You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It's a very definite no from me.
The government should never be given permission to murder the citizens that it's supposed to serve.
I'd be concerned that an extreme right wing government, aided by messrs Murdoch, Dacre et al., could twist the definition of who deserves to be murdered to include any groups who they happen to dislike. (Lets face it, to save money they've been doing it by stealth to the disabled for over a decade.) There are sufficient numbers of the hard of thinking that they could probably get away with it all too easily.
I know it unlikely but, along with the other issues already mentioned in this thread, it puts me very firmly in the no camp.
I’d be concerned that an extreme right wing government...
Left wing governments are far more prolific in the execution stakes. Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
Killing someone to make the point that killing people is wrong?
No thanks.
Definitely yes.
Then crush their bones and use them to fill in potholes, making it a cost saving double whammy.
I've taught early high school pupils about the death penalty.
The way I do it is at the very start of the topic we have a class vote on whether it should be reintroduced. Usually there's a slim majority for this (many kids are bloodthirsty little gits, they'd have it for speeding).
We then look at the methods. No drama, just a matter of fact discussion on how judicial killing can be done. We don't even discuss the moral arguments for and against at this point.
They then get to vote again on the original question.
Every single time I've done this (maybe 20 times?) the second vote shows a tiny minority (3 or 4 out of 30) in favour of the death penalty.
The numbers for it actually rise slightly when we look at arguments for and against but remain a minority.
Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
ah the right wing imagination off again...
Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
Yes, really, really, really hard to imagine him not doing that. I think I saw it in his manifesto.
Have you not noticed that the pro execution people on this thread are the right wingers...
The death penalty is a bit strong eh, bring back the birch though eh eh!
The death penalty is a bit strong eh, bring back the birch though eh eh!
Well can we start for misleading parliament?
<div class="bbp-reply-author">5thElefant
<div class="bbp-author-role"></div>
</div>
Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
Mental 🙂
@mikewsmith - Would make a refreshing change for the working classes to be spared the rod! I can think of a rather large banking fraud where it would have been appropriate as well 😉
IF ONLY there was some data to show whether the death penalty was effective! If only there were countries who do it which we could look at to see whether it works. Oh hang on....
- Afghanistan
- India
- Nigeria
- US
- Iran
- Japan
- Taiwan
- Kuwait
- Zimbabwe
- Libya
- Thailand
- Guyana
- Uganda
- Bangladesh
- Iraq
- Indonesia
- Botswana
- UAE
- Bahamas
- Cuba
- Belarus
- Yemen
- Saudi Arabia
- Vietnam
- Syria
- Egypt
- South Sudan
- DRC
- Ethiopia
- China
- Sudan
- Comoros
- Somalia
- Barbados
- Malaysia
- Chad
- ****stan
- Oman
- Singapore
- St Kitts and Nevis
- St Lucia
- Bahrain
- North Korea
- Equatorial Guinea
- St Vincent and the Grenadines
- Palestinian territories
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Lesotho
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Belize
- Dominica
- Jamaica
- Jordan
Although, this tread is useful for identifying the half-wits and the ethically-bankrupt..... carry on.
Have you not noticed that the pro execution people on this thread are the right wingers…
'twas ever thus.
No way, apart from anything else the jury would be made up of the very same public that voted on Brexit 😀
complete nutjobs (serial killers, mob hitmen) aside, generally murderers murder because they don't like person X, and often as a crime of passion. If person X is dead, their desire to murder has gone. A death sentence for that would seem to be state sponsored revenge killing.
Thieves on the other hand, no exactly what they are doing, and the same thief commits many many crimes and generally still steals after conviction and release.
Hanging them in the town square on a Saturday morning takes full advantage of the only benefit of the death penalty - 0% reoffence rate.
I would, for certain crimes that I deem to be against the fabric of society, such as the people that attack and mug pensioners, or even wife beaters. Murder would not even have to have been committed.
Why would we want someone like that in society, and how likey is someone with that mentality to ever reform ?
Either that, or find an island somewhere to keep them on... One with lots of wild predatory animals hopefully.
