Death penalty

[VickiP]

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.

I agree too NickieM good post, however I don't agree with everything you are saying, I don't think capital punishment is ineffective or barbaric, I think it would only ever be used as the very last resort. No-one would take pleasure as such out of it, we were joking on the comments above. The 'murderers' who I think deserve it would infact be ending their lives in a far less barbaric way than their victims endured when they murdered them. The comparisons with community service etc are a bit different as I thought we were talking about things that are 'serious' enough to warrant the death penalty like child murder. Sadly as much as I am all for helping people, some people are beyond that point and they are never going to be released because they will always remain a danger - these are the people who i think should be executed.

I also don't think you say we can NEVER be sure of guilt - some people even confess or there are witnesses, DNA, video evidence, sometimes it is the combination of all these things that confirm guilt and in MOST cases of conviction there is a good chance of guilt I think. Inevitably sadly there will be mistakes made, there are mistakes in every area of life and public service. Mistakes happen all the time with social services not intervening to prevent child cruelty, it's shameful and incredibly tragic but, unintentional.

 

[NickieM]

I agree too NickieM good post, however I don't agree with everything you are saying, I don't think capital punishment is ineffective or barbaric, I think it would only ever be used as the very last resort. No-one would take pleasure as such out of it, we were joking on the comments above. The 'murderers' who I think deserve it would infact be ending their lives in a far less barbaric way than their victims endured when they murdered them. The comparisons with community service etc are a bit different as I thought we were talking about things that are 'serious' enough to warrant the death penalty like child murder. Sadly as much as I am all for helping people, some people are beyond that point and they are never going to be released because they will always remain a danger - these are the people who i think should be executed.
I also don't think you say we can NEVER be sure of guilt - some people even confess or there are witnesses, DNA, video evidence, sometimes it is the combination of all these things that confirm guilt and in MOST cases of conviction there is a good chance of guilt I think. Inevitably sadly there will be mistakes made, there are mistakes in every area of life and public service. Mistakes happen all the time with social services not intervening to prevent child cruelty, it's shameful and incredibly tragic but, unintentional.

Although you do not specify the long-term disable, the same argument could logically be applied towards people in a persistent vegative state or those who will never contribute to society. Under those terms, Stephen Hawking could be euthanased because he is never going to get better.

By setting ourselves up as God and deciding who should live or die, where do we stop. We start with paedophiles and murderers, how long before violent rapists are added and then anyone who the press judges to be appropriate.

Nothing in life is absolute except death! I am not sure I would be comfortable in your brave new world. We can NEVER be absolutely sure of guilt. DNA evidence although it is statistically improbable, can be wrong. Witnesses may be mistaken or malicious. Confessions may be as a result of coercion, mental illness or because of an intellectual inability to understand what is being asked.

In the US they execute mentally challenged prisoners. In Texas, the Governor can halt an execution should he please (invariably, he doesn't). Does that not sound like a God complex to you?

The United States is the only first-world country to have the death sentence. It is grouped along with Iran, China and various other third world countries. That is a shocking indictment on a civilised society. The people who end up being executed largely form a group of the most disadvantaged, ill-educated and deprived people in their society. It is truly shocking and yes, it IS barbaric.

 

[VickiP]

Although you do not specify the long-term disable, the same argument could logically be applied towards people in a persistent vegative state or those who will never contribute to society. Under those terms, Stephen Hawking could be euthanased because he is never going to get better.

By setting ourselves up as God and deciding who should live or die, where do we stop. We start with paedophiles and murderers, how long before violent rapists are added and then anyone who the press judges to be appropriate.

Nothing in life is absolute except death! I am not sure I would be comfortable in your brave new world. We can NEVER be absolutely sure of guilt. DNA evidence although it is statistically improbable, can be wrong. Witnesses may be mistaken or malicious. Confessions may be as a result of coercion, mental illness or because of an intellectual inability to understand what is being asked.

In the US they execute mentally challenged prisoners. In Texas, the Governor can halt an execution should he please (invariably, he doesn't). Does that not sound like a God complex to you?

The United States is the only first-world country to have the death sentence. It is grouped along with Iran, China and various other third world countries. That is a shocking indictment on a civilised society. The people who end up being executed largely form a group of the most disadvantaged, ill-educated and deprived people in their society. It is truly shocking and yes, it IS barbaric.

:wave: Hi Nickie no it would only apply to people who are a danger to others - it has nothing to do with them being 'useful' or not - no-one should or could determine that about another human, I am talking about removing the threat of harm to innocent people.

