing to be ashamed of and I believe in fighting for what you believe in.

The difference between us is that I can hold an intellegent disscusion with someone (RoyJames, Sheffieldexpat) and will accept their views are just as valid as my own. You, my friend cannot seem to do this and just spout the same old right wing bulls**t we've been hearing for years without acknowledging anyone else's opinions.


Mat
:)

Pleb comes from plebisite, to sample the general population I think.
Can be equated with being called on of the great unwashed perhaps, but it's quicker to write and say, and confuses people who don't have the good taste to watch Red Dwarf. Not sure what Star Trek has to do with it though.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Actually I think you will find many people would argue with that. What has shot up is media coverage of crime and news-tainment!
Quite agree with that.

As for Capital punishment, bring it on!

Just pondering...

It seems to me that if the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder, we must ask ourselves the question “What would be a deterrent to murder?”

Is there a fate worse than death? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating torture, but there must be something…

It has been pointed out that the costs of lifetime incarceration are astronomical and that prisoners are being reintroduced into society early to save on costs. What could be done to remedy this?

If a police officer sees someone commit a murder, should summary execution be allowed to save on costs?

Make prisoners pay for their own incarceration?

the study that indicated that capital punishment isn't a deterant seemed to imply that most people committing these sorts of crimes convince themselves that they won't be caught.
If that's the case there is no effective deterant as no matter what the punishment criminals will convince themselves that they can get away with it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the study that indicated that capital punishment isn't a deterant seemed to imply that most people committing these sorts of crimes convince themselves that they won't be caught.
If that's the case there is no effective deterant as no matter what the punishment criminals will convince themselves that they can get away with it.
Well as that is the case then they also have some disturbing ideas.

Might be interesting to find out some of the other findings of thoughts of the same people focused on!

This http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=5685 gives lots of interesting statistics to ponder

The fact is with most crime that the chances of being caught for the crime are a better deterent than the punishment itself!

Covering old ground but always interesting!

Originally posted by Chicago
Just pondering...

It seems to me that if the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder, we must ask ourselves the question “What would be a deterrent to murder?”

Is there a fate worse than death? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating torture, but there must be something…

That may not necessarily be true.

Deterrent is a very nebulous concept, as like elephant repellent, you only know if it is not working. To claim efficacy on the basis of a lack of elephants is not enough - one needs to demonstrate that one would otherwise be overrun with them. This is very difficult to do convincingly without resorting to speculative statistics.

If deterrent does work as advertised, then you would see a sharp demarcation in the murder rates between countries with and without capital punishment.

You also have to bear in mind that murder is not a legal constant, but defined differently accross the world - and so comparisons are even harder to make.

Boy murders rapist who raped his mother - he confesses - Should he be executed?

Old dear suffocates her long suffering husband in hospital because they refuse to stop treating him, in spite of his wishes. Confesses too, should she be executed?

Man frames himself for and confesses to to cold blooded murder to protect a loved one. should he be executed?

Also, in the case of the inevitable execution of innocent people that must occur if capital punishment is reintroduced, what redress must be available?

If capital punishment is to be reintroduced, then it should apply equally in both directions and no-one and no agency should be exempt.

If an innocent is found guilty and executed, then that is murder in my book. Someone is reponsible for handing down that sentence, and they should forfeit their life in return, before compensation is even considered.

So....
No, I do not agree with Capital Punishment unless their is some reciprocity involved. And I don't see Judges taking responsibility for their actions to this extent, ever.

NO
And I don't feel a need to justify/discuss/or intellectualise.
Just NO.

Originally posted by sheffexpat
Yes ,Mat ,I see what you mean and it must be horrible for someone to be hanged by mistake.
The problem now is that peple see murderers not only not executed--but released from prison afterX number of years. Some of them go on to kill again and the relatives of a second victim must feel as bad as the relatives of those hanged by mistake.
.

So lock them up for the rest of their lives and they wont reoffend. If their conviction is overturned they can be let out. You cant do the latter if you already killed them!

It is well known that miscarriages of justice have occurred in this country. That includes people found guilty of murder (e.g., the Bakewell man a few years ago, who was released from prison after a record period of incarceration for a crime he did not commit).

Now consider this.......

Would the advocates of the death penalty accept that executing even one innocent person - who has been wrongly found guilty of murder - is a price worth paying?

I accept that some folk will seriously consider this question, and decide yes - it is a price worth paying. I also accept that they could live with their consciences having reached this decision.

But now consider this......

Would they refuse to protest against their own execution if they were wrongly convicted of murder? The logic is clear - if the execution of innocent people is indeed a price worth paying for having the death penalty, then they should themselves be prepared to be executed for a murder they did not commit.

Still saying you'd accept going to the gallows for a murder you did not commit? O.k. Now what if it was your spouse, a son or daughter? Are you willing to see a close family member executed for a murder that you know they did not commit, but for which they have been wrongly convicted? If you answer
'yes' and answer sincerely, I will respect your response.

If you accept the death penalty for murder, it has to be applied in all circumstances. No ifs and buts. Murder is murder, whoever is murdered, and by whatever means, and for whatever reasons. All 'special circumstances' are irrelevant - else where do you possibly start making exceptions to the rule? Mercy killings? Assisted suicide? Poor upbringing? Let's not have exceptions creeping in - murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Sorted.

Anyone prepared to vote for the death penalty should surely be prepared to implement it themselves? Surely they can't possibly leave the execution of a human being to someone else? If the hangers in this debate are so convinced of their belief that state execution is justified, who is prepared to drop the noose and pull the lever to hang their own elderly father for the mercy killing of their terminally ill mother? Oh come now, don't be reserved about this notion. If you sincerely believe murderers should be executed, the logic is that you must be prepared to do the executing, even if the killer is a member of your own family, and even if it was a mercy killing. Remember, murder is murder. There can be no exceptions to murder.

Would the advocates of the death penalty accept that executing even one innocent person - who has been wrongly found guilty of murder - is a price worth paying?

A lot would, yeah.

It is well known that miscarriages of justice have occurred in this country. That includes people found guilty of murder (e.g., the Bakewell man a few years ago, who was released from prison after a record period of incarceration for a crime he did not commit).

Now consider this.......

Would the advocates of the death penalty accept that executing even one innocent person - who has been wrongly found guilty of murder - is a price worth paying?

I accept that some folk will seriously consider this question, and decide yes - it is a price worth paying. I also accept that they could live with their consciences having reached this decision.

But now consider this......

Would they refuse to protest against their own execution if they were wrongly convicted of murder? The logic is clear - if the execution of innocent people is indeed a price worth paying for having the death penalty, then they should themselves be prepared to be executed for a murder they did not commit.

Still saying you'd accept going to the gallows for a murder you did not commit? O.k. Now what if it was your spouse, a son or daughter? Are you willing to see a close family member executed for a murder that you know they did not commit, but for which they have been wrongly convicted? If you answer
'yes' and answer sincerely, I will respect your response.