We then look at the methods. No drama, just a matter of fact discussion on how judicial killing can be done. We don’t even discuss the moral arguments for and against at this point.
They then get to vote again on the original question.
Every single time I’ve done this (maybe 20 times?) the second vote shows a tiny minority (3 or 4 out of 30) in favour of the death penalty.
The numbers for it actually rise slightly when we look at arguments for and against but remain a minority.
Maybe you should have put them in the shoes of Milly Dowler's family for example and explain the circumstances of her death.....and then asked the question again?
Maybe you should have put them in the shoes of Milly Dowler’s family for example and explain the circumstances of her death…..and then asked the question again
Which basically brings it back to revenge as a reason.
Which basically brings it back to revenge as a reason.
What is wrong with revenge as a reason within the law? Please tell.
Hard to imagine Corbin wouldn’t set up Gulags.
If you're that much of a DM-reading expert on the leader of the opposition, then you would've spelled his surname correctly.
You're welcome.
I'd much rather see a reform of the prison system in which serious crime was punished by hard labour. People who take life from others should be put to work serving the people they hurt. I fully support rehabilitation, but it should be offered only to those who're penitent and only after they've spent time helping those they hurt.
What is wrong with revenge as a reason within the law?
Which law would it be within and does that law mean I can kill you as revenge for writing bollocks on the internet?
And does that then mean your mum can kill me as revenge, and then my mum can kill your mum as revenge and so on. Are you starting to see the problem with revenge yet?
Which law would it be within and does that law mean I can kill you as revenge for writing bollocks on the internet?
UK does not have capital punishment at the moment so not referring to current UK law.
The original question is about " if ... vote ...".
And does that then mean your mum can kill me as revenge, and then my mum can kill your mum as revenge and so on. Are you starting to see the problem with revenge yet?
If the law (assuming Yes has won the vote for capital punishment) says that a heinous crime must face capital punishment then as a society we must obey the law. Therefore, if you are found guilty of heinous crime then you will face the sentence accordingly. Revenge has nothing to do with it. It is the law that people vote for in a democracy. i.e. majority vote wins.
Let's bring it back boys:
The original question is about ” if … vote …”.
I don't see the bit about revenge killing in the original question. We are now discussing the finer points not the binary yes/no. So how would a law work where revenge is okay within it and things can be done solely as revenge?
No.
When Norway refused to even countenance the death penalty for Anders Brevik they demonstrated that the Norwegian state's ideology was better then his ideology.
No civilised country should seriously consider rolling the clock back and re-introducing judicial murder.
Excellent relevant podcast
Had a quick listen seems to be striking an allegorical tone which is ironic given the correlation
I don’t see the bit about revenge killing in the original question. We are now discussing the finer points not the binary yes/no.
The finer point here is whether people are even allowed to vote in democracy related to a highly sensitive topic.
Yes, the reasons behind capital punishment can be debated later. i.e. That is the time you use your moral arguments etc to convince others to vote Yes or No.
Yes, the topic is about capital punishment but if we live in a democratic society shouldn't there be a vote for everything the society consider important?
So how would a law work where revenge is okay within it and things can be done solely as revenge?
I am sure there will be debate etc in the finer details of capital punishment assuming the vote is Yes.
The finer point here is whether people are even allowed to vote in democracy related to a highly sensitive topic.
Have you not listened to anything anyone has told you in the last two years? We live in a parliamentary democracy where we vote for our representatives, not on individual policies. What you describe isn't democracy, it's mob rule.
Yes, the topic is about capital punishment but if we live in a democratic society shouldn’t there be a vote for everything the society consider important?
No, because society is full of idiots.
More seriously: in the scenario you describe, you'd have one camp going "**** yeah, string the bastards up" and the other going "hell no, that's not how a civilised society behaves," and whoever shouts loudest wins. But both of these stances are emotional responses, and that is a monumentally bad way to make decisions. What's needed is for people who understand these things to rationally consider, why would we do this, what do we gain? Is there evidence that capital punishment has any effect as a deterrent, for instance?
