bring back capital punishment

[Dark Orb Choir]

 

[Dukat]

I'm undecided on execution as a punishment for crimes.

In one way I agree with it for the reasons Cal and Throd have touched apon. It is a means for the community to express its full outrage at someones actions.

Yet as other people have pointed out, it doesnt seem to work as a deterrant as well as perhaps it should do. And of course any decisions made are going to have to be final because there isnt any way to undo it once its done.

That said, alot of the reasons against the death penalty can be argued against - no matter what is decided, it cant be fully undone.

Ofcourse if you've just given someone life instead of executing them you can then let them go, but they've still spent time in prison for something they didnt do, and there isnt really alot you can do about it - you cant give them thier time back or anything.

I believe that once someone demonstrates that they have no respect for someone else's human rights, we should have little respect for thiers. We shouldn't be paying money to keep them alive in prison, or atleast not so much money as we do.

I dont know about 'helping' convicted murderers and childkillers. Look at it in cold numbers - how much money does it cost to keep that person alive throughout thier care, how much money does it cost to employ psychiatrists etc to actually 'help' that person, look at how much damage the person did in the first place through killing someone and removing thier possible contributions, and then weight that against how much that person could possibly repay society upon release. Does it balance out? even remotely?

I think if prisons were made to be nigh-on self sufficient then it wouldnt be so bad.

People say understanding criminals helps us to do things to stop the next generation turning to crime, but I find this difficult to believe when I look at how many council estates are churning out chavs like never before inspite of our supposed enlightenment - we know what causes them yet we seem to be unable or unwilling to expend the necessary effort to prevent it.

Its a difficult one and it's never been far from passionate debate because people believe so strongly about it. I dont think its right to critisize people simply for being either for or against the death penalty, except when thier reasons for having that opinion are stupid. People can(and do) have very good reasons for holding either opinion, and its only through reasoned debate that we're going to come to some sort of decision.

It seems like most 'developed' countries in the world either do not have the death penalty, or have it reserved for the most heinious of crimes. We seem to be moving more and more away from it, I dont know if that is a good thing or not but it does seem to be whats happening as time goes on.

My gut instinct says "kill the bastards" - I think having no opinion is worse than having the wrong opinion - but I really do think there are very good reasons both for and against the death penalty.

 

[DaGaffer]

Well thankfully making the laws of the country isnt down to me or you, and yes of course you have a point about mistaken executions, however there are less mistakes made nowadays, with DNA and what have you?

As far as the states goes, well I dont know about that either, if they repealed the death sentence in some states it's not to say crime wouldnt go up ...

The US is where most of the research comes from about effectiveness of the death penalty precisely because its the law in some states and not others, but there isn't an inverse correlation between the murder rate and and number of executions. I'm sure you could Google it, but I definitely remember watching something about Texas, which executes more people than any other state, but still has a higher per capita murder rate than most of the other states without the death penalty. Which may just say something about Texans, but it applies in other states as well, so it kind of backs the argument about lack of deterrence. (To the extent I seem to remember that the Texans - Bush's brother(?) - didn't even claim deterrence as a motivation; they were firmly in the retribution business)

 

[Macey]

The whole reason that the death sentence was abolished in this country is that its a waste of time and money. You say its quick and cost-effective, yet the nature of "death row" means that most people convicted to the death sentence are still in jail for about 10 years as a minimum as they go through the appeal process, which would cost the taxpayer more in legal aid barrister fees than simply sending them to prison where they have no hope of appealing. When you consider the bigger picture, executing offenders does not, ever, save the tax payer money.

