Is it time for the death penalty?

Should the death penalty be returned for murder?

  • Yes I believe in the death penalty for any murder.

    Votes: 58 42.0%

  • I am morally against the taking of life even for murder.

    Votes: 71 51.4%

  • I agree that it should be available for the murder of police etc.

    Votes: 9 6.5%
  • Total voters
    138
  • Poll closed .
joescrivens said:
i'm trying to find stats but cant find anything, its all related to the US where to be honest the statistics are worrying, seems like their legal system is terrible.

Here you have quoted 3 cases in 20 years, thats really not "loads" like you claim.
Click to expand...
No, I've quoted the 3 that I personally remember. I didn't mention any of the IRA convictions for atrocities committed in this country, where it turned out that they were convicted on false evidence. I'm not in any way involved with the legal system, there may well be many others.

And it is extremely difficult for convicted murderers to get their cases heard by the Court of Appeal anyway, so there may well be many others who can't get justice.
Eg you walk in your home to find your wife being attacked so you take your shot gun and blow him away. Does that mean when you get released you will go and kill another person?
Click to expand...
In most cases that would be self defence, not murder, so is outside this discussion.
 
srichards said:
Out of how many? 30 out of 30, 300, 3000?

Prisons are full. This is the problem. More prison spaces are actually needed to accomodate prisoners so they are only let out when it is certain they're safe to be released not because they need the space for someone else. It's the same with hospital beds. People get released because there's someone worse off not because they're well enough to go home.
Click to expand...


I don't know, how many murderers were released in those 10 years?

You don't really believe that the only consideration for release is whether they are likely to re-offend do you?
People get chucked out of prisons before they are ready and people get chucked out of hospital before they are ready ... fact!
 
As someone who has a knowledge of muder investigations, the fall out and all the consequences, I have to say that I am totally against the death penalty. Ironically, there are people on the face of this planet with whom I would have no issues in seeing executed. However, I don't believe that is the point. It is the 0.1% of innocent people convicted who are the argument against the imposition of the death penalty. I don't see how this can be argued.

I think we tend to look at this the wrong way. Personally I have no issues with my taxes being used to ensure that people convicted of certain murders spend the rest of their natural lives in prison. With the abolition of the death penalty in 1969, originally life was supposed to mean life but over time this has been diluted. The only sentence that be granted for a murder conviction is called life, even though practically, the time served is often far less than 20 years. Maybe we need various types of unlawful killings that could be sentenced differently rather than just manslaughter and murder? Maybe first, second and third degree murder?

then just to completely p*ss people off, there is this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-prison-Killer-mocks-court-stands-trial.html
 
joescrivens said:
But how often does this happen now? Not 60 years ago. Now.

How many people in the last 20 years convicted of murder were later found to be innocent?

Where can we get reliable data for that to help with this discussion. Because if those numbers were revealed to be 6% as quoted above then I would change my mind completely .... and that's not something that happens often!
Click to expand...

How many innocent people on death row is acceptable then? Guys like Kenny Richey jailed for 20 years on death row, their life destroyed is one too many.
 
Garry Edwards said:
No, I've quoted the 3 that I personally remember. I didn't mention any of the IRA convictions for atrocities committed in this country, where it turned out that they were convicted on false evidence. I'm not in any way involved with the legal system, there may well be many others.

And it is extremely difficult for convicted murderers to get their cases heard by the Court of Appeal anyway, so there may well be many others who can't get justice.
In most cases that would be self defence, not murder, so is outside this discussion.
Click to expand...
 
Laudrup said:
How many innocent people on death row is acceptable then? Guys like Kenny Richey jailed for 20 years on death row, their life destroyed is one too many.
Click to expand...

Think of a pair of scales ... 30 convicted murderers in the 10 years up to 2010 were released to murder again ... now on the other side of the scales how many innocent people have been incorrectly executed?
 
gramps said:
I don't know, how many murderers were released in those 10 years?