If you accept the death penalty for murder, it has to be applied in all circumstances. No ifs and buts. Murder is murder, whoever is murdered, and by whatever means, and for whatever reasons. All 'special circumstances' are irrelevant - else where do you possibly start making exceptions to the rule? Mercy killings? Assisted suicide? Poor upbringing? Let's not have exceptions creeping in - murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Sorted.

Anyone prepared to vote for the death penalty should surely be prepared to implement it themselves? Surely they can't possibly leave the execution of a human being to someone else? If the hangers in this debate are so convinced of their belief that state execution is justified, who is prepared to drop the noose and pull the lever to hang their own elderly father for the mercy killing of their terminally ill mother? Oh come now, don't be reserved about this notion. If you sincerely believe murderers should be executed, the logic is that you must be prepared to do the executing, even if the killer is a member of your own family, and even if it was a mercy killing. Remember, murder is murder. There can be no exceptions to murder.

The U.S doesn't deal it like that. It's life for most murders. Quit with the scare tactics. Only the horrific murderers face the ultimate in human justice and even then there's a decade or so wait to face their deserved punishment. Plenty of time for justice to intervene, of course on the whole they are always spot on.

I voted yes.

I would have to add that the rest of our laws need tuning up to suit this.
I have been to malaysia for holidays twice in the last two years and their system is bent towards the victim and never to the criminal.
Harsh it is but you can walk down a quiet road at night and no one is intersted in attacking you.
They are brought up with respect for others and know if they break the law they can expect a harsh punishment.

A few weeks ago I was buying a pizza in wath while the police were arresting some druggies.
They had one lad over the bonnet handcuffing him while he was shouting he was going to rape the copper's wife.
Cop had to treat him as a prisoner.

In malaysia I was talking to a security guard at a YMCA hostal.
A few days before a guy had tried to get in. The guard explained it was women only but the man started abusing the guard verbally.
Guard cracked the bloke with his batton putting him down and called the police.
Seems he had a go at the cops as well and got another beating for his trouble.
He was bangladeshi so his expected punishment would be 6 lashes of the rotan (bamboo cane), 6 months in the nick and deportation without appeal.

That's why people don't break the law and a young girl can walk the streets at night without fear.
Harsh it may be but only the criminals are afraid.

The U.S doesn't deal it like that. It's life for most murders. Quit with the scare tactics. Only the horrific murderers face the ultimate in human justice and even then there's a decade or so wait to face their deserved punishment. Plenty of time for justice to intervene, of course on the whole they are always spot on.

This simply isn't true. There was a documentary last night about women on death row, which featured some women who had subsequently been exonerated. One of these women had originally been convicted of killing her baby. In this country, infanticide tends to carry a lower penalty than most murders because it usually involves some type of adverse mental state in the mother.

Over 100 people on death row have been exonerated since 1976. I wouldn't call this being 'spot on' enough to advocate the death penalty. If this many have been found to not have committed the capital crimes, how many innocent people have been executed in error? I also find it very concerning that the execution of someone who may be innocent in effect puts closure on a case, and the real murderers may be walking free with little or no risk of future prosecution.

Absolutely, unequivocally, YES.

For several reasons:

- It is a deterrent for some –if only for a few, that’s reason enough.
- Dead people don’t re-offend.
- Dead people don’t cost the taxpayer £20-40,000 a year to keep alive in jail.
- The proportion of miscarriages of justice, in reality, are tiny. Usually, those who gain release after already serving some time do so on the basis of unsound evidence or procedure, not conclusive proof that they are innocent. The Birmingham 6 ‘did it’ – as did the Guildford 4. Terrorist murderers who should have been hung.

If the price to pay for stopping 6 released murderers from killing another 6 victims is one innocent man being hung along with them, then I'd say 6:1 is a good ratio - there are casualties in every conflict and I see the fight against crime as a war against the criminal inderclasses as much as it is against the current crop of Islamic terrorists.

No deterrent? Let the militant Islamic terrorists know that they’ll be boiled alive in pig fat then fed to the porkers, and they’ll think again about planning atrocities.

- Dead people don’t cost the taxpayer £20-40,000 a year to keep alive in jail.



In the US it costs millions to execute a prisoner due to the complicated appeals process they are entitled to. Far more than keeping them in prison for life.

For many years I was in favour of the Death Penalty.

Faced with this Poll, at my age, I simply just don't know.

My hesitation to jump to a decision either way has been nurtured by my distrust in the legal process and the thoughts of some of those unjustly executed in the past. Hmm............................

I will vote "No" to capital punishment. I believe the answer is whole life sentences for those found guilty of the ultimate capital offence.

At least that gives an opportunity to the unjustly condemned person to ultimately prove their innocence.

The justly condemned person can rightly be kept out of decent society until death.

The costs to a "humane" society of this policy are well worth worth paying by that same society.

If you can prove without a doubt that they did a crime that was worth killing them for, then string em up.
Its all well and good being "civillised" as long as killers, rapists and the like dont take advantage of it.

In the US it costs millions to execute a prisoner due to the complicated appeals process they are entitled to. Far more than keeping them in prison for life.True - that's why I’m all up for the Chinese system.
The convicted criminal (in China they slot criminals for anything from car theft upwards) is shot in the back of the head straight after the hearing. If the family wants the body for burial, they have to pay for the bullet.

I wouldn't even bury the scrotes - just send them off for landfill.

Is it effective to imprison criminals though? Surely the experience of imprisonment should have the effect of stopping the criminal reoffending otherwise you have wasted time and money locking them up.

Capital punishment should be made use of for murder, rape and peodophilia where dna evidence proves that a particular person has carried out a crime.

Prison isn't a detterrant these days though, I mean look at it, a Crim gets life for murder, he's out on Parole within 5 years, and what's to say he won't commit another crime while he's out?

What I mean is that some Crims do the crime, but they don't always do the FULL time for it...

Off topic for a sec.

Nice to see you back Bartfast!

Back to topic.

Prison isn't a detterrant these days though, I mean look at it, a Crim gets life for murder, he's out on Parole within 5 years, and what's to say he won't commit another crime while he's out?

What I mean is that some Crims do the crime, but they don't always do the FULL time for it...

Situation is covered in my post Rich, and hence my distrust of the justice system these days, and ultimately my answer posted above.

If we had capital punishment for murder, rapes, child paedos and drug dealers then we might enjoy walking on the streets abit more.

When you know the price of being bad is your life then automatically you begin to weigh in the options.

And we can solve the damn prison overcrowding bit.

If we had capital punishment for murder, rapes, child paedos and drug dealers then we might enjoy walking on the streets abit more.

When you know the price of being bad is your life then automatically you begin to weigh in the options.

And we can solve the damn prison overcrowding bit.Good point - ease prison overcrowding by making it a once-only option - second time you're up for clinky you get slotted.

If we had capital punishment for murder, rapes, child paedos and drug dealers then we might enjoy walking on the streets abit more.

When you know the price of being bad is your life then automatically you begin to weigh in the options.

And we can solve the damn prison overcrowding bit.

You clearly haven't read the whole thread.