I've said this a dozen times now. The role of a democracy isn't to give people what they think they want, it's to give them what's in their best interests and to act for the good of the country. I expect the vast majority of the electorate would like to abolish tax and have a free house for everyone, but that doesn't make it a good idea. The economy would collapse overnight.
No, because society is full of idiots.
More seriously...
I thought you were being serious. It's certainly a fair point.
Have you not listened to anything anyone has told you in the last two years? We live in a parliamentary democracy where we vote for our representatives, not on individual policies. What you describe isn’t democracy, it’s mob rule.
I can probably guess the poster you're replying to - all hail the killfile.
I’ve said this a dozen times now. The role of a democracy isn’t to give people what they think they want, it’s to give them what’s in their best interests and to act for the good of the country.
I think that you're barking up the wrong tree with trying to reason with this poster. Every forumite who tried was rewarded with a badly composed non-sequitur containing mostly gibberish. I learned the hard way not to bother trying to engage.
Interesting the amount of no voters who are insulting people with a different view to theirs on this topic. I would vote for it , and to all those who say what about all those who would have been wrongly executed I would point you to the article below that says that over 30 innocent people were killed by convicted killers who had been released from prison . Awaits flaming . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227
Agreed Ramsay Neil.
Human rights. Everyone has the right to life/the right to live.
No-one has the right to take an innocent life, & when a person takes another life after serving a sentence for previous murder, then the right to life should end.
On my previous link I counted 13 people who murdered again after being released from prison after serving a sentence for murder.
In my time as a prison officer I was personal officer to 2 prisoners who were serving time for murder. (both Cat D at that point & coming to the end of their sentences) Both of them had murdered their partners in a drunken rage & both said that 'it was me or her' meaning if he hadn't killed her, she wouldv'e killed him! (both kitchen knife jobs) I read their case notes which verified this.
Neither prisoner (IMO) would've gone on to kill again & neither had gone anywhere with the intention of committing murder in the 1st place.
I wouldn't advocate executing every murderer but multiple murders are crossing a bounday.
On my previous link I counted 13 people who murdered again after being released from prison after serving a sentence for murder.
So how many would be on your list to stop the 13? Did all these people deserve release? Should we have looked at that more closely?
You have a valid point... a point that’s overlooked often when topics like this come up.
Should we have looked at that more closely?
Obviously.
One repeat murder is too many.
and to the first question Essel, could you have spotted the 13? How many more would have been on your list
and to the first question Essel, could you have spotted the 13? How many more would have been on your list
I was a screw, not a parole board member & quite obviously they couldn't tell either.
(Till afterwards, when it was too late.)
Their right to life shouldv'e ended at that point.
EDIT, anyone working in HMPS can usually recognise certain repeat offenders. (as in, 'he'll be back')
One repeat murder is too many.
What would be the sentence for a repeat murderer at the moment?
"Interesting the amount of no voters who are insulting people with a different view to theirs on this topic."
Was thinking this upon reading the post. It reminds me of the pre-Brexit referendum threads where anyone who expressed anything other than vehement opposition was subject to crude insults. I asked a fairly innocuous question and was swiftly labelled a "bellend". Amongst all the poorly considered rants I did find some useful content which did result in me voting to remain but I am sure that many other undecided voters were pushed the other way by the insults and condescending attitudes of the remainers.
I was unaware of the cost of death sentances in the US and this is a powerful argument against one of the most commonly reasons cited by the pro lobby. 300 million per case in California - it is disturbing that lawyers, judges etc. are getting rich from this.
But the cost of a death sentence doesn't have to be anything like that amount and indeed isn't in other countries that have the death penalty . The US is always mentioned when this argument comes up because it is so staggeringly expensive . Nobody ever uses Vietnam as an example of the cost of the death sentence and there is a good reason for this .
Really difficult question. On one hand I'd like to think I'm a reasonably decent guy who lives a hard working life contributing to a civilized society.
On the other hand I've lost a close friend and workmate last year . I'll spare you the details but she was terrorized and stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack . The animal who did this admitted the crime in court but used every lie in the book to try and get a reduced sentence.