You don't really believe that the only consideration for release is whether they are likely to re-offend do you?
People get chucked out of prisons before they are ready and people get chucked out of hospital before they are ready ... fact!
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said! I thought I had made that clear. Prisons are full so they get released too early. They need to be properly assessed but at the same time without knowing the percentage they got wrong it is a meaningless scaremongering statistic.
 
srichards said:
You are deliberately misquoting and misunderstanding! They *should* only be released when it is safe to do so not because they need the space!
Click to expand...

wait a minute. I wasn't misquoting. That's what you said. look back at your post.

Edit: Oh I see now, what you wrote was actually confusing, I see what you meant to say - sorry, but thats not my fault you were confusing with what you wrote. I wasn't deliberately misquoting you, you weren't clear
 
srichards said:
Exactly what I said! I thought I had made that clear. Prisons are full so they get released too early. They need to be properly assessed but at the same time without knowing the percentage they got wrong it is a meaningless scaremongering statistic.
Click to expand...

see, gramps also read the same as me with what you wrote. You didn't make it clear.
 
Laudrup said:
How many innocent people on death row is acceptable then? Guys like Kenny Richey jailed for 20 years on death row, their life destroyed is one too many.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, releasing a murderer who then went on to kill again is one too many.

I know which odds I'd rather have - I have more trust that the legal system will get it right than I do that someone won't reoffend. Both result in innocent people dying, but on the face of it - my way results in lower innocent deaths as far as I am concerned!

Although I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can find real stats for the UK of how many convicted murderers were innocent in recent years
 
In most cases that would be self defence, not murder, so is outside this discussion

Most cases not all cases so is well within the lines of this discussion. Dont forget reasonable force it is not reasonable to shoot someone in your home just because you have a gun handy.

And the point still stands IF you had of shot the guy and you HAD been sentenced for murder that does not say you will kill again when you are released.

so as i said my point still stands you can not generalise and say ten are released to kill again.
 
Prisons are full. This is the problem. More prison spaces are actually needed to accomodate prisoners so they are only let out when it is certain they're safe to be released not because they need the space for someone else. It's the same with hospital beds. People get released because there's someone worse off not because they're well enough to go home.

I thought that was clear?!

I think some read what they wanted to read...
 
srichards said:
Prisons are full. This is the problem. More prison spaces are actually needed to accomodate prisoners so they are only let out when it is certain they're safe to be released not because they need the space for someone else. It's the same with hospital beds. People get released because there's someone worse off not because they're well enough to go home.

I thought that was clear?!

I think some read what they wanted to read...
Click to expand...

Ok I misread what you thought you wrote! :D
I understand what you are saying now and I agree with you.
 
joescrivens said:
But how often does this happen now? Not 60 years ago. Now.

How many people in the last 20 years convicted of murder were later found to be innocent?

Where can we get reliable data for that to help with this discussion. Because if those numbers were revealed to be 6% as quoted above then I would change my mind completely .... and that's not something that happens often!
Click to expand...

I can think of a few, the aforementioned Barry George, the two men convicted of the Glasgow "Ice Cream Wars" killing of 6 members of one family- Thomas TC Campbell and Joseph Steele and, going back a few years, Paddy Meehan, who was "fitted up" for murder by the City of Glasgow Police allegedly at the behest of M.I.5
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I can think of a few, the aforementioned Barry George, the two men convicted of the Glasgow "Ice Cream Wars" killing of 6 members of one family- Thomas TC Campbell and Joseph Steele and, going back a few years, Paddy Meehan, who was "fitted up" for murder by the City of Glasgow Police allegedly at the behest of M.I.5
Click to expand...

we can all think of a few. What I'm trying to find is the actual numbers. But I can't find them for the UK
 
On average, 61 people serving a mandatory life sentence for murder are released each year. Murderers released in 1997 on life licence had served on average just over 14 years, while others released on life licence served just over 13 years. Over the past decade 41 people originally convicted of homicide (13 of whom were convicted for murder) have been reconvicted of the same offence, seven while still in custody.

This was from a report in 1999. So roughly 40/600 will re-offend over a decade.

