Death Penalty

[Fowlers God]

There is no intellectual argument in favour of it. So, no prizes for guessing which way I voted.

 

We are talking Hypotheticly here........ If it was proven that you killed somebody and was sentenced to spend however long in prison. The taxpayer then has to pay to feed them and give them PS3's. Would you rather that money was spent on the NHS or a failing school than the above.

[Strontium]

Not sure how that really addresses or invalidates what I wrote in anyway tbh

[Fowlers God]

Not sure how that really addresses or invalidates what I wrote in anyway tbh

 

Sorry what I am saying with the hypothetical scenario is killing the person via the death penalty is financially a more viable option. Therefore it is an intellectual argument- instead of just saying "yeah the death penalty kill em all; wankers" or something along those hill billy lines.

[Strontium]

Therefore it is an intellectual argument

 

 

No, it isn't.

[Tom R]

"it's okay to murder someone because it's cheaper" is now an intellectual argument??

 

Sweet lord....

[airbags]

Sorry what I am saying with the hypothetical scenario is killing the person via the death penalty is financially a more viable option. Therefore it is an intellectual argument- instead of just saying "yeah the death penalty kill em all; wankers" or something along those hill billy lines.

 

I can't quote you figures but Im pretty sure that the cost of administiring the death penalty in America is substantially more than the cost of keeping the convict in prison for life.

[Sugar Ape]

NV, or some other political maestro, what's the score with this Guido Fawkes prick? I see him quoted often.

 

BBC News - Does the public want the death penalty brought back?

 

An internet campaign has re-ignited the debate on whether the UK government should seek the reintroduction of the death penalty.

 

The Restore Justice campaign, spearheaded by Paul Staines who writes the Guido Fawkes political blog, calls for the death penalty to be brought back for child and police officer murderers.

 

He cites opinion polls which suggest about half the population would like it re-introduced for murderers. This rises to 60% when it comes to child or police officer killers.

 

Mr Staines needs 100,000 people to support his e-petition on the government website to prompt a possible parliamentary debate on the issue.

 

The last executions in the UK took place in 1964. The death penalty was formally abolished in Britian in 1965 and in Northern Ireland in 1973.

 

Despite it rating high on public opinion polls, it was last debated in Parliament in 1998 during the passage of the Human Rights Act. It was rejected by 158 votes.

 

"The majority are in favour for bringing back the death penalty everywhere except in Parliament," said Mr Staines.

 

"Politicians are complaining that there's a disconnect and that the public aren't engaged with them - maybe if they represented the views and the will of the voters, there wouldn't be such a big disconnect."

 

He added: "The people want the death penalty, and politicians aren't prepared to vote for it. That's not right.

 

"What I'm trying to do is get Parliament to discuss this issue between what Parliament wants and what the people want."

 

House of Commons leader Sir George Young has warned that it would damage democracy to ignore strong opinions among members of the public "or pretend that their views do not exist".

 

Douglas Carswell MP agreed, saying, although he was firmly against the death penalty, he was in favour of Parliament debating it and would support a referendum on whether it should be brought back.

 

"I'm convinced that if there was a referendum on capital punishment we could win it; we could get most people to say 'no' to the death penalty.

 

"We need to treat people as grown-ups and have the debate and not do what we have done for half a century which is to ignore the public's concern and treat them with contempt.

 

"The important thing is we have this debate."

 

Mr Carswell added that the reason why Parliament had not debated this topic in recent years was because it was "out of touch with the public".

 

"The mistake MPs have made is to not trust the people and to try and ignore their concerns. We can disagree with it but we have to trust it."

 

But Neil Durkin from Amnesty International said it was a "waste of time and money that we as a nation cannot afford".

High profile murders

 

In September 2010, YouGov conducted the last opinion poll to ask directly if people want the death penalty re-instated. It suggested that 51% did.

 

And a Mori poll in July 2010 asked people which of a list of crimes they thought should have the death penalty.

 

For child murder, 62% supported it while a YouGov poll in November 2010 found 74% of people supported the death penalty for murder in some circumstances, though only 16% supported it for all murders.

 

However, when similar polls were carried out in the 1970s, support for it was far higher with 70% in favour.

 

Anthony Wells, associate director of YouGov, says polls which ask about the death penalty are straightforward: "Do you support it or not?"

 

"When people already know about it and have established views then it is quite simple. The hard ones [opinion polls] are when people need to have an issue explained to them."

 

He said historically opinion polls on capital punishment have been commissioned by newspapers when there has been a heinous crime such as after the Soham murders.

 

Mr Wells added that such polls are not often commissioned in times when a high-profile murder is not in the news. However, the last two polls on the subject were not about a specific case, being conducted for a story about sentencing for murder and for a Channel 4 programme.

 

Polls are quite accurate, plus or minus 3%, said Mr Wells, and their accuracy can be checked against real life events such as who is going to win the election or X Factor.

 

"All the polls about the death penalty show similar patterns so even if it was worded differently it would still get the same result," he added.

 

"You can only tell what people think at the moment, but if it follows current trends then yes, I'd expect it to go down."

 

Mr Durkin from Amnesty International said it was important to have an informed debate, rather than a simple "yes or no" question.

