Death Penalty

[Skashion]

What was in in the early 60s skas I couldn't find a definitive answer but i'll lay good odds from the 1930s to 60s when there was a death penalty that wasn't used willy nilly it was a dam site lower than recently.

Leaving aside the blatant preposterousness of you getting to choose the lowest (and generally unrepresentative) figures from the two hundred and fifty year period of British capital punishment and me having to use the figures for 2012, and not say, 1966, as if it's a fair comparison when you're engaging in the most extreme example of cherry-picking imaginable, by what logic can you claim that having the death penalty works - as long as you barely ever use it? Surely a deterrent should be most effective when it is most heavily used if it is genuine deterrent?

 

[DortmundDummy]

Being the father of a child and loving that kid more than yourself then some gruesome horror crime is committed against the love of your life, how is it not possible that you would`nt want the same inflicted upon the person who ruined her and your own life forever ? of course if proved without doubt and lets be fair this day and age with forensics and DNA its removed from possibility. I ca`nt believe you would want someone to exist in this world capable of inflicting such pain.

 

[bluemc1]

can't really decide on this one but just a question i don't know the answer, is there many cases of murderers getting out after say 10-12-15 years and killing again ? if so would more innocent people have been saved if the killer had been executed for the first crime than the number of people wrongly put to death. hope that makes sense ive had a couple its friday

 

[CITYBOY1000]

can't really decide on this one but just a question i don't know the answer, is there many cases of murderers getting out after say 10-12-15 years and killing again ? if so would more innocent people have been saved if the killer had been executed for the first crime than the number of people wrongly put to death. hope that makes sense ive had a couple its friday

A great many, hundreds and probably thousands now.

There was a survey done many years ago. I forget when it was but could have been in the 1980s about this subject. It found that 70 people had been murdered by released murderers since the ending of the death penalty in the 1960s. The figure was relatively low for 2 main reasons. Only around 70 murders used to happen every year in the 1960s and if the murderers got life it meant at least 15-20 years or more so a relatively small number had been released.

We average around 1,000 per year now and the sentences are lighter and often result in release in less than 12 years.

Undoubtedly the figure of 70 from the 1980s will have multiplied by 20 by now easily.

 

[rastus]

can't really decide on this one but just a question i don't know the answer, is there many cases of murderers getting out after say 10-12-15 years and killing again ? if so would more innocent people have been saved if the killer had been executed for the first crime than the number of people wrongly put to death. hope that makes sense ive had a couple its friday

Im sure there are many, I think for violent sexual/ terrorist crimes that get life sentences should mean life until you die in prison. But human rights wont allow that and costs in doing that would be great.

 

[bluemc1]

can't really decide on this one but just a question i don't know the answer, is there many cases of murderers getting out after say 10-12-15 years and killing again ? if so would more innocent people have been saved if the killer had been executed for the first crime than the number of people wrongly put to death. hope that makes sense ive had a couple its friday

A great many, hundreds and probably thousands now.

There was a survey done many years ago. I forget when it was but could have been in the 1980s about this subject. It found that 70 people had been murdered by released murderers since the ending of the death penalty in the 1960s. The figure was relatively low for 2 main reasons. Only around 70 murders used to happen every year in the 1960s and if the murderers got life it meant at least 15-20 years or more so a relatively small number had been released.

We average around 1,000 per year now and the sentences are lighter and often result in release in less than 12 years.

Undoubtedly the figure of 70 from the 1980s will have multiplied by 20 by now easily.

cheers fella wasn't expecting such a good answer

 

[kenzie115]

can't really decide on this one but just a question i don't know the answer, is there many cases of murderers getting out after say 10-12-15 years and killing again ? if so would more innocent people have been saved if the killer had been executed for the first crime than the number of people wrongly put to death. hope that makes sense ive had a couple its friday

Im sure there are many, I think for violent sexual/ terrorist crimes that get life sentences should mean life until you die in prison. But human rights wont allow that and costs in doing that would be great.

Didn't someone get a sentence of over 100 years recently? I'd be surprised if they outlived that.

Due to the fact that mistakes can be made I have to say no to the death penalty. However, the prison system needs looking at, it looks far too comfortable, they should be made to suffer and based on the crime there should be different levels of suffering.

 

[unsworthblue]

i wonder if all the advocates for the death penalty would be able to actually pull the trigger,flick the switch inject the lethal poison? very few i suspect,don't think i could kill/murder someone,Imagine the nightmares for the rest of your life,unless your a sick bloodthirsty mother fucker and it wouldn't bother you anyway

 

[CITYBOY1000]

i wonder if all the advocates for the death penalty would be able to actually pull the trigger,flick the switch inject the lethal poison? very few i suspect,don't think i could kill/murder someone,Imagine the nightmares for the rest of your life,unless your a sick bloodthirsty mother fucker and it wouldn't bother you anyway

Just because you believe in something doesn't mean you have to be able to carry it out yourself.

Does that mean that if Germany invades France in 1940 and you are too old or infirm to get in the Army, or a bit squeamish maybe, does that mean you have to support the Germans and oppose any form of war or killing because you can't do it yourself ? That's what we pay people in public office for. That's why we send our armed forces to fight on our behalf because the bulk of the population just aren't up to it for one reason or another.

 

[Balti]

what would you do? you'd kill the fucker and rightly so

but the minority elected state denies you your revenge

they apparently know better on this and all other matters

and its another excuse to exercise their supposed authority and of course another excuse to keep overtaxing the masses