Death Penalty Debate

[WestCoast]

They are as prision-y as you can get for children. The sister unit of the one that they were held in was featured on a recent BBC3 documentary (the name escapes me).

I don't object to them being sent there, I just think they should have done more time than they did, with an adult prison following at the age of 18.

It's fine to say that one has been "rehabilitated" (while the other hasn't so a 50% success there), but the punishment didn't fit the crime, in my honest opinion. Intentional Murder should mean life. They also had an awful lot of money spent on new identities, which I can see the point of, but one of them nearly ruined that. It's very easy to forget the victim as well in all of this. James' parents have got to live knowing that his killers roam free after an inappropriate length of time "inside".

It's mainly the sentences which seem to get people annoyed. I was watching a documentary the other day about the terrible case of a nurse who was stabbed to death in a hospital car park, and the killer was featured in the "Strangeways" documentary, discussing the exact date that parole could be applied for in 30 years time with no remorse. That was truly horrible.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I'd be interested to hear the viewpoint of someone who has had a family member/close friend murdered. I haven't so I can't express an opinion from that side of things. . . . .

neither have I, though it's an interesting question.

But its a question which is likely to lead to more uncertainty! If I or somone else on here replies "Yes, I have" and told us their tale, how would we react if the 'murder' was, say, a military act, a para-military act, a 'terrorist' act, an act of 'negligence', a motor accident 'not-their fault', a suicide, a mistaken target etc, etc?

Questions lead to more questions!

 

[SS4]

neither have I, though it's an interesting question.

But its a question which is likely to lead to more uncertainty! If I or somone else on here replies "Yes, I have" and told us their tale, how would we react if the 'murder' was, say, a military act, a para-military act, a 'terrorist' act, an act of 'negligence', a motor accident 'not-their fault', a suicide, a mistaken target etc, etc?

Questions lead to more questions!

Or even whether their death is good for society. Anders Breivik had/has friends and family...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Besides, just because a majority of the public wants something that doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do. We have a representative democracy in this country, not delegative.

How do you define the meaning of democracy in your statement above? The word comes from the Greek, DEMOKRATIA, formed from the two words DEMOS (the people) and KRATIA (power (or) rule).

There is also another word that comes from the Greek, OLIGARKHIA, formed from the two words OLIGOI (few) and ARKHEIN (to rule).

How would you define the current voting methods of 600+ MP's to represent the wishes of nearly 60 million UK citizens, based upon the two systems stated above. You say that a majority decision of the populace may not be the right decision, but by using the same logic that you have used, a minority decision of the populace would also not be a right decision.

There are always at least two sides to every argument.

 

[strange6]

A lot of logical sense is being discussed here, by both sides of the arguement. There are pros and cons on each side but at the end of the day, if there are cons on the yes side, then I don't think it's safe enough to be reintroduced. My conclusion? Life should mean life with hard labour, good welfare but constant, unpaid work that benefits society.

 

[90019]

Luckily we do not live in an eye-for-an-eye society.

If you continually practice an eye for an eye, it doesn't work, you just end up with a population with no eyes.

The sister unit of the one that they were held in was featured on a recent BBC3 documentary (the name escapes me).

Vinney Green, and the documentay was Kids Behind Bars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As callous as it sounds, emotion has no place in deciding the letter of law and punishment

This.


For those who do advocate the death penalty, at what point do you draw the line for offences that will command the death penalty?
I'm curious to know to what point different people believe that it should apply.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I refer anyone commenting here to the case of Derrick Bentley. A truly saddening case, and it certainly changed my stance on the matter.

 

[LE Greys]

Perhaps it's best put like this. If I had a choice between life imprisonment and execution, I would choose to die. It saves a lot of time, hardship and probable persecution. From that point of view, it's an easy way out. Is there much of a deterrent value in that?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I often wonder why the wording of "life imprisonment" still remains as a legal teminology on the judicial statute book. It is an arcane definition that has no relevance to the length of a prison sentence these days. There should be a stated term of imprisonment in years passed down by the judiciary at time of sentencing.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Life imprisionment comes with a minimum tariff to serve. Once released you remain on licence for the rest of your life.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Life imprisionment comes with a minimum tariff to serve. Once released you remain on licence for the rest of your life.

Look at your statement again. You cannot say "Life Imprisonment" then refer to "once released", as you are then not serving "imprisonment".

I stand by what I said in my posting # 69 earlier this morning.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Look at your statement again. You cannot say "Life Imprisonment" then refer to "once released", as you are then not serving "imprisonment".

I stand by what I said in my posting # 69 earlier this morning.

I'm telling you what life imprisonment is Paul, not whether I should agree with what it's called. The fact is, it is called life imprisonment.

 

[HST Power]

Would it be possible to get a poll into the thread?

 

[imagination]

Perhaps it's best put like this. If I had a choice between life imprisonment and execution, I would choose to die. It saves a lot of time, hardship and probable persecution. From that point of view, it's an easy way out. Is there much of a deterrent value in that?