It has nothing to do with a God complex either, execution should and would only apply when there is not any doubt that the person has committed murder you would need another thread to debate the death penalty for other crimes aswell. For me it relates to the people who haven't just murdered - they have murdered in the most depraved torturous way and often more than once and often without motive, the victims are strangers to them. When they are assessed and it is proven without any doubt they are guilty and unlikely to ever be able considered 'safe' for release, rather than incarceration for life they should be executed humanely in my view.

I also don't generally compare the UK to the USA because we are incredibly different in many ways and I honestly don't think that the same thing would occur in our system if the death penalty were introduced. I don't even think it would be publicised very much, we certainly wouldn't have televised executions etc - There are a lot of countries who all have different cultural methods of execution and again it's another thread to debate each countries methods and records on human rights, I am not condoning any other countries methods or records/policies on human rights. China for example is appauling and this country would never be remotely similar even if the death penalty were introduced. It would be avoided at all costs but, there are definately cases where for me the public protection comes first, some things are just so so dreadful that the person is not able to be rehabilitated and will never be safe for release - I just cannot find a reason why I would prefer these people to remain in prison alive and enjoying a far better standard of living than some of our harmless homeless, they don't enjoy the luxury of a bed and 3 cooked meals a day let alone access to a playstation and benefits!! Some crimes are over and above applying the normal rightful principles of humanity to - we have to trust that the judge and jury making the decision would be as objective as possible - if we question and criticise everything in our system in the defence of criminals - is it really any wonder that people know they can do what they like in this country - oh and if they get caught, just claim mental health problems and they get away with it.

 

[NickieM]

:wave: Hi Nickie no it would only apply to people who are a danger to others - it has nothing to do with them being 'useful' or not - no-one should or could determine that about another human, I am talking about removing the threat of harm to innocent people.

It has nothing to do with a God complex either, execution should and would only apply when there is not any doubt that the person has committed murder you would need another thread to debate the death penalty for other crimes aswell. For me it relates to the people who haven't just murdered - they have murdered in the most depraved torturous way and often more than once and often without motive, the victims are strangers to them. When they are assessed and it is proven without any doubt they are guilty and unlikely to ever be able considered 'safe' for release, rather than incarceration for life they should be executed humanely in my view.

I also don't generally compare the UK to the USA because we are incredibly different in many ways and I honestly don't think that the same thing would occur in our system if the death penalty were introduced. I don't even think it would be publicised very much, we certainly wouldn't have televised executions etc - There are a lot of countries who all have different cultural methods of execution and again it's another thread to debate each countries methods and records on human rights, I am not condoning any other countries methods or records/policies on human rights. China for example is appauling and this country would never be remotely similar even if the death penalty were introduced. It would be avoided at all costs but, there are definately cases where for me the public protection comes first, some things are just so so dreadful that the person is not able to be rehabilitated and will never be safe for release - I just cannot find a reason why I would prefer these people to remain in prison alive and enjoying a far better standard of living than some of our harmless homeless, they don't enjoy the luxury of a bed and 3 cooked meals a day let alone access to a playstation and benefits!! Some crimes are over and above applying the normal rightful principles of humanity to - we have to trust that the judge and jury making the decision would be as objective as possible - if we question and criticise everything in our system in the defence of criminals - is it really any wonder that people know they can do what they like in this country - oh and if they get caught, just claim mental health problems and they get away with it.

You have much more faith in human nature than I have. You are already starting to try to define what would constitute a capital offence and it has moved purely from killing someone, to murder and not only to extreme violent murder. How long before The Sun or some other rag was actively campaigning for its introduction for other offences.

The death penalty would made absolute NO difference to murder. Most murders are not premeditated, and mostly they involve people who already know each other. Stranger danger is not as common as you think, although obviously, it happens.

If capital punishment was so effective, why did the crime rate never come down during its use? In pre-Victorian times, people accepted the risk as an occupational hazard - a harsh hazard, but one to simply live with.

All this debate does is pander to those people in society who don't want to be constrained by morals and ethics but who like their policies to be simply, outwardly effective - and totally unworkable. A career in politics awaits you Vicky.

 

[VickiP]

You have much more faith in human nature than I have. You are already starting to try to define what would constitute a capital offence and it has moved purely from killing someone, to murder and not only to extreme violent murder. How long before The Sun or some other rag was actively campaigning for its introduction for other offences.

The death penalty would made absolute NO difference to murder. Most murders are not premeditated, and mostly they involve people who already know each other. Stranger danger is not as common as you think, although obviously, it happens.

If capital punishment was so effective, why did the crime rate never come down during its use? In pre-Victorian times, people accepted the risk as an occupational hazard - a harsh hazard, but one to simply live with.