Capital punishment is not a deterrant, there have been numerous studies including in the uk when it was abolished. It has no measurable effect on the rate of crime when it is introduced nor when it is removed.

I disagree with it. I dont care what anyone says, there is no such thing as 100% proof of guilt no matter what.

And another 6 pages from another time when it was discussed.

If we had capital punishment for murder, rapes, child paedos and drug dealers then we might enjoy walking on the streets abit more.
.

In countries where death and flogging is an option you can.
That's not to say bad things never happen but it happens a lot less.

I am against this UNLESS THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE SUSPECT TOOK A LIFE!!!!!

So many times i hear of someone being executed only to find out later IT WASNT THEM!!

Im against it simply because I dont belive one human, or a group (ie a jury) should have the right to take anothers life.

The death penalty is the ultimate in premeditated murder

Im against it simply because I dont belive one human, or a group (ie a jury) should have the right to take anothers life.

The death penalty is the ultimate in premeditated murder

Exactly so

StarSparkle

I would never agree with Capital Punishment, it lowers us to the level of murderers - and it is killing in cold blood, we are better than that

I would never agree with Capital Punishment, it lowers us to the level of murderers - and it is killing in cold blood, we are better than that

I'm certainly not better than that, the older I get the more I believe in an eye for an eye. To me it's getting clearer every year that goes by that the more forgiving and understanding you try to be as a society, the more people will try to take advantage.

In the absence of any reasonable doubt, I'd wholeheartedly support lethal injection as a way of taking these despicable coldhearted monsters out of circulation. They'd have a year to appeal or prove mitigation and after that - well, if you can't take the punishment, don't do the crime :|

I'm certainly not better than that, the older I get the more I believe in an eye for an eye. To me it's getting clearer every year that goes by that the more forgiving and understanding you try to be as a society, the more people will try to take advantage.

In the absence of any reasonable doubt, I'd wholeheartedly support lethal injection as a way of taking these despicable coldhearted monsters out of circulation. They'd have a year to appeal or prove mitigation and after that - well, if you can't take the punishment, don't do the crime :|

I'm in 100% agreement with you ruby. :thumbsup:

I'm in 100% agreement with you ruby. :thumbsup:

How can that be? At #102, you were against - am I so eloquent that I've turned you in a few pithy sentences? :suspect:

As a child of the 60s, we were all so liberal and right on and against Society's 'cruelty and unfairness' we saw all around that we probably went too far the other way and now we're reaping the whirlwind.

I fear that we're to blame for the mess we're in today. But I can't see what we can do to put things right at this late stage *sigh*

How will murdering murderers incite less murders?

How will murdering murderers incite less murders?

I don't think anyone has actually argued that point yet, have they?

We older ones believe that murder and violent assualts were much less prevalent when we had the threat of death as a punishment for people who took someone else's life. Murders were something of a rarity when I was young. It wasn't an everyday occurance like it is now, to read about a murder (or three) although very few murderers were actually ever hanged.

We older ones believe that murder and violent assualts were much less prevalent when we had the threat of death as a punishment for people who took someone else's life.


And yet statistics the world over have proven conclusively that there is no conceivable link between whether or not a state has the death penalty, and how many murders and violent assaults get committed. Yet still people choose to ignore all sensible evidence and just base it on "well it seemed that way to me."

I don't think anyone has actually argued that point yet, have they?

We older ones believe that murder and violent assualts were much less prevalent when we had the threat of death as a punishment for people who took someone else's life. Murders were something of a rarity when I was young. It wasn't an everyday occurance like it is now, to read about a murder (or three) although very few murderers were actually ever hanged.

To be fair as well, society has changed vastly since (no offence intended) 'your day.' To claim that the abolition of the death penalty is the sole, or even main cause of murder being on the increase is surely flawed.

And yet statistics the world over have proven conclusively that there is no conceivable link between whether or not a state has the death penalty, and how many murders and violent assaults get committed. Yet still people choose to ignore all sensible evidence and just base it on "well it seemed that way to me."

Exactly. If that were true, China and the USA would surely have the lowest murder rates in the world?

To be fair as well, society has changed vastly since (no offence intended) 'your day.' To claim that the abolition of the death penalty is the sole, or even main cause of murder being on the increase is surely flawed.

Yes of course it's changed, what a self evident comment:rolleyes: For a start murderers have no fear of their own lives being terminated as their punishment. They know they'll probably serve a few years and then be let out to get on with their lives. So they feel quite free to stamp someone to death for asking them to keep quiet, stab them for 'disrespecting' them or beat them to death for refusing to give them a cigarette :|

I think you might be quite surprised at the change there'd be in everyday life, if there was some more draconian punishments applied at an early stage.

I didn't actually claim that the removal of the death penalty was the main cause of there being more murders though, did I?

How can that be? At #102, you were against - am I so eloquent that I've turned you in a few pithy sentences? :suspect:

As a child of the 60s, we were all so liberal and right on and against Society's 'cruelty and unfairness' we saw all around that we probably went too far the other way and now we're reaping the whirlwind.

I fear that we're to blame for the mess we're in today. But I can't see what we can do to put things right at this late stage *sigh*

You haven't personally persuaded me ruby, 12 months on the worm, (and the world) has turned.

I am a "free" poster on here now.

The liberal, hand-wringing "lefties" have had their way on here and, what's much worse, within our society for far too long. The nation is going to hell on a handcart, thanks to them and their pernicious influences.

Exactly. If that were true, China and the USA would surely have the lowest murder rates in the world?
We have no idea what the murder and violent assault rate would be if they didn't have the death penalty though, do we? Can any of you extrapolate from the number of murders per head of population nowadays compared with say, 50 years ago?

I think it's a general malaise that's grown to a point where younger people seem to have a total disregard for the value of their own or anyone else's life. It seems to be worse in this country than elsewhere though, or is that a fault of my flawed perception, too?

It seems to be worse in this country than elsewhere though, or is that a fault of my flawed perception, too?

It probably is, yes.

It probably is, yes.

hahaha, the thread wouldn't have been complete without a contribution from you Halibut. I can just see you wriinging your little fins, even as you post :hihi:

I'm just on google trying to find some stats but I'm hopeless, complete technophobe! All I've found so far is that murders in Scotland are at an all time high and that 89% of the murderers were males ... :huh:

Yes of course it's changed, what a self evident comment:rolleyes: For a start murderers have no fear of their own lives being terminated as their punishment. They know they'll probably serve a few years and then be let out to get on with their lives. So they feel quite free to stamp someone to death for asking them to keep quiet, stab them for 'disrespecting' them or beat them to death for refusing to give them a cigarette :|

I think you might be quite surprised at the change there'd be in everyday life, if there was some more draconian punishments applied at an early stage.

I didn't actually claim that the removal of the death penalty was the main cause of there being more murders though, did I?

Well if its self evident that society has changed why are you trying to suggest that the abolition of the death penalty would have anything to do with it? If some scumbag wants to stamp someone to death, the perceived threat of the DP will not stop them in my eyes, if someone is predispositioned to be that ****ed up then they will do it regardless of the possible outcome.