As to the other arguments, I dont think hes a poor little soul who just needs a big cuddle and to be told that everything will be alright and its not his fault really. BUT we have a prison system for a reason, it does work, else why would we still do it? Maybe the CJS has become diluted and weakened, I agree that the sentences and convictions do not fit the crime. BUT that is not the courts fault, the people who decide what sentence to impose are the CPS and they do so based on the evidence gathered by the police, they have to make a rational decision based on what they are presented with as to what charge they can get to stick, when that is decided the court is restricted to what sentence it can impose. They should have been done for murder, they should rot in a cell for the rest of their lives, surely that is a worse punishment than just being killed outright? Imagine having to spend your entire life in solitary in a tiny little cell with about 2 hours of contact with other people a week? Personally Id rather be dead than that...

 

[Macey]

The US is where most of the research comes from about effectiveness of the death penalty precisely because its the law in some states and not others, but there isn't an inverse correlation between the murder rate and and number of executions. I'm sure you could Google it, but I definitely remember watching something about Texas, which executes more people than any other state, but still has a higher per capita murder rate than most of the other states without the death penalty. Which may just say something about Texans, but it applies in other states as well, so it kind of backs the argument about lack of deterrence. (To the extent I seem to remember that the Texans - Bush's brother(?) - didn't even claim deterrence as a motivation; they were firmly in the retribution business)

The comparison to the states is, in my view, irrelevant in a lot of ways, the reason there are more murders in the states than other places is because everyone is allowed to legally carry a gun around wiht them. People are going to get killed.

 

[throdgrain]

The US is where most of the research comes from about effectiveness of the death penalty precisely because its the law in some states and not others, but there isn't an inverse correlation between the murder rate and and number of executions. I'm sure you could Google it, but I definitely remember watching something about Texas, which executes more people than any other state, but still has a higher per capita murder rate than most of the other states without the death penalty. Which may just say something about Texans, but it applies in other states as well, so it kind of backs the argument about lack of deterrence. (To the extent I seem to remember that the Texans - Bush's brother(?) - didn't even claim deterrence as a motivation; they were firmly in the retribution business)

My point was, you dont know that crime wouldnt go up if there was no capital punishment. Texas has a lot of immigrants and non American types, and you can start blowing your racist trumpet any time you like but thats often where a lot of murders and shootings and such-like come from.

Obviously, I dont know the answer any more than you do, but it doesnt change my opinion on the excrement masquerading as people described in this thread.

 

[DaGaffer]

My point was, you dont know that crime wouldnt go up if there was no capital punishment.

No but the evidence suggests its not keeping the death rate down, if you see what I mean. Like I said, Texans are probably taking a biblical approach and don't give a shit if it works as a deterrent or not. They're also remarkably sanguine about miscarriages of justice as well (and there have been quite a few innocent guys topped over the years), taking a very medieval "oh well, God will sort it out" kind of attitude. Which is terrifying.

 

[Hawkwind]

The whole reason that the death sentence was abolished in this country is that its a waste of time and money.

I fail to see how years of feeding someone 3 meals a day and providing their basic human rights is less expensive than say an injection. Poor argument imo.

BUT that is not the courts fault, the people who decide what sentence to impose are the CPS and they do so based on the evidence gathered by the police, they have to make a rational decision based on what they are presented with as to what charge they can get to stick, when that is decided the court is restricted to what sentence it can impose.

Although CPS decides what charges to bring based on available evidence, the Judge decides Sentencing. He uses guidelines layed down by Government and the Law Lords. The Judge usually has a known min and max within the guidelines from which to make his Sentencing Judgement.

At least that's how I always thought it worked.

 

[Hawkwind]

Should have added that I have a poor opinion of Judges in the UK, as I think they are totally out of touch with modern Britain. The village I lived in as a child was also the home to Lord Denning the then law lord and a complete arse of man! Actually had a bunch of teenagers stopped from using the village hall to play D & D because he said it was 'devil worship'.

 

[Uara]

Although CPS decides what charges to bring based on available evidence, the Judge decides Sentencing. He uses guidelines layed down by Government and the Law Lords.