All this debate does is pander to those people in society who don't want to be constrained by morals and ethics but who like their policies to be simply, outwardly effective - and totally unworkable. A career in politics awaits you Vicky.

How funny because I thought you had more faith in human nature than me, you seem to be more compassionate and understanding. I am to a point but, there are criminals who are never going to be released and their crimes are unforgiveable.

I thought 'stranger danger' was actually very common in the case of most serial killers like Jack the Ripper, the Moors Murderers, Rachel Nickel - most murders I thought were pre-meditated aswell - often they take the tools with them (which in itself is illegal) and they are opportunists - such is the saying 'wrong place at the wrong time'. I accept a lot of murders occur and the murderer knows the victim but, it depends on the profile of the killer and the case and I would suggest that far more 'random' murders occur than we even know about and remain un-solved.

I struggle to compare this day and age to pre-Victoria times, I don't think the capital punishment would be adminstered in anywhere near the same way because the world has changed and become more educated and civilised.

I do have strong moral values and I always try to be ethical and I am not suggesting a random mob hanging, it would only ever be applicable in this society after every shred of doubt has been removed and for me I would like to see the death penalty apply to those who are never going to be released, they are too dangerous - they are not able to be rehabilitated and they are actually a danger to staff and other prisoners in prisons. Currently that wouldn't apply to that many I don't think. Thanks for suggesting the career in politics - don't know why I didn't think of that :lol:

 

[angel_night]

I haven;t read the majority of this thread!

I agree with others who have said that two wrongs dont make a right. Taking a life in trade of another isn;'t right in my opinion. Plus I don't like the thought of someone having to become an 'executioner', regardless of whether they actually really want to or not. It seems horrible to me.

I also don't like the fact that someone maybe put to death but then later found to be innocent. I think that's absolutely awful! To know you haven't done anything wrong but to be killed for the act is appauling. For this very reason it shouldn't occur in my opinion.

Part of me also thinks that for some its a quick way out! Once you're dead it's all over. I agree with things such as mediocre tasks like chopping wood or picking up stones for years at a time. Completely pointless tasks which can completely break someone. People shpuld be given life, and when life is given it should mean until they die, not 20 something years.

That's just my opinion though!

 

[Jack's-Jane]

Wow Martin, praise indeed. You, Jeremy and Inimical Me are the gold standard as far as I am concerned. :wave:

IMO you have gone Platinum NickieM

 

[LoopyLouie]

How funny because I thought you had more faith in human nature than me, you seem to be more compassionate and understanding. I am to a point but, there are criminals who are never going to be released and their crimes are unforgiveable.

I thought 'stranger danger' was actually very common in the case of most serial killers like Jack the Ripper, the Moors Murderers, Rachel Nickel - most murders I thought were pre-meditated aswell - often they take the tools with them (which in itself is illegal) and they are opportunists - such is the saying 'wrong place at the wrong time'. I accept a lot of murders occur and the murderer knows the victim but, it depends on the profile of the killer and the case and I would suggest that far more 'random' murders occur than we even know about and remain un-solved.

I struggle to compare this day and age to pre-Victoria times, I don't think the capital punishment would be adminstered in anywhere near the same way because the world has changed and become more educated and civilised.

I do have strong moral values and I always try to be ethical and I am not suggesting a random mob hanging, it would only ever be applicable in this society after every shred of doubt has been removed and for me I would like to see the death penalty apply to those who are never going to be released, they are too dangerous - they are not able to be rehabilitated and they are actually a danger to staff and other prisoners in prisons. Currently that wouldn't apply to that many I don't think. Thanks for suggesting the career in politics - don't know why I didn't think of that :lol:

But yet you are determined to take it backwards? The death penalty is the death penalty, no matter how it is administered. Please don't be under the impression that the lethal injection, gas chamber or (barbaric) electric chair is any more 'civilised' than the methods of old, they are not, the outcome is the same, the taking of something that, no matter what the circumstances, is not anyones to take. Human being should not play God, and whether you like it or not, this is exactly what the death penalty is.

NickieM, your posts have been fantastic!

The death penalty is wrong, simple as that, for me there really is no need for argument, I'm glad so many people can see this as I can.

 

[Charys]

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.

Total agreement ! NickyM, I take my hat off to you girl, you write brilliantly.

I've really enjoyed your posts too VickyP, despite the fact that I don't agree, you have been so articulate in explaining your reasoning and I respect that.

 

[SarahP]

Jack the Ripper? You mean the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe I assume. Jack the Ripper was in Victorian times, so would have been executed if he'd been caught!