Having grown close to her parents and witnessed the sheer hell they're still going through I would gladly flick the switch myself. Revenge ? Yes absolutely and that's probably where the reasonably decent guy goes out the window. As I said it's a difficult question but every situation is different .
People on this thread are too quick to call others idiots merely because they have a different opinion.
The question again is how many innocent people are you willing to have executed along with the people who you think deserve it?
What about if we got to eat them after? Though suspect they might need considerable tenderizing.
The question again is how many innocent people are you willing to have executed along with the people who you think deserve it?
As I alluded to earlier in 10 years from 2001 to 2011 there were 35 innocent people killed in England by people who had been release after previously killing somebody . So you would need to put to death more than 35 innocent people in that same period for that argument to work .
and to all those who say what about all those who would have been wrongly executed I would point you to the article below that says that over 30 innocent people were killed by convicted killers who had been released from prison
So - how many innocent lives is it ok for the state to take in order to reduce that possibility? 29? What if one of them was your wife/husband/child?
Obviously the system that results in the fewest innocent deaths would be preferable . Personalising it as you are trying to do makes no difference .
I'm happy to call anyone a bellend for whom cost is the deciding factor for whether people should be executed.
So what IS the argument for re-instating the death penalty?
Its not a deterrent, it's not cheaper (in fact it's more expensive), there is an argument about preventing reoffending - but that takes us back to the cost of executing vs the cost of long term incarceration. It seems like some people are openly advocating execution purely for revenge/"justice".... at which point this becomes purely a primary school level debate about ethics and morality.
What else is there?
IMO, "a primary school level debate about ethics and morality" is exactly what this is.
Edit: it seems like people are conflating the death penalty issue with the issue of tougher sentences for particularly heinous crimes. I'm all for "throw away the key" in some cases, and tougher sentences in general - but absolutely not the death penalty.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">Ramsey Neil
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
As I alluded to earlier in 10 years from 2001 to 2011 there were 35 innocent people killed in England by people who had been release after previously killing somebody . So you would need to put to death more than 35 innocent people in that same period for that argument to work .
Or, you would need to understand that you can't cancel out the death of one individual by not killing another.
</div>
What is wrong with revenge as a reason within the law? Please tell.
Simply because it's an emotive reaction.
What is wrong with revenge as a reason within the law? Please tell.
Once you establish revenge is acceptable then do you expand the penalties?
Some lashes for stealing? Someone was blinded so you can blind the perpetrator? Revenge is not a good reason for anything especially something that is permanent.
it’s not cheaper (in fact it’s more expensive)
I’m firmly in the no camp, but as others have stated it depends on which country you are looking at as an example.
Woohoo. Usual crap spouted. Notice how many of those who feel that they have the kind, considerate liberal attitude are the ones being nasty?
Calling people idiots, suggesting that a democratic vote would be wrong etc.
Its always the way. Being kind and considerate but only to those who agree with you. Stuff the rest and I'm making sure I am nasty about it type of thing.
Surely, if one is considerate and balanced in thoughts with the well fair of all concerned, both the views of all should be equally regarded and the democratic process be revered. Or is it that Orwell was right?
Nasty selfish people some of you. Oh yeah and I bet those are the ones who fire back.
Sorry mattsccm, but what exactly are you trying to make a point about?
Well done mattscccm 100%. It's why I don't post much and so many don't post at all 🙁
Surely, if one is considerate and balanced in thoughts with the well fair of all concerned, both the views of all should be equally regarded and the democratic process be revered.
So what do you do if the voters within the democratic process do not have thoughts that are considerate and well balanced ?
Its not a deterrent
Are we sure on that? Would the death penalty not be a deterrent to those committing other crimes who then commit more and more serious crimes? IMO the recent spate of knife attacks in London are linked to gang related activity, gangs commit all sorts of crime. Could the death penalty put people of joining gangs in the first place?
Sorry mattsccm, but what exactly are you trying to make a point about?
Its a flounce.
So you would need to put to death more than 35 innocent people in that same period for that argument to work .
