Death Penalty

[Andy Dale]

Crucifixion . . . It worked for the Romans .

 

[kenzie115]

Oh well, it's been a while since we had one of these riveting threads.
Personally I reckon the biggest con is that you can't bring back someone who was wrongly executed.
So anyone in favour should choose an innocent family member to be the first to go, just so they know how the families really feel.
That, and the fact that civilised societies don't put themselves on the same moral footing as killers.
Ok - let the bloodthirsty posse vent their collective spleens...

This thread should have never made it past this post, which happened to be the first reply, back in August. Guess what, it's still just as relevant now.

 

[Mike D]

I have been thinking about the Daniel Pelka case and it got me thinking about the death penalty. Should it be brought in for certain cases. I really don't have a problem with it for child killers and maybe serial killers. Or is a "life" sentence better, 30 yrs plus.

I can see lots of pros but not many cons.

Yep lets bring it back retrospectively and get rid of some of those lags costing us all that money.

 

[rick773]

Was going to start a thread on this.
In the light of those 2 subhuman filth pleading not guilty to murdering Soldier Lee Rigby,this seems to have cropped up,thought i'd give those who want to debate it another chance to do so.
For terrorists yes 100%.

Agreed. As long as people have the ability to plead not guilty to a crime then the death penalty needs to be around as punishment for exercising that option.

 

[BlueTG]

I'm all for it in some cases, but you can't put right a wrong conviction if you've killed off the poor fucker. There have been many cases of people being wrongly imprisoned for another's death, there was one recently where they found the correct offender and had wrongly imprisoned the other bloke for 12 years or something, but they wouldn't have been able to let him out as he would have been 6 foot under.

Maybe if we make further advances in forensics and what not where we can always be sure who did what then it could have a place although I find it unlikely.

But our judicial system does not punish criminals enough, especially those who horrifically take another's life. I'm undecided on the whole 'reformation' of criminals(murderers) and what chances they deserve.

 

[Bigg Bigg Blue]

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

 

[blinkblue]

I'm against it. Death is an easy way out and if some evidence comes about down the line that exonerates the defendant they wouldn't be able to be released, therefore I don't see a benefit when it comes to the actual punishment, only from a from saving money/prison space aspect.

 

[pominoz]

Oh well, it's been a while since we had one of these riveting threads.
Personally I reckon the biggest con is that you can't bring back someone who was wrongly executed.
So anyone in favour should choose an innocent family member to be the first to go, just so they know how the families really feel.
That, and the fact that civilised societies don't put themselves on the same moral footing as killers.
Ok - let the bloodthirsty posse vent their collective spleens...

This thread should have never made it past this post, which happened to be the first reply, back in August. Guess what, it's still just as relevant now.

How this debate can continue after that post is beyond me, then again it is Bluemoon ;)

 

[BlueTG]

I'm against it. Death is an easy way out and if some evidence comes about that exonerates the defendant they wouldn't be able to be release, therefore I don't see a benefit when it comes to the actual punishment, only from a from saving money/prison space aspect.

There's a mixed argument on the deterrence capitial punishment gives.
Some say there is little evidence of deterrence.

But serving half of a 28 year sentence or whatever it is for murder is hardly a deterrence either.

 

[Aphex]

Oh, this again. Quite strange as I was just discussing this.

It's a big yes from me.