Thoughts? It's a devisive issue. Some agree with it, others don't. Either way it's an interesting discussion...
I'm going to guess that HTH agrees with it. ;D
Printable View
Thoughts? It's a devisive issue. Some agree with it, others don't. Either way it's an interesting discussion...
I'm going to guess that HTH agrees with it. ;D
I dunno mate, with Englands recent luck in shoot outs I think its a bit harsh to be killing the ones that miss.
Could we not just break their thumbs or summat, stamp on their metatarsal?
HahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Does give a knew meaning to the term 'sudden death' though.
Disagree with it.
Next!
Saddo's will have the world's problems sorted in one afternoon at this rate ;D
But you're giving it the thumbs up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
I would agree with it if there was some way that we would determine 100% that the person had commited the crime. Until that day, I am against it because I don't trust our justice system to always convict the right person.
Morally - I have no issue with it - Fuck em
If my memory's correct, we already discussed it a lot in a topic not that long ago. Will try to find back that topic for those who want to continue it.
Personally: totally against.
I think this too. If one innocent person is wrongly snuffed out it don't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
Although morally I do have some issue with it. But fuck everyone anyway.
NO!Quote:
Originally Posted by onoBut you're giving it the thumbs up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
I gave my answer the thumbs up. ;D
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad MissyNO!Quote:
Originally Posted by onoBut you're giving it the thumbs up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
I gave my answer the thumbs up. ;D
All the fun topics in one day! ;D
I find this one to be complicated and it's my bedtime. I will have to come back to this one later. I tend to go back and forth on this one.
Yeah we all thought you went both ways Miles.
We know that. But what are your views on the death penalty?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Totally for it, 100% , bring it on , and can i open the trap door as hangman please.
Have no moral issues with the ultimate penalty , would be the hangman in my spare time for free.
Bring it back tommorow...
too many nonces and rapists in prison living it up at the taxpayers expense
If the crime far exceeds a sentance of a life time in prison then simply take them to the nearest courtyard and have away with them
No one is surprised Al
You'd chin them on the way down too right?
;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
and a boot in the spine for good measure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ejRVdlNlE
No i want them totally alert and focused , i want to see the whites of their eyes as the life drains from them.:fighting0043gi5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Bring it back yesterday!!!It'll stop all the sick bastards ever thinking of raping kids.May i add that all the druggies and waste of skins who choose to sponge off tax payers money and cause a pain in the arse for other normal citizen be sent to fight for queen and country,that way their can fooking die for a good cause.....waste of fucking skins!!!!
Yes, bring it back, it'll cut the number of innocent people executed in Britain dramatically. It's barbaric, but we've bred a couple of generations of barbarians and they need to be brought under control. Executing all of them is the best way to do that.
Well, I have woken after a long night deep in sleep contemplating this serious issue....:p
In cases where the evidence is pretty much indisputed, I don't really have a huge problem with it. Why spend hundreds of pounds of taxpayers money on a cell for someone who has butchered and raped 20 people? Morally I find the death sentence somewhat pupugnant, but I find the high cost of keeping these savage types in relative comfort to be repugnant too.
Serial killers are never going to mend their ways really, so I am more comfortable with letting types like that get the chop. But for single time offenders, I am far less comfortable. There is always the chance that rehabilitation will prove more successful. In enforcing the death penalty the evidence must be undisputed, if there is any doubt then the penalty should wait or be called off altogether.
Another option might be to offer the offender suicide as a way out. "Here's some pills. Death will be quite painless. You make your choice". It puts it more into the offenders hands then.
But is it a good enough deterrent? I've not seen any research or evidence to support that fact that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvonne
Secondly, how would you turn druggies and spongers into soldiers? If they can't be arsed finding a job, how are they going to physically cope with being forced to kill for a living? Is being lazy deserving of being forced to carry the responsibility of ending another man's life? Then of course you have to question the morality of war and decide whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are what you would deem as a good cause.
Questioning the morality of the death penalty is interesting it itself. First and foremost DNA evidence often isn't sufficient enough to convict somebody of a crime. Circumstantial evidence and statistical evidence also needs to analysed. The bad thing is, this evidence is analysed by a jury; a jury who often don't have the necessary skills to correctly analyse statistics. Incorrect convictions have occured in the past, whereby innocent people have been sentenced to death.