(EDIT TO ADD: I agree with you however on the prision terms and being let out early, if someone murders someone then life should mean life, or at least a lot longer than the current average)

With regards to my statements about america and china, yes you have a point but in America the homicide rate in states which do not have the DP is generally lower than those which do. Again, you could argue that if they had the DP it would be even lower but it does kinda go against the whole deterrant argument.

States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00

and i found this ....


Rise in murder by freed offenders

John Monckton was stabbed to death by an offender out on parole
Nearly 100 murders have been committed by offenders on probation in the past two years, Home Office figures show.
There were 60 murders by criminals out on licence in 2004-05 and 38 in the following 12 months.

In comparison, there were 24 murders in 2000, and 29 in 2003. There were also 106 rapes during 2004-05 compared with 18 in 1999.

There were 614 convictions for further serious offences committed by criminals on licence during the two year period.

The figures come after a series of high-profile cases in which offenders have committed serious crimes, including murder, while on parole.

Those figures are just the additional murders and other serious crimes commited by people who already should have still been in jail ...

it's quite frightening, wouldn't you agree?

where's the "WW2 could all have been a gigantic hoax" poster when you need him?

What if these stats you all depend on so much, rather than the evidence of your own senses, turned out to be all a gigantic hoax too? :suspect:

I really can't be bothered to argue with you about it. All I can say is I lived during the 50s. 60s and 70s and I can't remember anyone ever getting murdered for such trivial reasons as we see today, or with such monotonous regularity.

where's the "WW2 could all have been a gigantic hoax" poster when you need him?

What if these stats you all depend on so much, rather than the evidence of your own senses, turned out to be all a gigantic hoax too? :suspect:

I really can't be bothered to argue with you about it. All I can say is I lived during the 50s. 60s and 70s and I can't remember anyone ever getting murdered for such trivial reasons as we see today, or with such monotonous regularity.

there won't be a single factor that has given rise to that perception. A large part of it is the sheer volume and disposabilty of media. Compare how many hours of news broadcasting and column inches there were to fill "then" and "now".

Now we have a media vacuum several orders of magnitude larger than "the good old days"

A great deal of offences and crimes went unreported, especially rape and assault, so an increase in reporting plays a part.

Personal perception too is a factor, memory is, like reality, an act of imagination. Most murder and assault is committed by 18-35 year old men against 18-35 year old men.

and i found this ....




Those figures are just the additional murders and other serious crimes commited by people who already should have still been in jail ...

it's quite frightening, wouldn't you agree?

I agree that that is a horiffic statistic but that is the fault of the parole board for letting them out early, or the judge for not giving them long enough sentance. Dangling them from the end of a rope would have prevented it, but so would keeping them in jail.

where's the "WW2 could all have been a gigantic hoax" poster when you need him?



He wasnt real. A hoax.

I try to hate the concept of stringing up the scum, I really try HARD to be humane and let them get away with murder but what can I say?

No matter how hard I try, the only real solution for scum who are 100% guilty is to string the buggers up. Sod all the "Ohhh but what if hes innocent and three seconds after hes dead new evidence comes to light?" garbage, I said definate proof.

The nit pickers can pick to their little hearts content, but I bet if they lost a loved one to some piece of shi-- scumbag theyd soon change their attitudes.

He wasnt real. A hoax.

I try to hate the concept of stringing up the scum, I really try HARD to be humane and let them get away with murder but what can I say?

No matter how hard I try, the only real solution for scum who are 100% guilty is to string the buggers up. Sod all the "Ohhh but what if hes innocent and three seconds after hes dead new evidence comes to light?" garbage, I said definate proof.

The nit pickers can pick to their little hearts content, but I bet if they lost a loved one to some piece of shi-- scumbag theyd soon change their attitudes.


Its not the 'but what if theyre innocent' argument that I agree with, its the fact that I dont belive one person should have the right to end anothers life regardless of the circumstances.

Its not the 'but what if theyre innocent' argument that I agree with, its the fact that I dont belive one person should have the right to end anothers life regardless of the circumstances.

Thats a good point, but what right did the murderer have? Is it a matter of rights? Or duty? Do we have the right to shoot a rabid dog?
Its a very complicated subject, is this. By killing another person In my view, these people have given up their right to be classed as human, no sane human would kill another human for pleasure, there has to be something wrong inside.

Thats a good point, but what right did the murderer have? Is it a matter of rights? Or duty? Do we have the right to shoot a rabid dog?
Its a very complicated subject, is this. By killing another person In my view, these people have given up their right to be classed as human, no sane human would kill another human for pleasure, there has to be something wrong inside.

Well said i have to agree , some murderers or rapists etc have been let out only to do the same again!
i think it would deter some, if the death penalty was in place in my opinion

i think it would deter some, if the death penalty was in place in my opinion

Then you think incorrectly. If that was the case, wouldn't you expect the US states that have the death penalty to have significantly lower murder rates?

Then you think incorrectly. If that was the case, wouldn't you expect the US states that have the death penalty to have significantly lower murder rates?

Would you really care though? I personally would feel so much better if the rapist or murderer of my child, relative or friend was also dead. It's the best method of preventing a repeat occurrance of the crime that's ever been found and that's why I'm in favour of it.

The only people I've ever come across in any numbers who believe that capital punishment is a bad thing are on the pages of this Forum. Talk to prdinary people in the street, shop or pub and 90% of people are in favour of topping evil doers.

Another punishment that I'd like to see would be that if you're found guilty of deliberately causing disablity to anyone by beating them you have to spend the rest of their life looking after them, either by providing money or services. That would truly make the punishment fit the crime.

It's the best method of preventing a repeat occurrance of the crime that's ever been found and that's why I'm in favour of it.

Then the death penalty should be imposed not just for the arbitrary crimes of murder or rape, but other crimes too - with a 100% record in beating recidivism it must be the obvious choice, surely?

Drunken Misbehaviour and Tax Evasion could be eliminated at a stroke.

The only people I've ever come across in any numbers who believe that capital punishment is a bad thing are on the pages of this Forum. Talk to prdinary people in the street, shop or pub and 90% of people are in favour of topping evil doers.

Where do you live, Baghdad?

Capital punishment should be made use of for murder, rape and peodophilia where dna evidence proves that a particular person has carried out a crime.

DNA evidence is just that; it's evidence, NOT proof! DNA evidence cannot prove anything on its own. For example, if you were to obtain a man's DNA from an item in his dustbin, you could easily frame him for rape, and such possibility is borne in mind when the legal system considers the evidence. You cannot kill someone on DNA evidence alone!

I hope you never do jury service.

1947: Walter Rowland, 1950: Timothy Evans 1950: George Kelly, 1952: Mahmood Hussein Mattan, 1953: Derek Bentley - All executed in the UK and all had convictions quashed posthumously.

Crimes where the criminal is irredeemable do deserve the death penalty. However, even with a relatively fair British judicial system, people have been executed who were innocent. The risk of killing an innocent person is not worth it.

A country where people can be murdered for murdering isn't going to equal a more peaceful or civillised society is it, two wrongs don't make a right, as they say. 30 years int cell can change anyone.