 

[Mart]

I would doubt that most murders are premeditated - I don't know, but I suspect that most are spur-of-the-moment incidents. I don't think murder is a particularly 'logical' crime - that is I don't think they tend to be planned out in advance (obviously there are cases where that applies - just that they are fewer in number) or that a degree of forethought is applied.

Without that forethought - a deterrent is ineffective, as it wouldn't really factor into any thought process that would occur before the murder.

Looking at the US - even if accepting that you cannot compare the US with here (I think you can, as there are a lot of similarities). Then compare like with like, and look at states that have the death penalty compared to those that don't.

Texas - has the death penalty = 6.1 homicides / 100,000
New York - no death penalty = 4.6 homicides / 100,000

I chose those 2 because they both have a history of violent crime, and include large cities (Dallas, New York) - I could have chosen others that made the comparison even more marked.

The figures do show that even where other things are equal (ie in the US, same federal laws etc.) the death penalty does not impact upon homicide rates.

I can find no evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent.

The US provides plenty of evidence on the inequalities of practicing capital punishment too. Access to legal representation etc. is skewed by wealth and politics and as a result those executed are predominantly from poorer ethnic backgrounds - with some states not even recognising mental illness as a defence.

Martin

 

[Lib_n_bunny]

Jack the Ripper? You mean the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe I assume. Jack the Ripper was in Victorian times, so would have been executed if he'd been caught!

it was given as an example of "stranger danger" and how murders are often premeditated.

 

[TermiteFrank]

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

I agree wholeheartedly.

Judges and juries are only human like the rest of us. Mistakes in convicting people are bound to be made for several reasons. As far as I'm concerned one innocent person being executed is far too high a price to pay for 1000 guilty murderers spending their lives behind bars.

 

[ecudc]

it was given as an example of "stranger danger" and how murders are often premeditated.

yes but those are notorious cases which stick in the mind. ultimately you are much more likely to be killed or abused by someone that is known to you. In april 2006-2007 around 70 children were killed by homicide. 26 were murdered by strangers or their killers are unknown.... difficult to say how many of of the total figure were premeditated, there is a big increase in parental killings which are often caused by neglect or by murder suicide which is premeditated but there is also a high degree of mental illness involved.

 

[SarahP]

it was given as an example of "stranger danger" and how murders are often premeditated.

I'm pretty sure I read on this thread that Jack the Ripper should be executed. All I'm saying is that I thought it was probably the Yorkshire Ripper who was meant! Whoever Jack the Ripper was, I'm quite sure he's kicked the bucket by now! :lol:

 

[Lobo]

I am speaking as someone from a country which was initially populated with the "criminal" rejects of the UK where the death penalty was applied for many minor crimes. Amongst our founders was a nine year old boy convicted of stealing goods to the value of four pence. I am proud that we have abolished the death penalty and none of the major political parties will open any debate regarding its re-introduction.

Don't forget either that we have had our share of violent murders including Martin Bryant who murdered 35 people in one afternoon in 1996, yet in the ensuing debate re-introduction of the death penalty was rejected totally. Many Australians believe that the last man executed in Australia (Ronald Ryan) was not guilty, including the priest who accompanied him to the gallows. It was a political act by the Premier of Victoria to help win an election by showing how tough he was on law and order.

In the US there have been around 8 states that have declared a moratorium on executions after "conclusive" DNA evidence was found to be faulty. Texas has the highest number of executions carried out, particularly during the time of Governor George W. Bush, who was known to refuse all calls for clemency and even mocked one woman on the eve of her execution. In the legal heartland of America, the North-Eastern states, Texas is referred to as 'The Abattoir'. Please, do not let us go down the same road as the US in this and surrender our morality.

 

[Sue&Sooty]

NickieM, your posts have been fantastic!

I agree 100%.. :thumb:

I have kept my mouth buttoned in this thread as I would not have been able to keep my cool so thought it better not to say anything... I am just pleased that the results of the poll are showing the majority disagree with death penalty

 

[VickiP]

it was given as an example of "stranger danger" and how murders are often premeditated.

:lol::lol: Yes I did get mixed up your right Lib in what you say it was just an example It was quite late :lol:

 

[NickieM]

This adds another dimension to the debate.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100313/tuk-bulger-killers-were-too-young-to-be-45dbed5.html

 

[Sue&Sooty]

These two statements sum it up for me

A civilised society should recognise that children who commit offences should be treated differently from adult criminals, Dr Atkinson told The Times.

"But they shouldn't have been tried in an adult court because they were still children."