Yeah i'm pretty sure thats how it works as well, plus the CPS decide upon whether its in the nations best interest to prosecute an individual. For example when that Rugby player went to Switzerland to commit suicide although his parents were reported for assisting him the CPS I believe thought that it wasn't worth forking out large amounts of tax payers money to charge them etc

 

[Macey]

My point about money, as I said later in that post is that, when someone is sentenced to death they are then, by law, allowed to undergo an appeal process, which can, and normally does, spread over the course of about 10 years by the time the case has gone to the House of Lords, and in light of the fact that you are now allowed to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, Im guessing that the appeal process would be prolongued even further.

Therefore, the tax payer will be shelling out for the prisoner to be kept for however long his appeal process takes, and as well as that, will be paying towards the costs of his legal aid funded representation which will escalate fairly rapidly into the hundreds of thousands of pounds area in that type of case. Whereas just sentencing him to a fair, yet seemingly unsatisfying sentence, will result in him accepting this and thereby save everyone a whole load of money.

You may think that this entire argument is nonsense, however I guarentee you that most offenders and defence solicitors/barristers, would love the chance to prolong a case in this way. It would happen, it does happen in America, everything that happens there inevitably happens here so there is no avoiding this type of system happening.

As to the law lords, yes they are out of touch with everything to do with modern culture, but theyre the most experiences lawyers in the country, would you rather have a young culturally savvy person deciding on what is criminal and what isnt with no experience of the law and how it works or an old, accomplished barrister who has spent the best part of 30 years in practice and knows the law inside out? Personally Id rather have the law upheld properly and with some level of integrity.

The issue of sentencing, yes the judge does have some discretion when it comes to this, but they have to take into account every aspect of the case, if the sentence is too harsh, then the decision will be appealed, which again, will cost the tax payer more money, take up court time, and make the judiciary look like a barbaric bunch of hardline authoritarians.

The government decide what sentence each offence has and the judges have to do the best job they can with what they are given to work with.

 

[Dukat]

My point about money, as I said later in that post is that, when someone is sentenced to death they are then, by law, allowed to undergo an appeal process, which can, and normally does, spread over the course of about 10 years by the time the case has gone to the House of Lords, and in light of the fact that you are now allowed to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, Im guessing that the appeal process would be prolongued even further.

Therefore, the tax payer will be shelling out for the prisoner to be kept for however long his appeal process takes, and as well as that, will be paying towards the costs of his legal aid funded representation which will escalate fairly rapidly into the hundreds of thousands of pounds area in that type of case. Whereas just sentencing him to a fair, yet seemingly unsatisfying sentence, will result in him accepting this and thereby save everyone a whole load of money.

You may think that this entire argument is nonsense, however I guarentee you that most offenders and defence solicitors/barristers, would love the chance to prolong a case in this way. It would happen, it does happen in America, everything that happens there inevitably happens here so there is no avoiding this type of system happening.

You're right about the "death row phenomenon" being a problem in america.

However, if I remember correctly in the UK there was a system wherein if the execution wasn't carried out within three months (or something like that) of sentencing, it was automaticly commuted to life in prison?

I'm not certain of the details, but I do remember there being something similar to this, mainly because some former british colonies that still have the death penalty have kept that rule as well.

Wouldnt that work to avoid similar problems? if they're guilty the appeals will fail, if thier not, then hopefully the appeals system will work correctly and the person will be let off within the time allowed.

 

[Macey]

Our courts are massively overloaded though, I dunno how it would work now. I would think that if it were re-enacted anytime soon it would follow the american model though, the rest of our legal system pretty much has. Personal Injury being the primary example.

 

[Hawkwind]

Courts located convieniently close to a Soylent Green factory!

Not sure there could be any appeal to the court of human rights as the UK would have to exempt itself from that system to even bring back the death sentence. Also, comparing the UK and US system is hardly fair either. The US system is a total joke and a circus event. A case of Guilty unless you have the money to prove otherwise.

I like the principles of our system just not the pomp and class divisions that goes with it.

No I would not want some hip street wise rapping judges. Just normal people who understand the concerns of people. Not a bunch of pompus arses like we have now. btw I count 1 senior CPS and 2 barristers amongst friends in the UK. Even they admit the systems are antequated and need revision.