Full report is here: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Think of a pair of scales ... 30 convicted murderers in the 10 years up to 2010 were released to murder again ... now on the other side of the scales how many innocent people have been incorrectly executed?
Click to expand...

Keeping people in for life or executing them is not viable though. The money and facilities to keep them in for life isn't there and neither is executing them. On life-licence for certain people isn't a perfect solution, but compared to the primitive alternative of killing them it's about the best we can do with what we have available.
 
srichards said:
On average, 61 people serving a mandatory life sentence for murder are released each year. Murderers released in 1997 on life licence had served on average just over 14 years, while others released on life licence served just over 13 years. Over the past decade 41 people originally convicted of homicide (13 of whom were convicted for murder) have been reconvicted of the same offence, seven while still in custody.

This was from a report in 1999. So roughly 40/600 will re-offend over a decade.

Full report is here: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf
Click to expand...

so thats 6.6% reoffend so thats at least 40 innocent people killed in a ten year period (assuming they only kill one person each)

I would guess that in the same 10 year period there was less than 40 people convicted of murder that were found to be innocent in the UK.

Bring back the death penalty, it is the lesser evil.
 
South Wales Police alone have had a 11 convictions overturned since the 80's to the early 00's.
 
Laudrup said:
Keeping people in for life or executing them is not viable though. The money and facilities to keep them in for life isn't there and neither is executing them. On life-licence for certain people isn't a perfect solution, but compared to the primitive alternative of killing them it's about the best we can do with what we have available.
Click to expand...

It is viable, the question (for most) is whether it is morally right to do so - I would beg to say that it is considerably cheaper to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
However as our system seems to think that life (i.e. time actually in prison) can be anything from around 5 years up, it is clear to see that there is an argument in favour of the 'tick-box' solution of imprisonment.
 
cowasaki said:
There are horror stories in this country about mistakes but most police forces have NEVER shot anyone. In countries where all officers are armed far more mistakes are made.
Click to expand...

As well as some shootings being routine - for example if you spend time in Germany you need to heed the warning about never, ever running from a police officer who has told you to stop.
They won't waste energy pursuing you ...
 
joescrivens said:
correct me if im wrong but isn't that people innocent of all convictions, not just murder?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was just murder, I merely suggested you took a look at it....
 
on average it costs £47,000 per year to keep someone in prison. Thats per inmate per full year served.

There are 85,419 prisoners in England and Wales (81,202 men, 4,252 women)
About 60,000 people each year are jailed for less than 12 months
In 2009, 59% of prisoners serving sentences of less than 12 months were reconvicted within a year
The figure for young offenders was 72%
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I didn't say it was just murder, I merely suggested you took a look at it....
Click to expand...

thanks for sending it, but it's not really useful as we're talking about people wrongly convicted of murder.:thumbs:

it's those stats that I can't get hold of :shrug:
 
joescrivens said:
On the other hand, releasing a murderer who then went on to kill again is one too many.

I know which odds I'd rather have - I have more trust that the legal system will get it right than I do that someone won't reoffend. Both result in innocent people dying, but on the face of it - my way results in lower innocent deaths as far as I am concerned!

Although I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can find real stats for the UK of how many convicted murderers were innocent in recent years
Click to expand...

This could be used for a multitude of crimes though. Drink driver kills people and gets released and does the same thing again therefore logic dictates never release drink drivers who kill people in case it happens again. We just don't have the money or space to keep a lot of people locked up forever. With a prison population of around 86,000 and an operational capacity of about 90,000 and 600'ish murders a year detaining people forever is going to mean a lot of overcrowding very soon.

As for stats on people who were innocent it would mean looking at every case again which isn't going to happen. It's like asking how many people the police have fitted up, who knows?
 