Even assuming the Jury have correctly analysed the evidence, statistical evidence is only as good as the statitician who has formulated the probabilities of person X being guilty. A case a few years ago in the UK is an example of this. A woman was sentenced to prison for allegedly smothering her two children 2 death. The statisitcal evidence suggested that there was a 1 in 73million chance of both babies dying by natural causes. This had a profound effect on the jury and they found her guilty. On appeal, it emerged that the statistics were wrong. There was infact a 1 in 130,000 thousand chance of 1 baby dying from natural causes/cot death. In cases of child death, the odds of a 2nd child from the same household dying was only 1 in 60. Given the amount of babies born every year, probability suggested that there are bound to be a few double cot death incidents every year in the UK. She was released on appeal a few years later. If the death penalty was in force, she'd have been killed.
That's the problem, no 2 convictions are ever the same. There is always variables in every criminal case.
In cases where there is absolutely no doubt (if that's possible), then the idea of the death penatly takes on new ground. Does killing the guilty, erase the memory of the crime? Does it reverse the effects of the crime? Who has the power to decide to end somebody's life? Does that person then become a murderer? Will he be given the death penalty?
The idea of my post is not to dismiss other people's opinion. The Death Penalty is always an interesting point of debate. Opinion is divided. I personally think it's barbaric and has no place in civilised society. With that said, neither do murderers and rapists etc...that's why they should spend their time in jail.
All for it! Fry em, Hang em, inject em do whatever. I would love to see it on ppv 1 day.
Ive often thought,just let em go.
Just let em go in the bush just ahead of Lurch and myself, it would save us a fortune in our annual African safari excursions.
This topic has been discussed a few weeks/months ago, as some of you seem to have missed it, here are my thoughts and some interesting facts about the matter:
1) removing a life will always break the life of many peoples around, no matter what, a mother and a father are a mother and a father and will always be saddened by the lost of a son or a daughter, no matter what bad thing he could have done, there is also often close friends, brothers and sisters etc. Not only does the sentenced death won't correct at all the situation but it'll just bring more grieving and sadness around and the vindicative feeling, no matter how, is not a healthy thing. (BEfore somebody ask me, NO, I wouldn't want somebody who killed my brother to get killed in return)
2) There is a HUGE part of mistake, more than 135 peoples have been death sentenced and weren't responsible. The reason? judiciary mistake and the fact that most of these peoples were coming from poor environment and couldn't afford a normal lawyer. As you can't overturn it once the person has been executed, I cannot support a system that will create incredible and irreversible consequences, and we all know how the death of a loved one will be eternally painful. Also, Most peoples sentenced to death are Hispanic (80%) and Black (35%), coincidentially, those from the poorest minorities. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
3) The execution system of somebody is much more expensive than to keep him as an inmate, We are talking 6 times the price of an inmating in florida, for example; Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center
4), Person who commit a violent crime are way more likely to do it again in a place where the death sentence is applied. The reason? They have nothing to lose as they know that their days are more likely to come to an end, which is a kind of spiral because it enforces some hardcore criminal to become even more hardcore: (See la peine de Mort aux Etats-Unis by Andre KAspi)
So for all these reasons (among others), I cannot suscribe to a system that is more expensive and that causes more harms than good. I cannot neither suscribe to an unfair system where riches have good chance to escape it and simply be life sentenced and where poors have no chances to defend themselves and will more likely walk the thin green line, the whole thing destroying even more lifes around.
Not entirely in favor in some regards.Not for the righteous god think side but because frankly its to easy a way for some of the lowest forms of humanity.Any man or woman can 'justify' an action that leads to taking of a life...it happens everyday but in some cases its all very cut and dry.Rape of children,murders and savagery done onto total innocence be they elderly or the youngest amongst us arrives at their own consequence.Have thought for a while that maybe the direct family of victims should be the deciding factor for a guiltys fate....though can they bare losing close family only to directly decide life or death of yet another.Many would seem to savor that call.Vigilante justice has to be prevalent,put yourself in someones shoes who loses a loved one.Very easy to become what you despise and detest in another,switch roles in an instant...some could live with that in a hope of finding "justice".Shit...need coffee
More than two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty.