Then the death penalty should be imposed not just for the arbitrary crimes of murder or rape, but other crimes too - with a 100% record in beating recidivism it must be the obvious choice, surely?

Drunken Misbehaviour and Tax Evasion could be eliminated at a stroke.

Now you're just being silly, you're quite capable of presenting a sensible argument to support your opinion. But of course you don't need to, as the law is unlikely to be charged now anyway. Also, posting sarcasm as a rebuttal of anything without copious use of smilies, is fraught with pitfalls, someone who doesn't have a clue who you are is bound to think you mean it. I would never seek to include drug use as a reason , not even for dealers :) That or drink could always be used as a mitigating circumstance anyway.

Googleberry, I did say in the absence of any reasonable doubt pr mitigating circumstances and that includes not depending just on DNA evidence.

Olec, where do you live? Cloud cuckoo land? See my comment on sarcasm above :)

Now you're just being silly, you're quite capable of presenting a sensible argument to support your opinion. But of course you don't need to, as the law is unlikely to be charged now anyway. Also, posting sarcasm as a rebuttal of anything without copious use of smilies, is fraught with pitfalls, someone who doesn't have a clue who you are is bound to think you mean it.

Surely the point is, even if you ignore the considerable disadvantages of regularly executing the innocent, or ending up with a death row situation, milked by lawyers for their entire legal careers - you still have to be able to draw the line; where do you start to apply the death penalty on the spectrum of criminality?

What do you base your decisions on? What purpose does the death penalty serve under those circumstances? And does it elevate you (the state/judiciary)to a sufficient moral altitude to be able to kill another human? And what is sufficient?

And this notion that executions prevent murder…

Arguments for the death penalty that stand upon reasoning, instead of visceral and vengeful "natural justice" would make for a debate. But there aren't any, so there's not much in the way of debate.

Yup.

I Agree with the death penalty for murder, treason and rape.

Yup.

I Agree with the death penalty for murder, treason and rape.

Treason, are you serious?

Yup.

I Agree with the death penalty for murder, treason and rape.

Rape? If you follow the illogical view that we detest murder so much we'll kill murderers doesn't it follow that we ought to rape rapists?

I personally would feel so much better if the rapist or murderer of my child, relative or friend was also dead.


Would you? Would knowing that another mother, father, children were grieving and mourning the death of a loved one, that other children would grow up fatherless, really make you feel better?
Would you also feel better if you were personally allowed to exact that revenge and pull the lever/press the button to end another life?
Could you do that in front of a killers children, parents, wife?

Rape? If you follow the illogical view that we detest murder so much we'll kill murderers doesn't it follow that we ought to rape rapists?

Now your being silly.

Now your being silly.

Only as silly as the idea that we should show how strong our disapproval of taking life is by taking life.

Think about it. Why do we abhor murder? Because it's the stealing of someones life.
Why's that bad? Because life is precious.
So if life's so precious that we condemn those who steal it by stealing their life from them.
That's the crazy thing.

We abhor murder not just because of a life lost, we abhor it because it makes us feel less safe in our daily lives- if a man murders one person then he can go on to murder others, much like a dog that has tasted blood, once its bitten someone chances are itll do it again.
Then of course theres the loss of an innocent person (The victim) to his friends and loved ones.

Life isnt precious to the killer, if it was he wouldnt have killed in the first place, and as such, to stop further killings and to stop this poor creature from languishing in prison for decades, what would be better than putting it out of its own and everybody elses misery?

Life isnt precious to the killer, if it was he wouldnt have killed in the first place, and as such, to stop further killings and to stop this poor creature from languishing in prison for decades, what would be better than putting it out of its own and everybody elses misery?

The trouble is that killing people doesn't reduce the sum of human misery. It adds to it.

Whoever does the killing.

If a child of yours killed someone - let's say a violent and brutish spouse, or someone who'd hurt their child - would you want them dead?

The trouble is that killing people doesn't reduce the sum of human misery. It adds to it.

Whoever does the killing.

Misery seem to be mans lot in life. If we remove one source of misery then another soon takes its place, misery evolves through the ages and always will, the trick is to live with it and adapt I suppose.

Actually thatd be a good if depressing topic for a new thread, how mans torments change through the ages, starting with predators when we were just emerging as humans, removing them from the picture, and moving on right up to today with terrorism and the threat of war etc.
Theyre pretty big things, but its all relative, one mans slight irritation is another mans hell on Earth.

Bloody hell my brains started to work. It hurts too.

Life isnt precious to the killer, if it was he wouldnt have killed in the first place, and as such, to stop further killings and to stop this poor creature from languishing in prison for decades, what would be better than putting it out of its own and everybody elses misery?

Actually Jabbers, most killers aren't of the cold-eyed repeat offender sould dead variety. They're remarkably like you and me and - most killers only do it once, in the heat of rage and anger, or because there's a particular person they hate or want to get rid of.

Perhaps the death penalty should be reserved solely for people who whistle on public transport?

Actually Jabbers, most killers aren't of the cold-eyed repeat offender sould dead variety. They're remarkably like you and me and - most killers only do it once, in the heat of rage and anger, or because there's a particular person they hate or want to get rid of.

Crimes of passion, I understand that. The serial killers are a different matter though and are gagging for a length of hemp!

An eye for an eye and all that ....:hihi:

I don't think there should be a statutory capital punishment but in cases where the convict will spend the rest of their lives behind bars he / she should have the option to be executed.

No. I think it's barbaric.

No. I think it's barbaric.

You know it's barbaric, and so does everyone else, but that won't stop the mob from baying for human blood!

Would you? Would knowing that another mother, father, children were grieving and mourning the death of a loved one, that other children would grow up fatherless, really make you feel better?
Would you also feel better if you were personally allowed to exact that revenge and pull the lever/press the button to end another life?
Could you do that in front of a killers children, parents, wife?

Sorry only just noticed this thread was still running ... ermm! let's see now ...

Yes, Yes and Yes. But for most families and these hypothetical children having a violent, murdering animal out of their lives would probably be for the best, imo.

Pressing buttons and pulling levers isn't necessary, is it? I personally would go with the method that causes least suffering, because I'm a kind hearted soul and not a cold blooded violent rapist or killer. Lethal injection as you'd give to a mad dog would suffice, and I would be quite prepared to do it myself.

...Lethal injection as you'd give to a mad dog would suffice, and I would be quite prepared to do it myself.

Doesn't work reliably. Recent deaths in the USA have been agonising and very slow.

Pressing buttons and pulling levers isn't necessary, is it? I personally would go with the method that causes least suffering, because I'm a kind hearted soul and not a cold blooded violent rapist or killer. Lethal injection as you'd give to a mad dog would suffice, and I would be quite prepared to do it myself.


If you did it yourself, that'd make you a cold blooded killer, and thus, by your own twisted logic, deserving of being put to death.

If you did it yourself, that'd make you a cold blooded killer, and thus, by your own twisted logic, deserving of being put to death.

