Death penalty
- Thread starter ecudc
- Start date
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
No the overiding reason would be to protect society from re-offenders. Statistics and lack of space may dictate that it is the best solution for some who are incurable and unlikely to ever be granted liberty. As I said earlier I think it's incredibly easy in a debate or discussion to be liberal and politically correct and find 'understanding' for the in-comprehensible evil that some of these 'murderers' are capable of on the basis that they were abused/ill-treated or whatever and that in some way justifies what they do. In reality when it happens to someone you know and love or they build a prison for them near your house, or they release one them to live next door to you and your family - your feelings may change I think, until things affect people directly and in reality it is only hyperthetical discussion - our feelings are affected by experiences. I don't think people would feel so charitable if their child was raped and murdered and the perpetrator was sat in prison having a nice relaxing life while your child is dead and buried.
Why do I write on this threads? It's really pointless! Push me out of it someone!:lol:
*pushes* :wave::wave::wave::wave:
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
:lol::lol: I am jumping out now too:lol:
I don't quite understand where the idea that the death penalty is cheaper than life (even where life means life) in jail. Amnisty estimate that over the USA death penalty cases cost at a very minimum double that of a non death penalty case and at most ten times that....that is start of process to end of process where They estimate that the USA spends $137m a year on the death penalty and having implemented reforms to make the system fairer will actually increase to $232m. The estimate that this would fall to $11.5m if the death penalty was removed.....a 200% fall in the cost! There is someone who has spent 33 years on deathrow - the death penalty does not necessarily mean a quick solution. The huge amount of money that the USA spends could be spent on either longer prison sentances where needed, building more prisons, building secure drug rehab centres for people who commit crimes to feed drugs habbits and better rehabilitation of other crimes or in trying to prevent those crimes happening in the first place.
Last edited:
Phoebesmummy9
Warren Veteran
I think the death penalty should be brung back, if there is over whelming evidence again the person & there is no doubt that anyone else could of commited the crime.
I personally think, sometimes murders ARE planned, and not everyone can be rehabilitaed, to fit back in with society!
I dont agree with some methods of death penalty, e.g firing squad incase the person survived, I think it should be done humanely as possible
I personally think, sometimes murders ARE planned, and not everyone can be rehabilitaed, to fit back in with society!
I dont agree with some methods of death penalty, e.g firing squad incase the person survived, I think it should be done humanely as possible
See I think if there was no doubt they done it etc...and I'm talking more than just police evidence as sometimes thats not credible or reliable then I dont see why it shouldnt be how they killed/hurt someone else...e.g. if they tortured and strangle a victim same should be done to them, but by a machine or something :lol:
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
:lol::lol: Someone has been watching Saw ??? :lol: I think firing squad is fine for them as long as it starts at the ankle and ends with the head:lol:
Haha yes, but just thought the human probably wouldnt want the psychological effects of killing someone in a bad way :lol:
VickiP
Wise Old Thumper
:lol::lol::lol::thumb:
This whole debate polarises into the raison d'etre for prison. Is it to rehabilitate or to punish.
Most people feel that the perpetrator should suffer. In Victorian times jails were incredibly harsh places with hard labour and pointless repetitive tasks. However, if the environment you come from does not equip you to rise about a recidivist life (as in Victoria times when destitution was a life sentence no matter how intelligent a person), then there was absolutely no redemptive quality about prison at all. It did not equip a person with education, or help them to rise about a life of crime. No, it just dumped them back into the same life with the stigma of their class, poverty and criminal record.
Does this sound like something we want to have in the UK? A recent study found that for short term sentences, it was much more cost effective to levy a community service sentence of two years, than a custodial sentence of four months. This was because the rate of re-offending in the community service offenders absolutely nose-dived compared with the custodial prisoners. The reason was simple, in the two years of the community service order, there was time for meaningful rehabilitation work to be done with the offenders. Work that helped them to understand their crime and make amends so they are less likely to re-offend.
