The Death Penalty

[Dark Lord Al]

No one is surprised Al

You'd chin them on the way down too right?

No i want them totally alert and focused , i want to see the whites of their eyes as the life drains from them.

[yvonne]

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!!!!

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[Gandalf]

Well, I have woken after a long night deep in sleep contemplating this serious issue....

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.

[ono]

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!!!!

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.

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.

[yvonne]

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!!!!

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.

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.

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!!

BRING IT BACK NOW!!

[ono]

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!!!!

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.