Whenever I see your name, that song by Joe wotsit starts running through my head .... :suspect: I'm beginning to think, as has been suggested on numerous occasions by others, that you actually do live under a bridge :rolleyes:

Googleberry, why is that? Do you know, or can you find out why? Is it something to do with what they use? Dogs and other animals just go to sleep. And actually so do people, so I've been given to undestand. The ones who choose voluntary euthanasia, I mean.

Whenever I see your name, that song by Joe wotsit starts running through my head .... :suspect: I'm beginning to think, as has been suggested on numerous occasions by others, that you actually do live under a bridge :rolleyes:






It's far easier to insinuate that I'm trolling than it is to see the flaw in your own argument isn't it?

It's far easier to insinuate that I'm trolling than it is to see the flaw in your own argument isn't it?

Halibut, love, go and do something useful. Put up a shelf or wash the car or something ... this is getting boring.

Halibut, love, go and do something useful. Put up a shelf or wash the car or something ... this is getting boring.

That's not fair. Halibut made some very good points and made them very well!

That's not fair. Halibut made some very good points and made them very well!

In your opinion, of course :)

Did you manage to find any futher information about lethal injection? I'm still wondering why there's such a difference in the reactions between animals being put to sleep and euthanasia and the results you claim from the USA.

Could it be that they use something that's designed to kill slowly and agonisingly, a sort of quid pro quo? I'm sure that with modern drugs, that's not necessary.

It's been fairly well established recently that the cocktail given in the US in some cases may be enough to cause paralysis, but not coma before the heart is stopped.
Some executed people may have been aware for some time that they were dying, and in quite some pain, but unable to even twitch to indicate that.

Hasn't the US supreme court recently ruled that all lethal injections be suspended pending more evidence?

Sorry only just noticed this thread was still running ... ermm! let's see now ...

Yes, Yes and Yes. But for most families and these hypothetical children having a violent, murdering animal out of their lives would probably be for the best, imo.

Pressing buttons and pulling levers isn't necessary, is it? I personally would go with the method that causes least suffering, because I'm a kind hearted soul and not a cold blooded violent rapist or killer. Lethal injection as you'd give to a mad dog would suffice, and I would be quite prepared to do it myself.

If you take a life how is that different to the behaviour of the person you're killing? A court, sure, but that's just a bunch of people sitting around and making a decision, it doesn't make it more right or moral.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't, you can't have it both ways without being the worst kind of hypocrite.

It's been fairly well established recently that the cocktail given in the US in some cases may be enough to cause paralysis, but not coma before the heart is stopped.
Some executed people may have been aware for some time that they were dying, and in quite some pain, but unable to even twitch to indicate that.

Hasn't the US supreme court recently ruled that all lethal injections be suspended pending more evidence?

Possibly, but given that most of their victims would probably have also been aware for some time that they were going to die and die in most cases in agony and terrible fear, I can't get too worked up about the (lack of ) the last few twitches of an executed killer. :|

If you take a life how is that different to the behaviour of the person you're killing? A court, sure, but that's just a bunch of people sitting around and making a decision, it doesn't make it more right or moral.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't, you can't have it both ways without being the worst kind of hypocrite.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I'm the worst kind of hypocrite :rolleyes: meh! but I've never actually taken anyone off the street, raped or beaten them to death and then gone off laughing and secure in the knowledge that I'm going to get away with it and might spend a few years in cushy surroundings having my every need taken care of.

I was wondering where you'd got to actually. Thank you for your input.

Some modern botched executions. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=478)

December 13, 2006. Florida. Angel Diaz. Lethal Injection. After the first injection was administered, Mr. Diaz continued to move, and was squinting and grimacing as he tried to mouth words. A second dose was then administered, and 34 minutes passed before Mr. Diaz was declared dead. At first a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Corrections claimed that this was because Mr. Diaz had some sort of liver disease. After performing an autopsy, the Medical Examiner, Dr. William Hamilton, stated that Mr. Diaz’s liver was undamaged, but that the needle had gone through Mr. Diaz’s vein and out the other side, so the deadly chemicals were injected into soft tissue, rather than the vein. Two days after the execution, Governor Jeb Bush suspended all executions in the state and appointed a commission “to consider the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injections.”

If a child of yours killed someone - let's say a violent and brutish spouse, or someone who'd hurt their child - would you want them dead?

Just wondering if anyone who is pro-death penalty would like to answer this, it seemed like quite a good point to me.

What a lovely perfect cotton wooly little world some of us think we live in! The facts are that killing IS bad, it IS probably the worst thing one human being can do to another, but theres a difference between a piece of scum killing for pleasure or gain and a civillised state exacting punishment for that killing.
Sadly, in the real world, we have to do some bad things, the choice is weather its for fun and pleasure or for the good of your fellow man.

Slapping someone in jail forever- or letting them out onto the streets is the road to disaster, either the criminal is left to rot or he gets out and possibly kills again, thus depriving more people of their loved ones.
Better to put the criminal out of his and everyones misery.

Just wondering if anyone who is pro-death penalty would like to answer this, it seemed like quite a good point to me.

I love my children, I lost a son to an inherited disease when he was fifteen, I would do anything for my children, but if any of them killed someone and they had to face the death penalty, then so be it.
Id prefer them to die quickly than rot in a cell forever or be freed to kill again, and I hope theyd feel the same.

Ok, how about we democratise the process.

Make it explicitly legal to kill anyone caught committing an imprisonable offence against you up to the point where they cease all resistance? Then we lose the issue around "The State" and let Joe Public sort it?

Just wondering if anyone who is pro-death penalty would like to answer this, it seemed like quite a good point to me.

I did set out some parameters earlier in the thread, I think I mentioned mitigating circumstances, absence of all reasonable doubt etc etc. But you know this subject has been discussed ad nauseum and the same points are brought up again and again by the same people.

I'm just as entitled to a draconian opinion about serial killers, violent rapists, paedophile child killers etc as fluffy bunnikins people are to have their ideas. If Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady or Ian Huntley had been my son or husband, yes I would be quite prepared to see them dead. I'd grieve, but not half as much as the parents of the innocent children they killed grieve, I'm sure.

In response to Jabberwocky and rubydazzler;

....Damn!

If you take a life how is that different to the behaviour of the person you're killing? A court, sure, but that's just a bunch of people sitting around and making a decision, it doesn't make it more right or moral.

Either killing is wrong or it isn't, you can't have it both ways without being the worst kind of hypocrite.

It is not as simple as that. Killing can be right in some circumstances but not others. Unless you are also advocating pacifism, killing someone whilst serving in the army for example has to be treated different from random shootings.

Whilst you can argue :that courts dishing out death penalties, doesn't really provide a good role model for individuals, that the risk executing innocents out weighs any benefits, or that allowing executions is a dangerous precedent that we may regret under a potentially less benevolent future govt. But there is nothing hypocritical about allowing courts to execute people.

It can be justified, I don't think that's the same as it being right.
I can argue that the state killing someone is much the same as a citizen killing someone, except that it's always premeditated.
It is hypocritical to have a law against killing people and for the state to then go ahead and do the same.

