TelBoy

Interesting list of countries where the death penalty exists. With few exceptions, they're countries where either life is cheap, or where religious agendas are paramount.

I don't think the UK fits into either category.

Like many, i'd happily see the demise of caught-in-the-act murderers, but the gremlin on my other shoulder knows that killing isn't really a civilised action, in itself or as a punishment. That along with the fear of creating martyrs, makes me come down on the side against capital punishment. I just wish i didn't have to contribute financially towards keeping these scumbags alive in prison.

dirtybarry

I would pay good money to watch it live on tv

hodgy0_2

If you are genuinely interested take a trip/holiday to Saudi Arabia

They have a place in Riyadh called “Chop Chop” Square where they regularly behead people - public square so open to all

If you can’t be bothered to take the “trip of a lifetime”

Simply google chop chop square and marvel at the justice system of a modern liberal state

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Do you work for the sun newspaper?

Ok, let's overlook the unsubstantiated "weirdos and murderers are everywhere" and assume that you're right about the justice being a joke assertion is accurate.

If the justice system, which we as a society made, is so flawed and we can't get such things as making a prison sentence mean hard time and not let dangerous people out early, then can we really be trusted to put someone to death??

That's the biggest practical reason why the death penalty can never return and one which cannot be avoided irrespective of how one feels about the morality of taking a life. An advanced society has the collective insight to know that we cannot be trusted to get it right. As Tel mentioned, it tends to be the less advanced or religiously dogmatic quarters that still tolerate capital punishment.

All you have said in your post is an argument for sorting out the prison system as a punishment and getting sentencing right, not introducing the death penalty!

DYK

We really should of put this to vote at the beginning of the thread.
At least it give some numbers for and against...

dirtybarry

Thomas cook it

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

You'd need at least two polls, one for the plain old 'for or against', then another one for 'do you actually think it will ever be brought back'.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Easily done just restrict it to murders with multiple witnesses ie that chap that killed the policewomen recently will have had many witnesses.

I don't question it as a deterrent and why spend taxpayers money rehabilitating people that commit murder ie cold blooded killings. F*ck em imho whether it be proper life in jail ie never released or the DP. Lets not forget that the poor b*stard who was murdered isn't coming back and has no prospect of "rehabilitation" either.

TX.

DYK

Nice avatar pic lol

The Dogs B******s

Get a poll going

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Not reliable, mate: there have been instances where a number of witnesses have pointed the finger at someone and it's transpired that it was the witnesses who committed the act and then tried to scapegoat someone. Good example of that in the Penn and Teller video I posted. Poor ****er sat on death row for 5 years whilst the two "witnesses" were out and free to re-offend. The authorities even had evidence they had the wrong man from the outset and never acted on it!!!

Then you have public opinion to consider. When crimes of the magnitude of the one that prompted this thread are committed there is outcry: people bay for blood (as is evident on this thread) under these circumstance the temptation for the authorities to go ahead and try for a conviction, irrespective of whether the evidence is 100% is great. We've seen several VERY high profile examples recently (e.g. Hillsborough) of the authorities being less than honest. That's bad enough if someone gets sent to Jail, unforgivable if someone gets killed.

BTW To be clear, I'm not saying that the authorities can't be trusted per se or making any generalisation of that nature; the majority are very decent people doing a f*cking hard job. I am saying that the police and the CPS, like all institutions are a collection of humans, and humans are fallible especially under pressure and, of course, that there are bad apples in every barrel.

TX -that kind of statement is merely a rhetorical device intended to stress the severity of the crime. It is redundant because

a) We're not talking about prison being used as a rehabilitative tool for the worst cases (i.e. the ones where one might have issued a death sentence), life should mean life! That's what I keep saying: the arguments people put forward for the death penalty are really better arguments for a review of sentencing!

b) We are already painfully aware of the severity of the crime and the consequences for the victim and that is why we MUST be dispassionate about how we deal with people who commit such acts and not just descend into an avenging lynchmob. The more serious and abhorrent the crime, the easier it becomes for the base instincts for revenge to take over and the greater the chances of further injustice being perpetrated, ergo the more serious the crime the more important it is that we take a step back and make sure things are done in keeping with the values of the society that we are trying to protect by making laws and punishments.

I believe Ghandi sad it best with words to the effect of: In a society that believes in an eye for an eye, you just end up with a lot of blind people.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Done, mate!

Although, I reckon I know what the result will be given the demographic of SN

DYK

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

So you said it yourself, you'd be just as happy if proper life sentences were brought in. Realistically, which of the two do you think is most likely to happen?

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

We need a third poll option:
"it's never going to happen, so the question's irrelevant"

dirtybarry

As the clash said give 'em enough rope

toneh

iTrader: (1)

I can't see the big deal ,
Here's a simple question , should Ian Huntley be killed or released in 20 years ?

Leslie

I agree totally with PSL.

The real reason for having a the death penalty is to deter people from murdering others.

The thought of being woken at 6 am in your death cell and being led to the gallows where you are stood on the trap, a noose is placed around your neck, and then the lever is pulled to send you on the long drop is a very strong reason to make people think twice before killing someone else.