It's been shown again and again that the death penalty is extremely ineffective as a deterrant.

 

[2Dogbox]

I would bring back hanging for minor fare evasion lol!

 

[thefab444]

How do you define the meaning of democracy in your statement above? The word comes from the Greek, DEMOKRATIA, formed from the two words DEMOS (the people) and KRATIA (power (or) rule).

There is also another word that comes from the Greek, OLIGARKHIA, formed from the two words OLIGOI (few) and ARKHEIN (to rule).

How would you define the current voting methods of 600+ MP's to represent the wishes of nearly 60 million UK citizens, based upon the two systems stated above. You say that a majority decision of the populace may not be the right decision, but by using the same logic that you have used, a minority decision of the populace would also not be a right decision.

Professional politicians are elected to not only represent our views on relevant issues, but to study them in far more detail than an ordinary person has the time or willpower to do, and to then make a personal, but hopefully objective, decision based on the evidence presented during debates and committee readings. Public opinion varies regularly and, as it is under the influence of bodies like the press, cannot really be used as justification alone for implementing any particular policy. For example "public opinion says we should bring back the death penalty" is not, in my view, a good enough argument.

Your knowledge of Greek, whilst admirable, does very little to enhance your argument and it would be nice if you could stop SHOUTING - we're not all idiots you know.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Professional politicians are elected to not only represent our views on relevant issues, but to study them in far more detail than an ordinary person has the time or willpower to do, and to then make a personal, but hopefully objective, decision based on the evidence presented during debates and committee readings.

Whilst they may be professional politicians, they still remain human beings like the rest of the electorate, with all the foibles and human frailties inherant. They do not suddenly become more knowledgeable on issues. Emotive subjects debated in Parliament show great differences in opinion, but do not always represent the will of the people that elected members are supposed to represent. A specific party line on a subject can lead to a three-line whip, that can affect the judgement and voting intentions of members. This is why I brought the comparison with an oligarchy into the debate.

I apologise if the use of capitals in my last posting was misconstrued, but I do not have Greek fonts available to me, so this was the reason that capitals rather than lower-case type was used. I did try to show those words in a phoenetic expression. There was no other intention on my part, save that of purposes of clarity.

 

[Greenback]

Whilst they may be professional politicians, they still remain human beings like the rest of the electorate, with all the foibles and human frailties inherant. They do not suddenly become more knowledgeable on issues. Emotive subjects debated in Parliament show great differences in opinion, but do not always represent the will of the people that elected members are supposed to represent. A specific party line on a subject can lead to a three-line whip, that can affect the judgement and voting intentions of members. This is why I brought the comparison with an oligarchy into the debate.

I apologise if the use of capitals in my last posting was misconstrued, but I do not have Greek fonts available to me, so this was the reason that capitals rather than lower-case type was used. I did try to show those words in a phoenetic expression. There was no other intention on my part, save that of purposes of clarity.

What alternatives do you think might be better than the current system? If indeed being more repsonsive to the will of the people as expressed through online petitions and opinion polls can be described as better!

Personally, I think we need to address

The lack of trust that the population has in elected representatives
The apathy about party politics
The role of the media in shaping public opinion

I think that these three elements are linked to the current death penalty debate. If you like, the current debates are an expression of a lack of faith in the political system.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Personally, I think we need to address:-

The lack of trust that the population has in elected representatives
The apathy about party politics
The role of the media in shaping public opinion

I think that these three elements are linked to the current death penalty debate. If you like, the current debates are an expression of a lack of faith in the political system.

I totally agree with all three points that you make above, especially the first one. Perhaps that has surfaced in my recent postings.

I have not made any pro- or con- statements on the death penalty in any of my recent postings, but was trying to state that there seemed to be no method acceptable or infallable that eminates from our elected members under the present system. I do not make any comment on how the present system can be improved, as everyone will appear to have their own views on the matter. Switzerland seems to have a more ready acceptance of referenda, but that is specific to their own political system.

 

[Greenback]

Fair enough. Everything I have thought of has negatives as well as positives. I was wondering if there was soemthing I hadn't thought of!

I think the capital punishment debate has only come about because so many people feel disenfranchised at the moment. For some people on the right, the government is not going far enough with their economic measures. For some of those in the centre and on the left, they are going too far. grass root Liberal Democrats feel betrayed by their leadership, and the result is that a lot of people have seized on a non prty political issue as a means of expressing their frustration!

I am against the death penalty, for what it's worth. but I believe that is not the real debate that we should be having!

 

[185]

Talking with four Norwegians last night, their view was pretty clear on this. They were happy for the state to run the risk of making Breivik a martyr and shoot him, although they recognise that putting him away in a straight jacket in a dark room with no contact with the outside for good is the only answer.