Laudrup said:
This could be used for a multitude of crimes though. Drink driver kills people and gets released and does the same thing again therefore logic dictates never release drink drivers who kill people in case it happens again. We just don't have the money or space to keep a lot of people locked up forever. With a prison population of around 86,000 and an operational capacity of about 90,000 and 600'ish murders a year detaining people forever is going to mean a lot of overcrowding very soon.
Click to expand...

so the solution is to increase the number of prison cells, or to kill the murderers and p***'s.
 
gramps said:
It is viable, the question (for most) is whether it is morally right to do so - I would beg to say that it is considerably cheaper to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
However as our system seems to think that life (i.e. time actually in prison) can be anything from around 5 years up, it is clear to see that there is an argument in favour of the 'tick-box' solution of imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Judging by US figures in Califronia it appears considerably more expensive:

The state's 714 death row prisoners cost $184 million more per year than those sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A death penalty prosecution costs up to 20 times as much as a life-without-parole case.

The least expensive death penalty trial costs $1.1 million more than the most expensive life-without-parole case.
Click to expand...

I don't see any good reason for the death penalty being reinstated. It doesn't deter, costs far too much money and you'll always have people there who shouldn't be there. The UK justice system has evolved past it.
 
Laudrup said:
Judging by US figures in Califronia it appears considerably more expensive:



I don't see any good reason for the death penalty being reinstated. It doesn't deter, costs far too much money and you'll always have people there who shouldn't be there. The UK justice system has evolved past it.
Click to expand...

its not the killing them that costs a lot, it's the keeping them alive on death row for 20 years before they die.

The system should be more efficient. Once convicted they should be destroyed much sooner.
 
Laudrup said:
Judging by US figures in Califronia it appears considerably more expensive:

I don't see any good reason for the death penalty being reinstated. It doesn't deter, costs far too much money and you'll always have people there who shouldn't be there. The UK justice system has evolved past it.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's the justice 'system' that is the cost ... appeals for all sorts of garbage, you murder you should forfeit your life ... quickly and inexpensively.
 
joescrivens said:
so the solution is to increase the number of prison cells, or to kill the murderers and p***'s.
Click to expand...

You can do that, but your taxes will be increasing to pay for it. Killing people is going to cost you a fortune, and whilst you were waiting another few thousand have come into jail.
 
Laudrup said:
You can do that, but your taxes will be increasing to pay for it. Killing people is going to cost you a fortune, and whilst you were waiting another few thousand have come into jail.
Click to expand...

it doesn't cost me more than keeping them in jail for 25 years so I would expect my taxes will come down actually
 
Laudrup said:
You can do that, but your taxes will be increasing to pay for it. Killing people is going to cost you a fortune, and whilst you were waiting another few thousand have come into jail.
Click to expand...

joescrivens said:
it doesn't cost me more than keeping them in jail for 25 years so I would expect my taxes will come down actually
Click to expand...

I said the same in post #18....way ahead of you guys.
 
joescrivens said:
so the solution is to increase the number of prison cells, or to kill the murderers and p***'s.
Click to expand...

Or introduce the death penalty for the improper use of apostrophes :lol:
 
Laudrup said:
Judging by US figures in Califronia it appears considerably more expensive:



I don't see any good reason for the death penalty being reinstated. It doesn't deter, costs far too much money and you'll always have people there who shouldn't be there. The UK justice system has evolved past it.
Click to expand...

yep - some quick figure for you

Kansas

Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million.

California

Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row.

Maryland

The costs for a non-death penalty murder case is $1.1 million ($870,000 in imprisonment, $250,000 in trial), while the costs for a death penalty case are $3 million ($1.3 million in imprisonment, $1.7 million in trial).
 
joescrivens said:
its not the killing them that costs a lot, it's the keeping them alive on death row for 20 years before they die.

The system should be more efficient. Once convicted they should be destroyed much sooner.
Click to expand...

do you mean they shouldn't have the rights of appeal they currently do. You were shocked by the US's 10% wrong conviction figurer. WHat do you think would happen there?
 
gramps said:
Nope, it's the justice 'system' that is the cost ... appeals for all sorts of garbage, you murder you should forfeit your life ... quickly and inexpensively.
Click to expand...

Barristers and lawyers don't drive Porsches because they do things quickly and inexpensively. When dealing with decisions of this magnitude you're going to be advised to pursue every legal avenue possible. I would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top