 

[Calaen]

I agree with regards to people possibly being innocent. However in these extreme cases (which seem to be happening way to often)

For those saying it does not act as a deterent (it would not, would it, if you knew you were gonna be looked after for the rest of your life)

We know for a fact all three of those scum bags took part in the death of that child. There is no need to give them an appeal or any food for that matter just take them out the back and fuck them over till they die. Why waste time and money on someone that does not deserve the air they breath.

You start killing people like this within days of them being sentenced is going to make people think hard and fast about intentionally harming someone else. I dont care which government official super duper facts and figures branch tells me otherwise. If I started killing people for shitting on my lawn you would quickly see an decrease in the people trying to. As Mabs says it guarantees that these animals wont get the chance to destroy another's life.

The Americans way is horse shit, why sentence someone to death then let them live at your expense for another 20 years its retarded.

 

[Macey]

If I started killing people for shitting on my lawn you would quickly see an decrease in the people trying to.

Cal, if you want people to stop shitting on your lawn, just move away from Newcastle mate.

 

[MYstIC G]

This scum will wish he was dead when he gets to prison.

He will get right royally fucked every which way and the prison guards will make sure of that.

Good.

You hope but I doubt. Anyway, beatings and the like are pointless. If... Prison = 6x9ft cell, no window, 1 bed, 1 toilet... we'd all be fucking better off. This scum will probably end up in his cell with a TV and a freeview box.

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

Cant beat the Americans, I want BEAR ARMS as well

 

[Uara]

Cant beat the Americans, I want BEAR ARMS as well

Going OT:they may well have bear arms, but we have.......

Spoiler

 

[Calaen]

Going OT:they may well have bear arms, but we have.......

Spoiler

But only if there is a 5 star hotel he can sleep in

Mears is the daddy!!!!

 

[`mongoose]

I saw this story when the news hit yesterday and I was shocked.

The thought of anyone doing anything like this to anything - let alone a baby fills me with horror and loathing.

I'm a committed lefty, who's always been against death sentences but in these instances I have to say I'm left with no ground to stand on, I can think of no good reason not to lynch the feckers.


M

 

[Furr]

This story is sick... makes me mad keep hoping mob rule takes outside the court the the people get publicly lynched after being skinned alive and carved up.

Also PMQs today was a disgrace, Brown acted the complete tosser when asked about this, was half expecting to see Cameron judo chop his potato shaped head.

 

[throdgrain]

The more I see of it, the more I'm convinced I'm right.

 

[SawTooTH]

Want to read why capital punishment is a shit idea

Man hanged 53 years ago was innocent | UK news | The Guardian

Most posts here are of revenge and thats a poor reason in my opinion.
What strikes me is the virulence and Old Testament nature of that supposed hatred, as if this woman & partner had harmed your family. I detest what they did and I don't know why they did this terrible thing, but I would think making them understand and face the enormity of their actions (if possible) would be a far greater punishment.

I suggest that this over-empathy is fairly symptomatic of our media fed society, just look at the Dianna effect. I'm glad that stronger minds prevail due to the potential for injustice if capital punishment were adopted..

 

[throdgrain]

Making them understand ... lol

 

[Dukat]

Want to read why capital punishment is a shit idea

Man hanged 53 years ago was innocent | UK news | The Guardian

So you're saying capital punishment is a bad idea because some guy was wrongly hanged 53 years ago? What about those people who are wrongly imprisioned now? surely its not a million miles off? having to live through a life sentence for something you didnt commit?

What I'm trying to say here is that it is wrong (in my opinion) to tailor a punishment so that it isn't so harsh just incase someone gets wrongly accused.

Make the punishment fit the crime and ensure the requirements to get a conviction with this sort of sentence are strict enough that miscarraiges of justice are less likely to happen.