No you wouldnt. Thats a false dichotomy. It assumes all murders will be executed and that those 35 were also killed by those prosecuted for murder as opposed to manslaughter etc. It also ignores other measures which can be taken.
I'm honestly a bit surprised that the people in favour of this have such faith in the UK legal system. Sure, it is not terrible, but it is certainly far more fallible than i would be happy with to provide such a permanent punishment.
Could the death penalty put people of joining gangs in the first place?
could always ask Gary Glitter.
Are we sure on that? Would the death penalty not be a deterrent to those committing other crimes who then commit more and more serious crimes?
Please feel free to go and find some evidence that it is. Already presented evidence that it does not.
Could the death penalty put people of joining gangs in the first place?
Given the mortality rate of those who sign up to organised crime I'd say not, I think it's covered in the induction but will certainly be in the employee handbook.
I am leftie and therefore I would bring back the death penalty for anyone who disagrees with me... is what all the right wing people seem to think I think.
In response to mattsccm, it would appear that the majoroity of forumites including myself believe that the very notion of a dealth penalty is monstrous. You've an opportunity to present an argument for it, but it's always going to be a subjective opinion that doesn't tally with evidence.
For example (grabbed from Google): <span class="ILfuVd yZ8quc">Study: 88% of criminologists do not believe the <b>death penalty</b> is an <b>effective deterrent</b>. A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation's leading criminologists do not believe the <b>death penalty</b> is an <b>effective deterrent</b> to crime.</span>
There's a lot of conflation in this thread. One poster made a point about being pro-capital punishment citing the tragedy of a family friend being killed by dangerous driving. Does this mean that the statute books should be re-written so that death by dangerous driving would be a captial offence? Where would that put manslaughter in terms of culpability and penalties?
I welcome any rational discussion, but remember that we live in a representative democracy - we elect people to make decisions for us in our best interests as Cougar has already pointed out. Those decision makers are presented with a range of evidence and arguments, they're also trained to sift through the moral maze and factual presentation in order to decide upon legislation. The fact that some of us might not like this, or as a result of our innate need to distill down complex arguments so that they're simplified into "common sense" scenarious doesn't mean that populist demands upon crime and punishment are the right way to go.
The discussion between the two posters involved in criminal justice has made for fascinating reading.
On the cost basis, now that there are so many new high rise apartments in most town centres, could we not the a leaf out of the ISIS caliphate playbook and just throw people off the top of them*? That'd be cheap enough? Are there any obvious Health and Safety laws that would prevent this? As long as you had a bloke in a high vis vest at the bottom to warn about the plummeting body due to land, that'd be fine surely?
* Not just for being gay, or ginger, or owt? I'm not suggesting we go that far. Just for the really bad stuff. You know... murderising people and not acknowledging someone who's just let you out of a side road into traffic
This is like brexit all over again.
Its a simple question with a binary answer, which leads to a vast series of interlinked implications that no-one can be arsed working out in advance.
Personally I wouldn't mourn a variety of people (many mentioned in this thread) if they were to die. But thats not the core of the question. I guess almost anyone can think of someone the world could do without.
For a referendum question I would propose a 2 or 3 parter:
a) Do you support the police and criminal justice system being given sufficient funding to reduce and endeavour to eliminate unsafe convictions?
b) Do you support the funding of prison education and rehabilitation efforts to reduce the rate of reoffending?
c) Do you want a return of the death penalty?
A negative answer to the first or second question disallows your answer to the third (and shows you up as the big poopy head you undoubtedly are).
Morally the death penalty can be justified, but practically, its the wrong answer to a badly formed question.
Morally the death penalty can be justified, but practically, its the wrong answer to a badly formed question.
Can you define the moral justification?
Morally the death penalty can be justified
I don't believe it can.
At the risk of being terribly simplistic, for me it boils down to a simple question: Is it wrong to kill?
- If the answer is Yes, then no-one should do it, including the state (unless we're happy for our legislators to live by the "do as I say, not as I do" maxim)
- If the answer is No, then what exactly will be capital crimes?
For that reason I would be against it, even if there was some magical guarantee that all convictions were sound.