However, many people think that community service is a 'soft option', but surely its efficacy in preventing re-offending means it isn't a soft option although there doesn't appear to be the 'punishment' element.
In the debate above about capital punishment, what people really want to do is revisit some of the horror and pain on the perpetrator. This is to help them to feel psychologically secure about the chances of this happening to them. It is a deep-seated human reaction, but that does not make it right. In many eastern European countries there exists the blood fued, in middle eastern countries they have a blood tariff which means that a family can demand money as compensation or extract vengeance in kind. It is barbaric and wholly unseemly to want to pursue either of these routes.
Capital punishment does NOT prevent crime. That has been shown throughout history in the same way as knowing that you get addicted to heroin stops people trying drugs. The human mind does not fit neatly into little boxes.
Capital punishment is uneffective and barbaric.
You can NEVER be sure that you have a guilty person. Stefan Kisko proved that. The evidence against him was 'uncontravertable' - but it was wrong!
It is morally wrong to punish a human being for killing another human being - by killing them! Two wrongs do not justify a right.
Most people feel that the perpetrator should suffer. In Victorian times jails were incredibly harsh places with hard labour and pointless repetitive tasks. However, if the environment you come from does not equip you to rise about a recidivist life (as in Victoria times when destitution was a life sentence no matter how intelligent a person), then there was absolutely no redemptive quality about prison at all. It did not equip a person with education, or help them to rise about a life of crime. No, it just dumped them back into the same life with the stigma of their class, poverty and criminal record.
Does this sound like something we want to have in the UK? A recent study found that for short term sentences, it was much more cost effective to levy a community service sentence of two years, than a custodial sentence of four months. This was because the rate of re-offending in the community service offenders absolutely nose-dived compared with the custodial prisoners. The reason was simple, in the two years of the community service order, there was time for meaningful rehabilitation work to be done with the offenders. Work that helped them to understand their crime and make amends so they are less likely to re-offend.
However, many people think that community service is a 'soft option', but surely its efficacy in preventing re-offending means it isn't a soft option although there doesn't appear to be the 'punishment' element.
In the debate above about capital punishment, what people really want to do is revisit some of the horror and pain on the perpetrator. This is to help them to feel psychologically secure about the chances of this happening to them. It is a deep-seated human reaction, but that does not make it right. In many eastern European countries there exists the blood fued, in middle eastern countries they have a blood tariff which means that a family can demand money as compensation or extract vengeance in kind. It is barbaric and wholly unseemly to want to pursue either of these routes.
Capital punishment does NOT prevent crime. That has been shown throughout history in the same way as knowing that you get addicted to heroin stops people trying drugs. The human mind does not fit neatly into little boxes.
Capital punishment is uneffective and barbaric.
You can NEVER be sure that you have a guilty person. Stefan Kisko proved that. The evidence against him was 'uncontravertable' - but it was wrong!
It is morally wrong to punish a human being for killing another human being - by killing them! Two wrongs do not justify a right.
Jack's-Jane
Wise Old Thumper
Great post :thumb:
LoopyLouie
Wise Old Thumper
Agree!
sillyrabbit
Wise Old Thumper
All convictions in this country are on the basis of being 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
Rightly or wrongly, it is supposed to be watertight in only convicting the guilty. How would you go about introducing a standard above that ? and why should it only apply to the death penalty ?
I honestly see the death penalty as a step backwards rather than forwards.
I see so many arguments against it, but not a single one for it that I could agree with.
Martin
Rightly or wrongly, it is supposed to be watertight in only convicting the guilty. How would you go about introducing a standard above that ? and why should it only apply to the death penalty ?
I honestly see the death penalty as a step backwards rather than forwards.
I see so many arguments against it, but not a single one for it that I could agree with.
Martin
Probably the best post on here
Martin
Wow Martin, praise indeed. You, Jeremy and Inimical Me are the gold standard as far as I am concerned. :wave:
