Death Penalty

[Lurtz]

I'm guessing you're not being serious with this reply, surely?

 

I think he secretly reads the daily star. It's about the same intellectual level as his reasoning.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

governments shouldn't be allowed to murder citizens.

 

This.

[Anubis]

On that basis we should never send anybody to prison for any crime, ever just in case they may not be guilty.

 

What a ridiculous argument you present. But then I think you know that.

[Pony Princess]

In the olden days the village elders would decide what to do with the village paedo or murderer. I realize such a thing is totally outdated in todays society but we have the opposite - a crusty old judge who couldn't be any further from the community who have been damaged by the criminal, decides their fate.

 

Mongrags like the Star remind me of the old eye-for-an-eye attitude whereas the comfortable-classes are generally happy to let the ruffians be locked away since they rarely suffer the consequences of crime.

 

The debate on capital punishment is interesting but I don't believe for one minute it will ever be brought back.

[Horus]

Name one innocent person executed who got their life back.

 

Jesus?

 

The death penalty should never be the answer in civilised society. When the state can legally murder it's citizens, regardless of the crime, then it is a slippery slope.

 

Also, the thing with this cunt, is why the fuck does he class police murder the same as child rape/murder?

 

Police sign themselves up for those jobs. There is no draft, and they know the risks.

[Captain]

Name one murderer who was excecuted who then subsequently went on to murder again.

 

Name one murderer who was imprisoned for life who then subsequently went on to murder again.

[SoMuch4Gravity]

Name one murderer who was imprisoned for life who then subsequently went on to murder again.

 

I don't know...that costs a LOT of money. So here's my idea, we bring back last man standing/king of the hill-style Colosseum fighting. Prisoners (innocent or not) can battle for their freedom, get corporate sponsorship, pay-per-view dollars for their families. Last man alive gets to go free, and then we kill him too because anyone w/ those kind of skills is clearly guilty.

[Pony Princess]

I don't know...that costs a LOT of money. So here's my idea, we bring back last man standing/king of the hill-style Colosseum fighting. Prisoners (innocent or not) can battle for their freedom, get corporate sponsorship, pay-per-view dollars for their families. Last man alive gets to go free, and then we kill him too because anyone w/ those kind of skills is clearly guilty.

 

Eeeeyup

[Lee909]

There is only one man that can sort shit out if your looking to get rid of problems.

 

 

She is a bit handy aswell,and pretty stunning to boot.

[Strontium]

Name one murderer who was excecuted who then subsequently went on to murder again.

 

 

Charles Lee Ray.

[piscinin]

This.

 

What about by a jury of their peers?

[Lurtz]

What about by a jury of their peers?

 

Who presumably would be appointed by the state.

 

Your argument fell over.

[robbiefowler9]

I disagree with it as (like someone else has already said), it's hypocritical on a moral basis.

 

The only thing is, a lot of people are arguing executing is the "easy way out" for the convicted. I agree with this, but people are using that rationale, and then juxtaposing it with the notion that in the case of the death sentence, innocent people will lose their lives. Whilst this is also true, it presents a problem.

 

As I see it, there's a flawed logic if both these views are simultaneously held. We have to accept that any judicial system - no matter how great its idealism and ethos etc- requires human judgement, which is never completely without flaw or mistake.

 

Therefore, innocent people will inevitably to wrongly sentenced. So if someone is convicted of a crime they did not commit on the basis of mistaken identity then they well be punished by (hypothetically) either a jail sentence or execution.

 

This is where the flawed logic comes in. People can't claim that execution is an easy way out for murderers and such, yet at the same time say that the death sentence would see innocent people being killed. Surely with no death sentence, innocent people stand to become wrongly sentenced to an even greater punishment?

 

Horribly expressed, I know but just something I've noticed any time I've seen this debate come up and I would like to again clarify that I don't endorse the death penalty.

[Beantown Red]

But as long as your still alive you still have the opportunity to be proven innocent. The Innocence Project has helped set free a couple hundred people convicted of serious crimes in the US and they have only been around since the 90's. You wouldn't really get all these college kids to spend their time trying to exonerate somebody that is already executed.

[robbiefowler9]

But as long as your still alive you still have the opportunity to be proven innocent. The Innocence Project has helped set free a couple hundred people convicted of serious crimes in the US and they have only been around since the 90's. You wouldn't really get all these college kids to spend their time trying to exonerate somebody that is already executed.

 

Very true, was somewhat ignorant to the Innocence Project.

[King Emlyn]

Has Timothy Evans voted yet?

[JohnnyH]

I just can't fathom how any person can vote yes. It amazes me beyond any other question that a person can say it is ok to kill people if the State gives you the nod. As for the argument that we can save some money? Fuck me!

 

When a country starts killing it's citizens you may as well call it a day.

 

And yes, the current system whereby the person could end up in a cushy jail and get out 15 years later is wrong. But becoming cold blooded murderers is not the solution.

[Lucky Pierre]

What do you do with the person that issues the lethal injection? That's surely also pre-meditated murder.

 

I'd rather someone rotted in solitary or got bummed by the likes of T-Bag than got off with a nice easy death sentence.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

What about by a jury of their peers?

 

Is that serious?

[Sloan]

The death penalty does not belong in any civilised society. Surely there are more pressing matters for the MPs to debate than this? Capital punishment will never be restored in this country. Not unless there's some sort of violent revolution that brings a dictator to power.

[JMARKH]

Name one innocent person executed who got their life back.

 

Jesus , and we get Easter eggs out of it

[piscinin]

Who presumably would be appointed by the state.

 

Your argument fell over.

 

You mean you don't think there's a distinction between the state and a jury?

 

Your brains fell out of your head.

[Beantown Red]

I am pretty sure that when it comes to death penalty the jury recommends (not actually sentences) the person to death. Meaning the Judge still has final authority and can reject their recommendation.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You mean you don't think there's a distinction between the state and a jury?

 

Your brains fell out of your head.

 

Oh, okay then, it seems you are actually serious: A jury doesn't pass a sentence, a judge does that in accordance with the laws made by the state. I suspect that the judges passing death sentences in this country would be High Court judges, having been appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

[piscinin]

Oh, okay then, it seems you are actually serious: A jury doesn't pass a sentence, a judge does that in accordance with the laws made by the state. I suspect that the judges passing death sentences in this country would be High Court judges, having been appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

 

It was a hypothetical question. But nevermind.