Someone who has deliberately killed another person for no good reason does not deserve any special treatment other than having to look forward to the same fate.

The number of murders has increased significantly since the death penalty was stopped. The kind of person who is quite happy to kill someone for their own selfish reasons seems to have increased. I believe that they reckon the risk is worthwhile since they have so much less to lose if they are caught.

I believe that re-introducing the death penalty will save innocent lives.

Les

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

Hmmm, bit of a sideways slap for SN members.
Are you saying that a certain section of the population are not entitled to an opinion then?
And the smileys are noted BTW.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Not in the least; it was a light hearted bit of banter (hence smilies) based on the responses of the thread thus far. Don't forget, I too am a member of SN and were I to genuinely harbour such disdain for the SN population I wouldn't be a mod on here!

Also, had I wanted to deprive people of their opinion, I wouldn't have opened the poll, or I might just locked the thread!

As I've said all along I understand why the Death Penalty is appealing, but that doesn't make it right. In fact, the reason it's appealing is one of the very reasons why it must never return in a civilized society.

As for the question about Huntley. It's a good illustration of how jail isn't a soft option compared to the death penalty. He has made numerous attempts on his own life, which presumably he would not have done were incarceration such an easy option. He should remain locked up for the rest of his natural life, but not killed.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Pretty horrific, You could embellish that further by mentioning that hanging isn't a precise science and that it's not uncommon for a person to either asphyxiate or for their head to come clean off.

And now imagine that's done to an innocent person.

Ok, so use something more humane you say. Lethal injection. I'm sure you know the innovator of the lethal injection as a means of execution was? Hitler's chief physician! That's right, the yanks are using something dreamed up by ****'s as an instrument of maintaining the society they fought to defend from *****! It boggles the mind! This is exactly what happens when you go down the death penalty road. Society takes one step closer to that which it condemns. Incidentally, the Lancet reviewed autopsy's of a good number of those condemned to die by lethal injection and concluded that, as a method, it fell below the standards required for euthanasia of animals! Again, we can't be trusted to carry out the death sentence!

The first rule of protecting values is to live by them!

We can all twist rhetoric to our own ends, Les. But the cold hard facts are that there is NO convincing evidence that the death Penalty is a deterrent. You need only look at Murder rates in USA states that do have the death penalty for that.

Also, no-one is going to see the death sentence to experience the horror and be deterred by it .. unless we're advocating public execution. In which case, let's just call the Taliban for advice on that shall we - they're pretty good at it!

Paraphrasing the professor at the end of the Penn and Teller vid here:

Deterrence might be an argument for lesser crimes, but for a crime of the magnitude of murder, then it's much less convincing because Murders are committed for 3 principle reasons

Greed: people who will go so far as to Murder (as opposed to steal or defraud) for gain, have got to that point because they never think they're going to get caught; so the severity of the punishment is an irrelevance.

Passion: Someone isn't thinking straight: they're not going to weigh up risk vs reward.

Compulsion: Someone just can't help themselves, whether you want to pathologise that or not is irrelevant. They will do it regardless of the consequences, that's what makes it a compulsion!

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

Greed: people who will go so far as to Murder (as opposed to steal or defraud) for gain, have got to that point because they never think they're going to get caught; so the severity of the punishment is an irrelevance. So some are driven to murder purely for gain. Do you want to share this earth with such people?

Passion: Someone isn't thinking straight: they're not going to weigh up risk vs reward. Crimes of passion are nothing new, and if someone makes such an excuse ('oh I'm so sorry I just didn't realise what I was doing') it's virtually impossible to prove otherwise = easy way out. Do you want to share the earth with such people and hope they don't do it again?

Compulsion: Someone just can't help themselves, whether you want to pathologise that or not is irrelevant. They will do it regardless of the consequences, that's what makes it a compulsion! Compulsion? You mean they just have to kill, right? Nuff said. Do you want to share this earth with such people?

The other option to deterrence is prevention. OK so you can't stop the first offence, but you can absolutely stop it happening again to some other poor innocent.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Again, all I'm seeing there is a need to review of incarceration terms for the most heinous crimes i.e. make life = life, not the introduction of the death penalty!

The only practical thing that the death penalty has going for it over and above imprisonment is that it's financially cheaper.....well at least it would be were it not for the fact that, if the USA is anything to go buy, most death row inmates spend near enough a life sentence in prison before being executed, thereby negating the one practical advantage the death penalty has over incarceration. Another example of the complete failure of any civilized society to put forward a logical, rational and humane argument for the death penalty!

PS loving the blue text!

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

One likes to be different

As far as full life imprisonment goes, I really can't see how this equates to a more humane treatment of murderers than an established policy of punishment by death. Should we not be considering what constitutes justice for the guilty as well as the innocent?
How can it be morally right to keep a human being behind bars for up to 60 years? Surely this descends into the realms of cruelty, not justice.