Not 100 percent sure on the death penalty but at least in America the killers don't get out any time soon! Perhaps it would deter some of this random Killing for fun or the sake of it, life has gotten way too cheap now!:roll:

I love my children, I lost a son to an inherited disease when he was fifteen, I would do anything for my children, but if any of them killed someone and they had to face the death penalty, then so be it.
Id prefer them to die quickly than rot in a cell forever or be freed to kill again, and I hope theyd feel the same.

i bet you a fiver you wouldnt let them take your kid like that. What about if the person they bumped off was an arsehole?

i bet you a fiver you wouldnt let them take your kid like that. What about if the person they bumped off was an arsehole?

I asked a similar question john, a few pages back - would a pro capital punishment parent really support the capital sentence being carried out on a child of theirs who'd, for example, killed an abusive spouse or carried out the premeditated murder of a person who'd sexually abused them?

i bet you a fiver you wouldnt let them take your kid like that. What about if the person they bumped off was an arsehole?

We have to pay for the consequences of our actions in this world, weather someone kills a saint or a sinner is irrelevant.
The relevancy rests on, MUST rest on the circumstances of the killing. As has already been mentioned, if its a crime of passion, its a different thing to pre meditated murder.
If A child of mine broke the law, then they would have to pay the piper.


Ill pvt you my address for my fiver, you can get the morning post if youre quick :D

It can be justified, I don't think that's the same as it being right.
I can argue that the state killing someone is much the same as a citizen killing someone, except that it's always premeditated.
It is hypocritical to have a law against killing people and for the state to then go ahead and do the same.

But you already accord courts the additional collective right to detain people that you don't give to individuals. For your argument to work, you would also lose imprisonment as an option.

There are good arguments against the death penalty, but in my opinion for the reason above, not the one you are using. A related argument that state executions set a bad example works, but is weaker and does not involve hypocrisy.

We have to pay for the consequences of our actions in this world, weather someone kills a saint or a sinner is irrelevant.


Which is a very good argument against capital punishment.
Killing is just as wrong whether you're Peter Sutcliffe or whether you're the state.

i bet you a fiver you wouldnt let them take your kid like that. What about if the person they bumped off was an arsehole?

Being one of those asterisk things would count as a mitigating circumstance, surely?

In everyone's opinions, just as examples, what should happen to people like the man in Canada(?) who's slaughtered so many women and buried them on his farm, that he can't even remember how many(although more than 30 bodies and parts of bodies were found), Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady/Myra Hindley, Dennis Neilson, Fred and Rosemary West, the Sidney Cook paedo ring to name but a few?

Do you really think they deserve to live a comfortable life in gaol when they've deprived children of a loving parent, deprived loving parents of their children, not just once but time and again? Destroyed entire families and condemned them to lifelong grief and sorrow?

I find it hard to understand how other people really believe that these people deserve to carry on living and yet a simple animal that instinctively savages someone can be killed without a second thought. To me there's hardly any difference. They forfeit their right to be considered as another human being when they set out on their killing sprees.

I can find a little understanding in my heart for kids that do terrible things due to their youth and lack of understanding, such as the ones that have recently battered a man with burning planks of wood, and then thrown his body on a bonfire to die. Or all the ones that have recently been in the news for beating and stabbing random people or one another, or even 'crimes of passion', there is the possibility of eventual rehabilitation and remorse with correct training and handling whilst they're serving their sentences.

But the really serious, repeat offenders who've brought terror and death to so many - no I really don't get the passionate defence of their rights to live :confused::huh:

Which is a very good argument against capital punishment.
Killing is just as wrong whether you're Peter Sutcliffe or whether you're the state.

I totally agree, it IS wrong.

Trouble is, we dont live in a utopia and men are not angels. People do horrible things- STATES do horrible things, and as a consequence they have to pay for it.
Its unavoidable, as things stand its unaceptable for pre meditated murderers to wander the streets after a short stay in jail, its cruel to lock them away forever and the softer society is on criminals, the more will take advantage of that.

If you knew that you could get away with murder and someone was really making your life a misery and you were that way inclined then youd kill. We all have the abiluty to take another human life, and its up to society to make sure its an unnatractive proposition to do so.
Ok, it wont stop murder, the U.S. proves that, but at least it takes people who kill out of the picture humanely. People are more afraid of the electric chair than they are of a life in jail.

I find it hard to understand how other people really believe that these people deserve to carry on living and yet a simple animal that instinctively savages someone can be killed without a second thought. To me there's hardly any difference. They forfeit their right to be considered as another human being when they set out on their killing sprees.

So you keep saying, but it doesn't make sense ; you're saying, in effect that some killing is alright and some's OK.
Either it's Ok or it isn't.
Which is it?

I can find a little understanding in my heart for kids that do terrible things due to their youth and lack of understanding, such as the ones that have recently battered a man with burning planks of wood, and then thrown his body on a bonfire to die. Or all the ones that have recently been in the news for beating and stabbing random people or one another, or even 'crimes of passion', there is the possibility of eventual rehabilitation and remorse with correct training and handling whilst they're serving their sentences.

But the really serious, repeat offenders who've brought terror and death to so many - no I really don't get the passionate defence of their rights to live :confused::huh:

Because you can't have an arbitary line that says this killer is going to hang and this one isn't. Where do you draw the line? One killing is Ok because it was just the one? That guy killed three, but they'd all buggered him when he was a kid so thats Ok too - or that kid stabbed someone to death but he was young and naive, so we wont hang him.
That guy shot some on in a bank raid - hang him? Or not hang him?
It makes a nonsense to talk about the motive for a killing being what decides whether the offender hangs or not. By all means let it be as it is now, something to be taken into consideration when sentencing, but if you start saying we'll hang this one, but not that one you completely lose the value of the idea that killing is always wrong.

See, the Jabberwocky thinks with his head and puts up a reasoned argument. I just feel with my heart and flail about blindly, tilting at windmills :(.

I'm withdrawing from the thread now. I just hope that all the high minded moralisers would be able to keep to their high ideals if, god forbid, anyone of theirs ever comes into contact with an evil person and vanishes or loses their life as a result.

edit:
you completely lose the value of the idea that killing is always wrong.

So you'd be a conscientious objecter if we were ever at war with an invader again? I don't espouse the idea that killing is always wrong, I've never said that and I don't believe it. I can think of many times when killing somenone could be considered right imo. But we'll never change one another's opinions and I'm in the wrong, obviously, as the law is against me as well.

But the really serious, repeat offenders who've brought terror and death to so many - no I really don't get the passionate defence of their rights to live :confused::huh:

Rubydazzler - it's not about the passionate defence of the right to life of particularly nasty serial killers -

its about the passionate defence of the right to life of everybody.

The thing is, Halibut is also arguing rationally and reasonably, as are most of the others on his side of the fence. You just happen to agree with my side of it.
I suppose the opposite opinion always does sound a little rabid and unreasonable.


