Capital Punishment.

[Blue Hefner]

If he’s coming through your window I think he’d be bang to rights :-)

He may have just heard a noise and be the concerned neighbour, the culprit could be long gone

 

[domalino]

If you can explain to me why someone who deliberately takes someone’s life away from them deserves to continue with theirs I’m open to persuasion.

Because we know for a fact the government gets it wrong.

Arguing for the death penalty after we all know about wrongful executions is arguing for innocent people to be murdered to satisfy your bloodlust.

Life in prison removes a murderer from society and doing any further harm, while having the generally popular result of the government not intermittently murdering innocent people.

This 2 minute video is literally all you need to end the debate, which is why there is essentially no public debate about this topic. It's settled, and like 90% of the civilised world we're not going back.

 

[Blue Hefner]

I don’t like the idea of the state’s level being that of the worst members of society. Also, if you give the state the permission to execute murders then after that it is simply a negotiation - people who commit manslaughter, how about them? Rapists, they didn’t kill anyone but society could do without them. Bank robbers maybe, again, didn’t kill anyone but certainly undesirable….

Since when was capital punishment applied to bank robbers rapists and people who kill which is classed as manslaughter, that’s a proper deflection. If you can explain to me why someone who deliberately takes someone’s life away from them deserves to continue with theirs I’m open to persuasion.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

The primary reason is that maybe they didn’t do the crime. Secondly, it’s a slippery slope and third, I don’t like the idea is that state taking the lives of the population

And 4th, which maybe a bit soft of me, is that I think people can change. A 17yr old stabbing someone should not automatically mean they are strung up. What someone does at 17 isn’t something they’d necessarily do a few years afterwards

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Perhaps we could offer it, as a choice, for those convicted? You’d sign a disclaimer that, should new evidence ever come to light, there’d be no compo for any family members.
Given what you’d save on prison costs, you might also offer a cash incentive to be finished off quickly of, say, £150,000 (taxable, obviously) if you are fried in year 1, post conviction and dropping to nothing if you’re still inside after 5 years.
You could then show the decision making on special editions of Deal or No Deal…

 

[i kne albert davy]

Because we know for a fact the government gets it wrong.

Arguing for the death penalty after we all know about wrongful executions is arguing for innocent people to be murdered to satisfy your bloodlust.

Life in prison removes a murderer from society and doing any further harm, while having the generally popular result of the government not intermittently murdering innocent people.

This 2 minute video is literally all you need to end the debate, which is why there is essentially no public debate about this topic. It's settled, and like 90% of the civilised world we're not going back.

Yes I could go with life in prison but if you think murderers spend life in prison I’m afraid you’re delusional. Life means nothing to the lunatics running the asylum.

 

[blueinsa]

Oh great, another thread and topic where someone who disagrees with someone else will get called a **** ;-)

 

[domalino]

if you think murderers spend life in prison I’m afraid you’re delusional. Life means nothing to the lunatics running the asylum.

The average life term in the UK is 16.5 years, for murder it's 20 years, and the average person with a life term spends an extra 9 years in prison after their minimum term. So the sentences you're complaining about are over 29 years. That's facts, easily looked up online, not your vague feelings about sentencing laws.

You also seem to think that all murder convictions would go to the death penalty, even when capital punishment existed, it was <5% and half of those death sentences were reduced to life terms on appeal.

So what you're arguing for is we execute a couple of people a year, and then find out later that a bunch of them were innocent. Fantastic.

Meanwhile it's been pretty definitively proven from studies across the world that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent to murder anyway.

 

[i kne albert davy]

The average life term in the UK is 16.5 years, and the average person with a life term spends an extra 9 years in prison after their minimum term. So it's over 25 years.

You also seem to think that all murder convictions would go to the death penalty, even when capital punishment existed, it was <5% and half of those death sentences were reduced to life terms on appeal.

Not seen anywhere’s I’ve even hinted all murderers received a death sentence there’s certainly been a few who’ve deserved it since it was abolished though.

 

[TonyM]

Oh great, another thread and topic where someone who disagrees with someone else will get called a **** ;-)

I don't agree.

 

[TonyM]

Oh great, another thread and topic where someone who disagrees with someone else will get called a **** ;-)

I don't agree

The average life term in the UK is 16.5 years, for murder it's 20 years, and the average person with a life term spends an extra 9 years in prison after their minimum term. So the sentences you're complaining about are over 29 years. That's facts, easily looked up online, not your vague feelings about sentencing laws.

You also seem to think that all murder convictions would go to the death penalty, even when capital punishment existed, it was <5% and half of those death sentences were reduced to life terms on appeal.