Between 1972 and 1976, the death penalty in the US was suspended after it was found to violate the constitution.
Since it was re-instated in 1976, 1,151 people have been executed.
The death sentence is not uniformly applied – just 2% of murderers actually end up on death row.
95% of death row prisoners cannot afford their own attorney.
95% of executions last year were in the Southern states.
80% of executions cases involve a white murder victim, even though half of all murder victims are African American.
The average length of time between sentencing and execution is more than 12 years.
The lethal injection involves a drug considered inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical association and banned in many states for use on animals.
Yes so let me string em up with a rope then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Get some and come back to this discussion :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Its terrible.
Sorry, really busy. But its terrible. I hate everyone that supports it. Bye.
Haven't read the thread but here's my pitch on it:
The justice system isn't perfect, innocent people do get wrongly convicted sometimes. It may be reletavly rare but I don't think the odds will ever be low enough when you're gambling with a life.
If you believe in an after life then fair enough, you may feel that death is the begining punishment... but if you don't then a relativly painless death is little punishment compared to a life sentance.
I believe that those guilty should have to exist for the rest of their lives, not living - in punishment. If there's no afterlife then they've been punished as much as possible withouyt physical torture... if there is an afterlife then not only have they lived their mortal life in punishment but now eternity.
I do understand that a lot of the victims may want death to get closture, but if the prison system is right (which tbh it's not) then I'd rather have them existing and suffering then at peace.
Thanks for your intellectual input. You can converted me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanman
Sorry, Haven't got time to bore you all with a long essay, but i get the impression for most people its a question of which is the worst punishment between death and a life sentence.
Are there any other people who, like me, actually are against it because its too much of a punishment?
It seems that most people that are against it is for the reason that the offender would suffer more by being kept alive in prison serving a life sentence.
Is there anyone against it simply because its wrong?
No doubt you have some realistic views on how the death penalty can be floored in wrongly convicting people that have not been clearly caught red handed in their crimes,but were the DNA comes into effect on a case of a Pedo raping or killing a young child or a adult grown woman for that matter then i'd clearly want to see the scum die,"A eye for a eye!"Does killing the guilty person of crimes of rape and murder reverse the effects of the crime after DNA of their's have been found at the scene?"Of course it does,cos if we already had the old hanging penalty brought back on over here in the uk,then these sick fookers would think twice before even thinking about raping or murdering women and kids.Its like going into the tigar inclosure at the zoo,there's a sign on the fence warning you not to climb over,otherwise you get your arse beaten off,soo if you choose to climb over the fence after you've been warned then you suffer the concequences of death!!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by onoBut is it a good enough deterrent? I've not seen any research or evidence to support that fact that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvonne
Secondly, how would you turn druggies and spongers into soldiers? If they can't be arsed finding a job, how are they going to physically cope with being forced to kill for a living? Is being lazy deserving of being forced to carry the responsibility of ending another man's life? Then of course you have to question the morality of war and decide whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are what you would deem as a good cause.
Questioning the morality of the death penalty is interesting it itself. First and foremost DNA evidence often isn't sufficient enough to convict somebody of a crime. Circumstantial evidence and statistical evidence also needs to analysed. The bad thing is, this evidence is analysed by a jury; a jury who often don't have the necessary skills to correctly analyse statistics. Incorrect convictions have occured in the past, whereby innocent people have been sentenced to death.
Even assuming the Jury have correctly analysed the evidence, statistical evidence is only as good as the statitician who has formulated the probabilities of person X being guilty. A case a few years ago in the UK is an example of this. A woman was sentenced to prison for allegedly smothering her two children 2 death. The statisitcal evidence suggested that there was a 1 in 73million chance of both babies dying by natural causes. This had a profound effect on the jury and they found her guilty. On appeal, it emerged that the statistics were wrong. There was infact a 1 in 130,000 thousand chance of 1 baby dying from natural causes/cot death. In cases of child death, the odds of a 2nd child from the same household dying was only 1 in 60. Given the amount of babies born every year, probability suggested that there are bound to be a few double cot death incidents every year in the UK. She was released on appeal a few years later. If the death penalty was in force, she'd have been killed.
That's the problem, no 2 convictions are ever the same. There is always variables in every criminal case.