 

[deltic1989]

There are so many fors and againsts but if I understand correctly it would be illegal to bring back the death penalty under the Murder (abolition of capital punishment) act 1967. Also certain methods of capital punishment are cruel and unusual which is banned under various un conventions. Death should be reserved as a punishment for more extreme offences such as multiple murders, child murder, and others the idea to hang (or otherwise execute) repeat offenders for so called "lesser crimes" shoot serving as a deterrent would be taking things a little too far. Personally I doubt that reintroduceing capital punishment would be that much of a deterrent for more serious crimes, there were still murders before its abolition. The real problem would come if the courts convicted and condemned the wrong person.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are so many fors and againsts but if I understand correctly it would be illegal to bring back the death penalty under the Murder (abolition of capital punishment) act 1967.

I am not advocating the use of the death penalty, but your comment above made me think that the Act to which you refer could well be overturned by Parliament bringing in a new Act that would revoke the existing one.

Many existing Acts were changed during the period when Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector.

 

[Greenback]

I am not advocating the use of the death penalty, but your comment above made me think that the Act to which you refer could well be overturned by Parliament bringing in a new Act that would revoke the existing one.

Yes, Parliament could do that. As it did in the 1960's when homosexuality and abortion became legal.

 

[Yew]

I had a friend who was raped between the ages of 14-16 (I found out when she was 16, she said it was a couple of year ago, I didn't press for details). Now I don't know how exactly it happened (seditive drugs, or more violent forms) but you could always tell it haunted her, she would seem okay, then suddenly go all cold (personality wise). She was on antidepressants. And when talking to her on the Internet, you could tell when she took them. She suffered from paranoia, inability to trust people and depression.


I don't know how she's doing these days. As we fell out in January. But I know that she will never truly be cured, but the perpetrator will be out eventually (or never went in). Then he will be free to lead a reasonably normal life, however she can never get her virginity back, and the experience will always hold her back from her true potential like a ball and
Chain. She wants to do a uni course forensic science however I think that if there are any references to similar offences, she will break down in the lectures...

 

[Kneedown]

I have always been pro death penalty and no argument that i have ever heard from an anti has ever caused me to change my mind.

Before rehabilitation must come punishment, and the only just punishment for murder is for the perpetrator and accomplices to forfeit their own lives.

An innocent person may hang.... This is the anti's most compelling argument, but more innocent die at the hands of murderers, and i think that Police investigations would be a lot stricter and better handled if officers were aware that a life was at stake. In addition, aren't thousands of innocent lives taken every year in this country every year? without the benefit of trial or appeal? when you consider abortion?

It's not something a civilised society does? You cant be civil to someone who is uncivilised, they laugh at your weakness!

The State shouldn't kill.....If that were the case we wouldn't have armed forces or armed Police.

It's not a deterrent. I beg to differ, i'm sure there are some if not many out there who would be put off murder if they knew a rope was awaiting them when they were caught. I would never murder, but i know it would deter ME!

If feel hanging should be reinstated for Murder, Treason and Drug Trafficking, and we should withdraw from any treaty or act that prevents the reintroduction.

 

[SS4]

In addition, aren't thousands of innocent lives taken every year in this country every year? without the benefit of trial or appeal? when you consider abortion?

Don't bring abortion into this, it's an entirely different argument.

The only way I would support the death penalty is if the following are met

• If there was a referendum contested only on facts (contrast to the AV referendum when the no campaign used emotional arguments - who can forget this infamous poster?)
• The offences for which it can be forced are defined clearly and it may not be used for any offence which is not listed in the act.

Such offences IMO would be religious extremism, murder, rape, terrorism, treason

 

[deltic1989]

I am not advocating the use of the death penalty, but your comment above made me think that the Act to which you refer could well be overturned by Parliament bringing in a new Act that would revoke the existing one.

Many existing Acts were changed during the period when Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector.

Ah yes i've looked it all up now and seen that parliment have altered various acts over the years. I'm not a big advocate of the death penalty as i'm not all that sure that it serves as a suitable deterrent. Howevr as ive said in cases of mass murder and child murder it may be the only way forward if only to have them "officially" hanged rather than by a lynch mob.

 

[Kneedown]

Don't bring abortion into this, it's an entirely different argument.

It's a different subject i'll grant you, but it's still relevant to the debate.
Why is it considered moral by some, to end the life of an innocent, viable foetus (that in the latter stages currently allowed may well be concious!) purely as a lifestyle choice or because the timing is inconvenient, wheras some, often the same people are vehemently opposed to the termination of someone who has committed unspeakably evil crimes and would do so again given half a chance?

Such offences IMO would be religious extremism, murder, rape, terrorism, treason

Thanks for reminding me, add terrorism and rape with violence to my list.

 

[90019]

It's not a deterrent. I beg to differ, i'm sure there are some if not many out there who would be put off murder if they knew a rope was awaiting them when they were caught. I would never murder, but i know it would deter ME!

If it's a deterrent, then why do states in the US with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without?

Using the figures of murders per 100,000 people for 2009, the averages are;
4.76/100k in states with the death penalty, and
2.75/100k in states without.