So what you're arguing for is we execute a couple of people a year, and then find out later that a bunch of them were innocent. Fantastic.

Meanwhile it's been pretty definitively proven from studies across the world that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent to murder anyway.

I would have it for some crimes. Not as a deterrent but as a fitting punishment for the very worst of humanity.

 

[.db.]

Because we know for a fact the government gets it wrong.

Arguing for the death penalty after we all know about wrongful executions is arguing for innocent people to be murdered to satisfy your bloodlust.

Life in prison removes a murderer from society and doing any further harm, while having the generally popular result of the government not intermittently murdering innocent people.

This 2 minute video is literally all you need to end the debate, which is why there is essentially no public debate about this topic. It's settled, and like 90% of the civilised world we're not going back.

Hislop didn’t listen to or take on board her point there.

There would need to be a higher threshold of burden of proof for there to be capital punishment, which he didn’t take on board or take the time to let her finish saying.

We already have capital punishment anyway. We shot dead the terrorist outside the synangogue in Crumpsall. That’s capital punishment. He went beyond the point where the usual burden of proof needs to just be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ because he was caught in the act. Much like video evidence would catch someone in the act but would be looked at afterwards, but that would also be enough to enact capital punishment after the fact.

However, most of the usual ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ evidence cases wouldn’t meet that threshold so capital punishment couldn’t occur for those, so we’d never kill soneone who would end up being found innocent at a later time.

 

[remember arthur mann]

I don't agree

I would have it for some crimes. Not as a deterrent but as a fitting punishment for the very worst of humanity.

That's united fans fooked !!

 

[domalino]

There would need to be a higher threshold of burden of proof for there to be capital punishment, which he didn’t take on board or take the time to let her finish saying.

There is literally no higher threshold of proof imaginable than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is why he (correctly) didn't take it on board.

We already have capital punishment anyway. We shot dead the terrorist outside the synangogue in Crumpsall.

That's not capital punishment, and you know it's not, so why bother arguing in bad faith? No one's going to swallow it.

Capital punishment is being sentenced to death after being tried and convicted. What you're referring to is justified use of lethal force by the police to prevent further loss of life. They're not the same and no one thinks they're the same.

 

[.db.]

There is literally no higher threshold of proof imaginable than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is why he (correctly) didn't take it on board.

At the moment there isn’t but there’d need to be a higher burden of proof than that (ie being caught in the act or video evidence) for capital punishment.

 

[domalino]

At the moment there isn’t but there’d need to be a higher burden of proof than that (ie being caught in the act or video evidence) for capital punishment.

You can't create a higher threshold than BARD. Being caught by who? Witnesses who could be corrupted? Video evidence that could be deep-faked? Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest threshold possible which is why it's the threshold for locking someone away for 30 years.

BARD already means the evidence must be so convincing that there is no other logical explanation for the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

Remember it was created at a time when capital punishment existed, so it was created to be the absolute highest level of proof possible because people would be executed if found guilty, and yet we still killed a bunch of innocent people when that was satisfied.

So by all means introduce the death penalty for a completely fictional 110% guilty level of proof, you'll never convict a single person.

 

[blueinsa]

I don't agree

I would have it for some crimes. Not as a deterrent but as a fitting punishment for the very worst of humanity.

In total agreement Tony.

 

[dronefromsector7G]

I can see both arguments.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Because we know for a fact the government gets it wrong.

Arguing for the death penalty after we all know about wrongful executions is arguing for innocent people to be murdered to satisfy your bloodlust.

Life in prison removes a murderer from society and doing any further harm, while having the generally popular result of the government not intermittently murdering innocent people.

This 2 minute video is literally all you need to end the debate, which is why there is essentially no public debate about this topic. It's settled, and like 90% of the civilised world we're not going back.

Tories want it back though ........ Conservatives eh ... what are they like ?

 

[abu13]

95% of the countries problems would get sorted if people decided to not be cunts

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

The people who support capital punishment seem to be of the persuasion that those currently locked up for murder are held in prison by a standard akin to “yeah he probably did it but we can’t be 100% sure”. This allows them to invent some fictional higher standard which is actually just errr… the actual standard that is already applied. And that standard gives wrong results. Quite often. Bribery, framing, corruption, political influence, crazy bad luck, there’s all kinds of ways to make a crime look iron clad and without question when it actually isn’t.

These people just need to own it. If you are for capital punishment, then you are arguing in favour of innocent people being killed by the government - it’s a simple fact. The only difference between those for and against is that those in favour think this is worth the trade off. I don’t know why they don’t just admit it rather than pretend the government can somehow roll this out with 100% accuracy. It’s akin to believing in fairies or Santa.