The Dogs B******s

+1

hodgy0_2

^ - this

it is why people ruin their lives by drinking and driving and fvcking their secretaries

they never think they are going to get caught – a simple fact known by every reasoned person

that the biggest deterrent, is the expectation that they will be caught, not the severity of punishment

every **** who drives home drunk "it was only a 100 yards officer" from the village pub/train station etc, knows this to be true, they did not think they would be stopped by the cops, not that they would lose their licence/job/marriage/children etc etc

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Now you're talking, mate!!

Ironically, I think that actually might be the strongest "moral" argument on which the death penalty can be made! Especially in light of what has happened to Ian Brady: he has tried to killl himself several times; the inference being that prison must be so bad that he'd rather be dead.

However, and here's the kicker, knowing that I'd bet If the Gov said: "Ok, kill Brady" and you then asked the people that advocated the death penalty what they thought having learned of his suffering they would say: "no, too easy; let the f**ker suffer!"

The truth is that, on a purely philosophical standpoint, it's very difficult to defend any punishment, because it's all about imposing a wrong on someone else for a wrongdoing they have done, which is inherently flawed if you believe in 2 wrongs don't make a right; it just means you've got one extra wrong. In the real world of course this would just be a nonsense, as it would be cate blanche for people to behave however the hell they want and we can't have that. Well, I say we can't have that .... but I'm not sure it's ever been tried!

The only way we can justify punishment is on a "Lesser of two evils" practical basis. i.e. that we have to have a system of punishment in place to protect a certain set of key values that underpin our society. For that to work we have to decide what our core value is and in western society that core value is "the right to live". Problem is that we have to protect that core value without postulating a punishment that undermines that most fundamental right! The deprivation of liberty is the best we can come up with that doesn't completely erode the moral imperative of "Right thinking and behaving" members of society to administer a punishment.

On a practical basis punishment is supposed to achieve more than just retribution too:

1) To punish - right a wrong (good ole retribution)
2) To deter - discourage the commission of similar crimes
3) To protect society - this goes further than just physically protecting society, it also relates to the maintenance of the values of society
4) To rehabilitate - Bring the wrongdoer back into line with the "rules" of society
5) To be amenable to being withdrawn should there be a misapplication of justice and its associated punishment.

Of course, the weighting of these objectives rather depends on the crime committed. 5 is always paramount. Number 4 might be the primary objective with a thief, but number 3 is more of a pressing concern with serial killers!!

The reason incarceration is considered preferable to death is that the death penalty - forgetting the whole moral imperative and protection of society's values issues- doesn't add up logically in respect of the objectives of punishment as well as prison does and it completely fails to meet the critical safeguard of number 5.

1) Does it punish? Yep, I'd say so, but is it really worse than life behind bars? ....jury's out. If you take the view that the death penalty should go ahead because jail is cruel then you're actually letting the perpetrator off with a lighter sentence, and in doing so kind of conceding that it's not the best punishment that they could have been given! Now THAT'S a mindf*ck for ya! We'll end up with all of the advocates of the death penalty switching to the "not in my name" side and all the "not in my name brigade" suddenly advocating "Kill em - it's kinder!"

2) Does it deter? According to the evidence, no - it doesn't appear so. Highest rate of executions as a % of the population in USA = Texas. Highest murder rate as a % of the population = Texas! As alluded to above, murder is so heinous that the situations under which it occurs are pretty immune from deterrent. Is prison any better? To be honest, for the most heinous murders, I doubt it

3) Does it protect society? Yep! Dead people don't commit crimes in society. But neither do people who are locked up ....if it's for the right term and done properly obviously.

4) Does it rehabilitate? Duh! But to be fair, does prison for the kind of crimes we are talking about?

5) Is it amenable to being withdrawn if a misapplication of justice has occurred? Nope - death is kinda permanent last time I looked!

From a practical point of view even if killing was deemed "more humane" than incarceration, for number 5 alone, it's very hard to justify the death penalty! There is an assumption built into our justice system that we will occasionally get things wrong and that, therefore, punishment needs to be amenable to mistakes being rectified or put right somehow. Although you can't give people years of their lives back; they are at least still around to apologise to and offer some measure of restorative compensation!

Here's a question though to all those who advocate the death penalty. If you KNEW that life (and I do mean life) behind bars was a more severe punishment than death. How many of you would still advocate the death penalty? Genuinely interested!

I think maybe that's the crux of the matter: are people advocating the death penalty per se, or are they just after the "worst" punishment possible for scumbags like child killers and since murder is considered the worst thing you can do, it must be the worst punishment, but is it really?

Until next time, be good to yourselves .... and each other!

PS God I'm sad!!!

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Exactly: Deterrent needs two things to be effective:

1) The perception of serious consequences if one commits transgression x
2) The perception of the liklihood that one will be held accountable if one commits transgression x

If either is diminished, so is the deterrent.

SkullFudge

It costs us around 23K per year to house prisoners.

Strip them, fill a car tyre with petrol then pull the tyre over them down to there waist and torch it, with the victims family in attendance so they can enjoy the screaming.

That would be justice for ba5tards like this.

Martin2005

Simple answer; Neither!