I enjoyed this little debate, its what SF should be about and lets hope it continues.

i can fully understand the desire to remove killers,sadists etc from the world after committing violent deeds against the innocent individuals - and would happily offer to pull the lever, press the switch or whatever.
however more reasoned thought always brings up one simple objection - what if they're innocent.
furthermore - how would we instigate capital punishment, would be be infringing the rights of "non domicile" criminals.

If you knew that you could get away with murder and someone was really making your life a misery and you were that way inclined then youd kill.

No, I wouldn't and nor I expect would you, or 99% of the population - getting caught isn't what stops most people from being murderers. What stops most people being murderers is their personal morality, and the strongly held belief that life is precious and valuable and the biggest thing you can ever steal from anybody.

We all have the abiluty to take another human life, and its up to society to make sure its an unnatractive proposition to do so.

It remains an unnatractive proposition for most people because we know it's utterly wrong. Allowing the death penalty to exist says 'Actually, killing isn't so wrong - sometimes it's Ok if we (society) say so. It says, 'yeah, well we actually know it won't affect the murder rate and we know that it's inevitable that we'll kill some innocent people, and we'll draw arbitary lines about which of the 'worst' murders it'll apply to'
What it doesn't do, is carry a clear message that all killing is wrong.
but Ok, it wont stop murder, the U.S. proves that, but at least it takes people who kill out of the picture humanely. People are more afraid of the electric chair than they are of a life in jail.
Not neccesarily humanely - see link a few posts back. Being afraid of prison, or the chair isn't what stops people killing.

The thing is, Halibut is also arguing rationally and reasonably, as are most of the others on his side of the fence. You just happen to agree with my side of it.
I suppose the opposite opinion always does sound a little rabid and unreasonable.

But, Jabbers, he argues like this about every little thing, as does Cyclone. So when it's something as important as our right to not be slaughtered by some rabid serial killer, or at least have them punished appropriately, to me, their opinions just appear as a high minded, kneejerk reaction.

I wouldn't like to put it to the test, of course, but I bet they'd soon lose all their high minded ideals if it ever came close to home for them. I hope not of course, but I just have the feeling ...

Anway, I can feel myself getting irate now, so I'm going to go and do something useful.

Thats the pleasure of the internet and forums like this! Reasoned debate about good strong subjects with intelligent people.


God knows whats happening to me, I seem to have been afflicted with sanity in recent weeks :D


Anyway, if we all had the same opinions, weather theyre seen as humane or barbaric, then the world wouldnt be as interesting.

But, Jabbers, he argues like this about every little thing, as does Cyclone.
With respect that just isn't true. And besides, wouldn't you expect a person to argue strongly about something they believe in?
So when it's something as important as our right to not be slaughtered by some rabid serial killer, or at least have them punished appropriately, their opinions just appear as a high minded, kneejerk reaction.
To, you possibly. I can assure you that my objection to capital punisment stems from a passionately held conviction that all killing is wrong, whather it's the state doing it or a 'rabid serial killer'.

I wouldn't like to put it to the test, of course, but I bet they'd soon lose all their high minded ideals if it ever came close to home for them. I hope not of course, but I just have the feeling ...

You've said that many times before - and I maintain that I can't imagine the pain of losing someone I love to a murderer would be eased at all by the taking of another life.

But, Jabbers, he argues like this about every little thing, as does Cyclone. So when it's something as important as our right to not be slaughtered by some rabid serial killer
Are you just making things up now, no one argued that we should not all have the right to life.
, or at least have them punished appropriately
Being disingeneous here as well. We aren't arguing that they shouldn't be punished appropriately, we're arguing that what you propose is not appropriate.
, to me, their opinions just appear as a high minded, kneejerk reaction.
How can a considered rational argument that isn't based on an emotional response be considered kneejerk?.

I wouldn't like to put it to the test, of course, but I bet they'd soon lose all their high minded ideals if it ever came close to home for them. I hope not of course, but I just have the feeling ...
No I wouldn't, although I might disqualify myself from the discussion recognising that I was too emotional at the time to have a rational point of view.

Anway, I can feel myself getting irate now, so I'm going to go and do something useful.

Probably a mistake, it's a discussion, there's no reason to be irate, nor any reason to be emotional about the topic, which you clearly are.

But you already accord courts the additional collective right to detain people that you don't give to individuals. For your argument to work, you would also lose imprisonment as an option.

Not really. It's just that I happen to agree with the collective right to detain people for the purposes of rehabilitation, punishment and the protection of the public. I don't agree with the collective right to kill someone, and neither does the establishment thankfully.
There are good arguments against the death penalty, but in my opinion for the reason above, not the one you are using. A related argument that state executions set a bad example works, but is weaker and does not involve hypocrisy.

It may not be the best argument, but it is an argument and one that I chose to put forward this time.
I've put forward plenty of other arguments previously, I like to rotate them.

When is the public going to start making it more than clear that we are more than fed up with the do gooders in the world that are actually causing more harm than good. The result is the mindless violence that we have today. No respect or fear for authority is obvious. We have people in jail that could be released without harm to the public, not many, but some Im sure. This could make way for those that should be held. However,I think we require to bring back some form of capital punishment or at least National service for the youger offenders.
They cannot be allowed to take life in the ease at which they do, assault on the elderly, the innocent, it has to stop, and we have to make it known what we as a country want our leaders to do.
Anyone with me??

No not with you.killing people is terminal.we have made mistakes before.
The punishment will not stop the crime anyway.

No not with you.killing people is terminal.we have made mistakes before.
The punishment will not stop the crime anyway.It's pretty good at cutting reoffence rates though.

MOD: Please use the search facility before starting new threads on such an obvious topic. Thanks.

I do not agree with Capital Punishment, it is killing in cold blood and we should be better than the murderers who do this

I'm in favour of Capital Punishment for those who have been proved by the latest Forensic techniques/self-admissions to have been found guilty of murder.

Why waste taxpayer's money keeping this verminous humans alive. I'd be more than willing to pull the lever that dispatches such odious creatures to judgement in a higher-than-human Court.

I notice the usual hand-wringing, limp-wristed, damp-handshaking SF posters have relished the chance of venting their views on this thread.:cool:

Nowt changed then. :hihi:

I'm in favour of Capital Punishment for those who have been proved by the latest Forensic techniques/self-admissions to have been found guilty of murder.

Why waste taxpayer's money keeping this verminous humans alive. I'd be more than willing to pull the lever that dispatches such odious creatures to judgement in a higher-than-human Court.

I notice the usual hand-wringing, limp-wristed, damp-handshaking SF posters have relished the chance of venting their views on this thread.:cool:

Nowt changed then. :hihi:Can we flip a coin over who pulls the lever - I'd quite like to do a few!

Can we flip a coin over who pulls the lever - I'd quite like to do a few!

Clarify please, proven murderers or the usual hand-wringing, limp-wristed, damp-handshaking SF posters?

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

Clarify please, proven murderers or the usual hand-wringing, limp-wristed, damp-handshaking SF posters?

:hihi::hihi::hihi:Good point - let's leave the murderers 'til last!!

My wrists may be limp and my handshake weak and moist, but I can tie a noose like an expert!


Ok, that made me sound a blt...

Dodgy.