Even if the guy in your link hadn't of been executed, he would be dead or extremely old by now. Do you think letting him out of prison after 53 years and saying "sorry mate, we got the wrong guy" is going to make everything better?

You exactly cant give the years back, and letting him out now he'd probably be more of a danger to society now than when he went in anyway.

Like I said, let the sentence fit the crime and ensure everyone does thier best to prevent wrongful accusation, dont have lenient sentences for everyone just so that the tiny minority of wrongfully accused people aren't quite so hard done by.

 

[Calaen]

Erm my Grandad took a shit 53 years ago, it's an irrelevant fact.

Technology has advanced to the stage where the mistakes of the past can be forgiven.

I am not talking about the cases where, things are grey. I am talking about the clear they did this crime and it was evil. They have no place on this earth.

 

[DaGaffer]

So you're saying capital punishment is a bad idea because some guy was wrongly hanged 53 years ago? What about those people who are wrongly imprisioned now? surely its not a million miles off? having to live through a life sentence for something you didnt commit?

What I'm trying to say here is that it is wrong (in my opinion) to tailor a punishment so that it isn't so harsh just incase someone gets wrongly accused.

Make the punishment fit the crime and ensure the requirements to get a conviction with this sort of sentence are strict enough that miscarraiges of justice are less likely to happen.

Even if the guy in your link hadn't of been executed, he would be dead or extremely old by now. Do you think letting him out of prison after 53 years and saying "sorry mate, we got the wrong guy" is going to make everything better?

You exactly cant give the years back, and letting him out now he'd probably be more of a danger to society now than when he went in anyway.

Like I said, let the sentence fit the crime and ensure everyone does thier best to prevent wrongful accusation, dont have lenient sentences for everyone just so that the tiny minority of wrongfully accused people aren't quite so hard done by.

Erm, there's the small matter that a miscarriage of justice can be fixed if you're banged up; kind of tricky when you're six feet under. And in a world where state secrets get left on the bus and councils spy on people using anti-terror laws to check they're using the right bin, I find the idea that the systems/technology is in place to make miscarriages of justice a thing of the past laughable.

I agree that for murder life should mean life though.

 

[Dukat]

Erm, there's the small matter that a miscarriage of justice can be fixed if you're banged up; kind of tricky when you're six feet under.

The problem is, if you've been in prison for ten or twenty years for something you didn't do, your life has been ruined anyway.

Yes, obviously its possible to release someone if they've been imprisoned and not executed, I dont dispute that.

What I'm trying to say is that in the example provided above the person in question would either be dead from old age, or very old and completely changed from his ordeal in prison. Simply releasing him at that age would probably be as much use as telling his gravestone "we're sorry". Its not really "fixable" either way.

The main point of my post was to show that I disagree with sentences being lenient just so that if the person convicted is innocent, they dont get treated too badly. By this logic the vast majority, who are rightfully convicted, get an easier deal just so that the tiny minority of innocents arent too badly treated.

And in a world where state secrets get left on the bus and councils spy on people using anti-terror laws to check they're using the right bin, I find the idea that the systems/technology is in place to make miscarriages of justice a thing of the past laughable.

You seem to have misunderstood - I wasnt particularly talking about the current system, so much as the reasons for not having the death penalty.

If you're refering to this...

Make the punishment fit the crime and ensure the requirements to get a conviction with this sort of sentence are strict enough that miscarraiges of justice are less likely to happen.

... then I meant: if the death penalty was brought back, the requirements to get a conviction should be very strict, so that it could only be used in 'open and shut' cases where the person is obviously guilty. This would reduce the chances of having miscarraiges of justice that cannot be "fixed" later on.

 

[Scouse]

The problem is, if you've been in prison for ten or twenty years for something you didn't do, your life has been ruined anyway.

If I get wrongfully banged up for 10 or 20 years I'll come out at 45 or 55 and have a whacking great load of compensation.

Hardly ruined. Just changed. Certainly not a reason to kill me if I'm innocent.