In cases where there is absolutely no doubt (if that's possible), then the idea of the death penatly takes on new ground. Does killing the guilty, erase the memory of the crime? Does it reverse the effects of the crime? Who has the power to decide to end somebody's life? Does that person then become a murderer? Will he be given the death penalty?
The idea of my post is not to dismiss other people's opinion. The Death Penalty is always an interesting point of debate. Opinion is divided. I personally think it's barbaric and has no place in civilised society. With that said, neither do murderers and rapists etc...that's why they should spend their time in jail.
BRING IT BACK NOW!!
But there's no research to back up the opinion that the death penalty would be a better deterrant than jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvonneNo doubt you have some realistic views on how the death penalty can be floored in wrongly convicting people that have not been clearly caught red handed in their crimes,but were the DNA comes into effect on a case of a Pedo raping or killing a young child or a adult grown woman for that matter then i'd clearly want to see the scum die,"A eye for a eye!"Does killing the guilty person of crimes of rape and murder reverse the effects of the crime after DNA of their's have been found at the scene?"Of course it does,cos if we already had the old hanging penalty brought back on over here in the uk,then these sick fookers would think twice before even thinking about raping or murdering women and kids.Its like going into the tigar inclosure at the zoo,there's a sign on the fence warning you not to climb over,otherwise you get your arse beaten off,soo if you choose to climb over the fence after you've been warned then you suffer the concequences of death!!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by onoBut is it a good enough deterrent? I've not seen any research or evidence to support that fact that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by yvonne
Secondly, how would you turn druggies and spongers into soldiers? If they can't be arsed finding a job, how are they going to physically cope with being forced to kill for a living? Is being lazy deserving of being forced to carry the responsibility of ending another man's life? Then of course you have to question the morality of war and decide whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are what you would deem as a good cause.
Questioning the morality of the death penalty is interesting it itself. First and foremost DNA evidence often isn't sufficient enough to convict somebody of a crime. Circumstantial evidence and statistical evidence also needs to analysed. The bad thing is, this evidence is analysed by a jury; a jury who often don't have the necessary skills to correctly analyse statistics. Incorrect convictions have occured in the past, whereby innocent people have been sentenced to death.
Even assuming the Jury have correctly analysed the evidence, statistical evidence is only as good as the statitician who has formulated the probabilities of person X being guilty. A case a few years ago in the UK is an example of this. A woman was sentenced to prison for allegedly smothering her two children 2 death. The statisitcal evidence suggested that there was a 1 in 73million chance of both babies dying by natural causes. This had a profound effect on the jury and they found her guilty. On appeal, it emerged that the statistics were wrong. There was infact a 1 in 130,000 thousand chance of 1 baby dying from natural causes/cot death. In cases of child death, the odds of a 2nd child from the same household dying was only 1 in 60. Given the amount of babies born every year, probability suggested that there are bound to be a few double cot death incidents every year in the UK. She was released on appeal a few years later. If the death penalty was in force, she'd have been killed.
That's the problem, no 2 convictions are ever the same. There is always variables in every criminal case.
In cases where there is absolutely no doubt (if that's possible), then the idea of the death penatly takes on new ground. Does killing the guilty, erase the memory of the crime? Does it reverse the effects of the crime? Who has the power to decide to end somebody's life? Does that person then become a murderer? Will he be given the death penalty?
The idea of my post is not to dismiss other people's opinion. The Death Penalty is always an interesting point of debate. Opinion is divided. I personally think it's barbaric and has no place in civilised society. With that said, neither do murderers and rapists etc...that's why they should spend their time in jail.
BRING IT BACK NOW!!
It doesn't reverse the effect of the crime. The victim is still the victim.
Even if the death penalty was in use, you'd be surprised how rare DNA evidence, on it's own, would be sufficient enough to try somebody.
yes, me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanman
Let's get this straight - we are teaching people it is wrong to kill by um, the state killing you. Sound logic, not a single flaw I can see, no not one.:-X
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanman
Yeah me.
An eye for an eye is old testament stuff, it makes both sides as bad as each other.
"How about an open season"? :spongebob:
A step back to the savages we really are. Nice one.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreQuote:
Originally Posted by ryanman
Yeah me.
An eye for an eye is old testament stuff, it makes both sides as bad as each other.