Death Penalty

[sir baconface]

If detection and conviction processes were perfect I would support capital punishment for the worst offences. However the risk of errors or corruption - while small - is a real one, as several posters have argued. The consequences are serious enough to tilt me against.

Even though some convictions appear cast iron, e.g. Huntley and Brady, it would be impossible to rank cases by quality of evidence in order to drive the punishment. That would undermine the whole system.

 

[dazdon]

When you get some monster committing an indescribable act my natural reaction is to want the dead but I can't foresee a system where bent authorities or human error might send an innocent to their death.

So for me...I'm out.

 

[Bluemoon115]

Because killing killers proves killing is wrong by killing.

Logic. The redneck way.

 

[tidyman]

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.

I'm not sure where you've got these figures from fella but they don't stand up to much scrutiny.

Figures aren't readily available over a long period but since 2007 there have been seven people convicted of murder who were on a life licence. Possibly but by no means certainly were all seven previously convicted for murder. Source: The Ministry of Justice.

Assuming by "we" you mean England and Wales, we are currently averaging no where near 1000 per year.

2012/13: 552
2011/12: 553
2010/11: 648
2009/10: 626
2008/09: 668.

Source: The office for National Statistics.

Also, without having any figures at hand to back it up, it is generally accepted as fact that minimum terms ( tarriffs ) for mandatory life sentences have gradually been rising in recent years, not reducing.

You are correct tidyman but I wasn't wrong either. My figures though were out of date and I was just working off memory and the last time I had read about it.

There were regularly 850+ homicides in the UK in the 1990s and which peaked in 2002/2003 when the figures was 1041. The figure has come down in recent years and let's hope they don't peak again.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence.html

Fair enough.

I've made this point a thousand times but as I'm bored I'll repeat it again.

When people look at homicide/murder figures and how they want them punished, they often make the mistake of assuming the vast majority are evil Brady style premeditated murderers. The truth is the vast majority, even on the prosecutions admission, when they've run a trial, never set out to kill anybody.

I'm not suggesting it is acceptable behaviour but I doubt many people would really want the death penalty for people who for example give someone a few whacks with a baseball bat, that results in a death.

Average minimum sentences can also be misleading as they don't take into account the worst offenders, who have whole life tariffs and those who plead guilty to murder, knowing they are going to get a very low tarriff, in cases such as assisted suicide.

It's also worth noting that a minimum sentence is rarely the amount of time an offender actually spends inside. At the moment, with overcrowding and lack of funds, I'd go as far as to say it is virtually impossible even for a model prisoner to be released bang on their tarriff.

 

[pominoz]

Because killing killers proves killing is wrong by killing.

Logic. The redneck way.

They will never see it any other way than the right way.
You can not reason with these people.

 

[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

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.

exactly,all of these people saying that people should be killed for committing a very serious crime wouldn't be capable of injecting the lethal poison,it would be ok though because we can just pay people to do it on our behalf,i would love to see the advert for the post of executioner,'person wanted to administer lethal injections to paedo's and murderers and general bad people,no experience required as full training will be given and uniform provided'

 

[Balti]

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.

exactly,all of these people saying that people should be killed for committing a very serious crime wouldn't be capable of injecting the lethal poison,it would be ok though because we can just pay people to do it on our behalf,i would love to see the advert for the post of executioner,'person wanted to administer lethal injections to paedo's and murderers and general bad people,no experience required as full training will be given and uniform provided'

the queue would be a mile long

 

[unsworthblue]

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.

exactly,all of these people saying that people should be killed for committing a very serious crime wouldn't be capable of injecting the lethal poison,it would be ok though because we can just pay people to do it on our behalf,i would love to see the advert for the post of executioner,'person wanted to administer lethal injections to paedo's and murderers and general bad people,no experience required as full training will be given and uniform provided'

the queue would be a mile long

depends on the money and the uniform that you would have to wear,got be more than minimum wage and involve leather uniforms with swazticas

 

[mcmanus]

You are correct, it won't happen. Not least because it would cause an absolute diplomatic meltdown.

A yes vote would actually lead to greater divisions and social unrest than is currently the case. Each execution could be expected to be met with a great deal of civil disobedience from those opposed to its re-introduction imo. If a society more at ease with itself is what you are seeking, I don't believe this is the solution. I believe it would cause enormous societal fracture.

Yep I think we all know that capital punishment won't be re-introduced in the foreseeable future I'm doubtful if it would be a good or a bad thing to be honest the thing what sticks right in my throat is the likes of Bradley Hindley Sutcliffe and these two who murdered lee Rigby get to live their lives out while their victims are gone forever, who speaks for them.

The three you mention have tried to take their own lives.

What does that tell you?

Don't kill them. Let the fuckers rot, everyday spent thinking why am I here?

 

[Chancy Termites]

Questions:
1)- Are some crimes so bad that the perpetrator deserves to be killed?
2)- What is the maximum number of mistaken executions you are prepared to accept, per year, decade, century or whatever?
3)- What are the chances of achieving the answer you gave for question 2?

Answers:
1)- Yes
2)- 0 from now until the end of time
3)- 0