What would be the sentence for a repeat murderer at the moment?
You already know the answer to that don't you, just as well as I do.
"Can you define the moral justification"
Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?
I think I know that answer for me, so I'll happily (perhaps even enthusiastically) apply that to others.
Having said that I am dead against the death penalty for the reasons expressed above.
Some people (some on here) seem to think that killing another person for any reason under any circumstances is morally equivalent to murder.
These people are either moral giants from olympus (or similar) sent to educate us lower mortals in their higher ways, or moral pygmies who lack history books and dictionaries.
This people are either moral giants from olympus (or similar) sent to educate us lower mortals in their higher ways, or moral pygmies who lack history books and dictionaries.
Either way, a fair number of them will end up on jury duty and will be less likely to convict knowing there's a death sentence involved. That would mean murderers being set free.
“Can you define the moral justification”
Not a philosopher, but from my simplistic point of view, its the golden rule. The (historically late) christian version being “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
So if I murdered a child, what do I think would be a fitting punishment for me?
Imprisonment and mental health assessments with rehabilitation, all things that were a lot tougher to do 2-3000 years ago which is why we shouldn't really be basing modern laws on,
You already know the answer to that don’t you, just as well as I do.
Actually no I don't. That's why I asked.
scotroutes, mikewsmith
I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.
But I I'm against the death penalty for practical reasons, given above (which I believe are insurmountable).
For clarity, I have equal disrespect for people who think that introducing the death penalty would do anything positive (without even considering the state of the criminal justice system) AND those who say that all killing is murder.
I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.
And we can make an assessment of it, I'd say it's paper thin
I’m against for both moral and practical reasons. But a thought just occurred to me, that may give heart to people who (understandably) feel the need for revenge against the perpetrators of some horrendous crimes.
The prison service spends a great deal of effort preventing a lot of these individuals killing themselves. This suggests to me that life in a shitty prison is indeed a fate worth that death. So, revenge, ✅?
The prison service spends a great deal of effort preventing a lot of these individuals killing themselves. This suggests to me that life in a shitty prison is indeed a fate worth that death.
You been in prison lately?
I don't have any factual evidence to hand but in my experience of prisoners at risk of self harm, most of those at risk of committing suicide are those who are pissed off with themselves for being a shithead in the 1st place.
Prime recent example....a pal of mine still in the service told me of a guy who'd killed himself a couple of months ago at the the jail I was at. Transpires he'd been a bastard to his wife/partner & kids so social services had taken away his access rights. He was of course, annoyed by this & said he was going to kill himself. Staff believed he was at high risk of suicide so placed him on constant watch (that's basically a designated officer watching him....err..constantly) this is extremely draining on staff resources (cos there aren't enough) & eventually the risk was assessed & reduced to 'four an hour', this doesn't mean someone checks on him every 15 mins it means four 'intermittent' checks an hour but staff need to be sensible & not do four checks five mins apart for instance. Also it's not down to one staff member being designated to do it at this point. Consequently he wasn't checked for a while within an hour & he strung himself up, dying later in hospital.
Now before anyone blames staff for not doing their job right, I suggest having a go at being a screw & trying to cope with the extreme pressures that staff have to deal with on a multi-daily basis. (Youv'e got Grayling to thank for that, the Prick.) On that particular wing there were 3 staff coping with 60 odd prisoners. It only takes 1 or 2 more cons to kick off about absolutely anything & other important things get overlooked.
HMPS is still woefully understaffed but prisons are by far, better, safer & more decent places than they used to be.
Anyway.....back to the death penalty...
scotroutes, mikewsmith
I was asked for the (my) moral justification, I gave it.
Not by me. I was only trying to point out that some folk would have mail objections that would reduce the chance that all murderers were convicted.
I'm still waiting to find out how many innocent people it's acceptable to kill just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, were the wrong colour or just spoke with the wrong accent.
The moral question seems to require a legitimate debate but it honestly doesn't
We condemn murder as a terrible act, and in order to demonstrate to the community how terrible it is and much we abhor it: We the state, will commit another murder...
It makes no sense