 

"Public opinion polls are usually conducted after a particularly horrible murder that's had lots of publicity so you do tend to get that outcry.

 

"On top of that, when we have looked at opinion polls in the US, most people tend to think that the US is firmly in terms of public opinion pro death penalty.

 

"If you offer in those questions to the public alternatives to capital punishment - the lethal injections, the electrocutions, whatever it is - and talk about longer sentences then support drops away."

[Lee909]

He can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. If one person is killed that's innocent it's one too many. The death penalty is not about justice it's about revenge.Saying that it should be brought back for murders involving police officers is bullshit aswell. What you are doing is saying that the killing of a child or police officers life is worthy of a higher sentence than the killing if anybody else.

[VladimirIlyich]

I've voted yes but only because you presented a stone cold premeditated situation but in real life it simply doesnt work like that.

 

Its hardly a deterrent in the US really is it and woe betide if you are black,hispanic and a minority. These people are usually poor and sometimes not very well educated either.

So they have to rely on a poorly paid lawyer and this means a conviction due to the quality of the lawyers rather than the proof of guilt.

 

This would also apply here too.

There arent too many millionaires in prison I'd guess.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

NV, or some other political maestro, what's the score with this Guido Fawkes prick? I see him quoted often.

 

I've heard him described as a Libertarian, but he wants to give the State the power to kill.

 

I think "prick" might be the right word.

[Anubis]

I'd sentence him to the death penalty for that lower facial fluff, the Tory twat.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'd sentence him to the death penalty for that lower facial fluff, the Tory twat.

 

Is that also a tweed blazer and a "white collar crime" shirt?

 

Fuck me. I'd call in the Taliban to stone the fucker.

[VladimirIlyich]

I've heard him described as a Libertarian, but he wants to give the State the power to kill.

 

I think "prick" might be the right word.

 

It already has it doesnt it? Armed forces kill both discriminately and indiscriminately on the orders of the state.

[piscinin]

I've heard him described as a Libertarian, but he wants to give the State the power to kill.

I think "prick" might be the right word.

 

Or someone who needs some publicity, for income inflation purposes no doubt, and so makes a not very subtle attempt at stirring the pot.

 

It's just about this:

 

 

without any of the redeeming qualities of breasts and buns.

 

Which of course, far too many fall for. And which in turn ends up putting money in his pocket, which is why this kind of obvious guff is best ignored.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

It's a definite no for me.

 

"Hey, you naughty man. You've committed the abhorrent act of killing somebody. How are we, a civilised, democratic state going to show are disgust and disapproval of your actions? I know, we'll kill you!"

 

Hypocritical.

 

Also, as for the cheapness argument, I can't find a link but there was an article in the Guardian or Telegraph recently which showed that death row cases in America are very expensive, in terms of court and appeal fees, housing prisoners in a special death row unit etc.

[mlwilliams]

Hard labour would do just fine.

[piscinin]

It already has it doesnt it? Armed forces kill both discriminately and indiscriminately on the orders of the state.

 

I think it's the case in the US, or maybe is becoming the norm in the US, where it is the jury that imposes the death sentence and not the state.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

It's a definite no for me.

 

"Hey, you naughty man. You've committed the abhorrent act of killing somebody. How are we, a civilised, democratic state going to show are disgust and disapproval of your actions? I know, we'll kill you!"

 

Hypocritical.

 

Also, as for the cheapness argument, I can't find a link but there was an article in the Guardian or Telegraph recently which showed that death row cases in America are very expensive, in terms of court and appeal fees, housing prisoners in a special death row unit etc.

You must not forget the electricity bill as well.

[Beantown Red]

Even in Texas where they execute people generally fast (sometimes within 2-3 years) it still cost millions. The initial trial costs something like 300% more than a regular murder trial and then all the appeals and special housing for death row. Never mind the other states where they wait 20 years to execute somebody. They also elect judges in some of these places which I think is fucked up.

[Guest Jon Snow]

When I was like a young man I used to be really against the death pen. But as I got older some crimes I don't see how you can't. See for me crimes of passion and stuff like that shouldn't be death pen. End of day, crimes against children, like abuse, rape, murder should be punished with death. Its been proven in a lot of study's that most people who committed crime of those types, have been abused them self's. Not saying well its OK to do, people can still make a choice.

 

Problem is its the age old question has society let the criminal down or has the criminal let society down. Thing that upsets me is when people who do fraud or embezzlement get more of a sentence then a child abuser.

 

Still not sure tho its a hard one, it is in a way playing god as much as the people who committed the crime.

 

Would not making a law in which what ever crime you committed you had done to your self if applicable. That seems more fair and justified. Only tho if it could be proven with out any doubt.

 

So in summery I don't know and I wouldn't like to be left with making the choice its a fucking horrible choice.

[Hermes]

Regardless of whether you believe it's moral or not, or whether there's room for error, it's quite simply not a deterrant in any way shape or form, so no. Absolutely no.

 

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

[Pony Princess]

Yes I do. For treason and murder.

[Anubis]

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

 

Name one innocent person executed who got their life back.

[Hermes]

Name one innocent person executed who got their life back.

 

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

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

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

 

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