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 .
Laudrup said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even if you were guilty? Some people have no scruples. (insert emoticon here)
 
The appeal issue has got out of hand with all sorts of spurious reasons being used to delay things ... only people who benefit are the lawyers.
 
Definately bring back capital punishment for any deliberate killing.

Let the punishment fit the crime in all cases, there are too many do gooders who turn a blind eye and think that just saying "naughty naughty, slap on the wrist" will work, well it won't. Proof is in the number of repeat offenders who go time and time back to jail.


The greatest deterrent surely is having the knowledge that if you kill ( not by accident) then your life is forfeit.
Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
Definately bring back capital punishment for any deliberate killing.

Let the punishment fit the crime in all cases, there are too many do gooders who turn a blind eye and think that just saying "naughty naughty, slap on the wrist" will work, well it won't. Proof is in the number of repeat offenders who go time and time back to jail.


The greatest deterrent surely is having the knowledge that if you kill ( not by accident) then your life is forfeit.
Realspeed
Click to expand...

lots of evidence its no a deterrent though.

Make life mean life in prison, no chance to reoffend then
 
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...

Bloodthirsty states in the US who have been killing people for years even take 5 years to decide on appeals, so the chances of the UK becoming more efficient is unlikely. The courts are in a bad state as it is, chuck in endless appeals for death row inmates and the whole dysfunctional system would collapse in on itself.
 
gramps said:
In the UK I believe it has ... murder used to be headline news for days, today it often doesn't get a mention above the activities of some 'celebrity'.

Even the punishment for murder has become laughable, how many murderers have been released after 5, 8, 10 years some being free to walk the streets in the same location as the widow/children of the murdered person as a constant reminder of the injustice of 'the system'?
Click to expand...

Well, I can point you in the direction of somebody who has spent nearly 40 years banged up for a murder committed when he was fourteen (and which he is completely penitent about, and always has been).

If you look at the matter of murder rates in more depth, you find the issue is far from straightforward. There are legal definitions to take account of, extenuating circumstances, detection rates and the impact of advances in forensic science, the dependability of juries (about which next-to-nothing is known), & so on.

As for whether the deterrent effect is real, it's questionable - after all why do they still feel it necessary to continue executing people in, for example, Texas? If the deterrent was real, well, I'm sure you can complete the rest for yourself.

In this country, anyone convicted of murder receives, as far as I know, a mandatory life sentence. There is a further component to the sentence, known as the "Tariff", which is the number of years that must be served before the "lifer" can be considered for parole.
Once released, a "lifer" can still be recalled to prison, and the reasons for this don't need to have anything to do with offending. It's not really the soft option the Daily Mail likes to call it.
 
tiler65 said:
Even if you were guilty? Some people have no scruples. (insert emoticon here)
Click to expand...

Guilty men will appeal all the time, convicted murderers on death row aren't renowned for their scruples. They have nothing to lose by appealing and everything to gain. Even if they know it will fail they'll still be alive in the interim which could be years. There are so many ways to exploit the system, and it isn't the convicts dreaming them up.
 
Laudrup said:
Guilty men will appeal all the time, convicted murderers on death row aren't renowned for their scruples. They have nothing to lose by appealing and everything to gain. Even if they know it will fail they'll still be alive in the interim which could be years. There are so many ways to exploit the system, and it isn't the convicts dreaming them up.
Click to expand...

Change the system. No appeal. Sorted.
 
The possibility of innocents being executed makes it an easy 'no' vote for me. It's not a question of scale, or likelihood of it happening - the fact that it has happened, and would continue to happen given human fallibility and the adversarial justice system we use makes it unusable.

I find it remarkable that people are prepared to accept the execution of innocents along with the execution of murderers if the ratio is low enough, it almost beggars belief :eek:

Have a read of this account of a highly likely wrongful execution in Texas, then realise that this only came to light because someone decided to investigate it as part of a project on the fallibility of the death penalty. Makes you wonder how other many such cases there are...

He was put on death row largely on the eyewitness testimony of one man, Kevan Baker, who had seen the fight inside the Shamrock and watched the attacker flee the scene.

Yet when Baker was interviewed 20 years later, he said that he hadn't been that sure about the identification as he had trouble telling one Hispanic person apart from another.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death

:bonk:
 
Has anyone pointed out the minor fact that the UK Govt (under either Scottish or English/Welsh law) couldn't legally reintroduce capital punishment anyway?

It's one of the main barriers to Turkey being allowed into the EU at the moment.
 
Never, miscarriages of justice aside, its just morally abhorrent to kill as retribution. It certainly isn't part of the justice system and should never be called justice.
 
How come people are allowed to murder songs on Pop Idol and get away with it. Scandalous!
 
It's not a civil society's role to be wicked, cruel or vengeful regardless of the crimes committed. "Eye for an eye" is an abhorrent concept that should be put to death (pun intended). How the state, and the citizens within it, can condemn murder but then through some self-appointed right take the lives of others away is beyond me. A just society should protect the population from those it deems to be a threat and that should be the primary motive behind the justice system rather than attempting to inflict suffering and punishment on who they suspect to have committed a crime.

Regardless of the moral arguments, our justice system is far too fallible to set a sentence as absolute as death and there should be no case for what is morally acceptable made on financial grounds.
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
better to have the death sentence and finish them off after 1 murder than let them out every 10 years to do it again
Click to expand...

How many have served sentences for murder and killed again after release?
I can't think of a single instance - can you put me right?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Here are nearly 30 for you, from a 10-year period....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html
Click to expand...

They're 'killers' not murderers. There's no breakdown of what the original crimes committed by these people were but judging by the jail times they faced chances are even if there was the death penalty, most if not all wouldn't have faced it anyway. I suspect most of those were jailed for manslaughter charges originally.
 
"Should the death penalty be brought back..."

No! State sponsored murder is no better than cold blooded murder, and there are always miscarriages of justice, which can't bring back a dead person.
 
The options in the poll are inadequate, unfortunately I cannot answer.

I am not morally against the taking of life, even for murder. But I do not believe that the death penalty should exist in the united kingdom.
 
TriggerHappy said:
They're 'killers' not murderers. There's no breakdown of what the original crimes committed by these people were but judging by the jail times they faced chances are even if there was the death penalty, most if not all wouldn't have faced it anyway. I suspect most of those were jailed for manslaughter charges originally.
Click to expand...

One in three carried out a second murder even though they should have been under the supervision of the probation service.
Click to expand...
 
TriggerHappy said:
They're 'killers' not murderers. There's no breakdown of what the original crimes committed by these people were but judging by the jail times they faced chances are even if there was the death penalty, most if not all wouldn't have faced it anyway. I suspect most of those were jailed for manslaughter charges originally.
Click to expand...

But that is an assumption.

Many crimes, because of the judicial system, are given a lower rating ie manslaughter down from murder just so there can be a conviction.........both sides know the accused is guilty but because of some quirk of law they can argue for a lower charge.

Didn't there used to be a law that if you were found innocent of a murder charge you could not be tried for it again? (maybe wrong but it was something like that)
 
The death penalty is the reserve of savages and savage nations. Eye for an eye justice has no place in these more enlightened and civilised times.

You do not set the right example by killing. You are only making more people into murderers. The only thing in would like to see is life in prison meaning life. Nothing more.
 
tiler65 said:
But that is an assumption.

Many crimes, because of the judicial system, are given a lower rating ie manslaughter down from murder just so there can be a conviction.........both sides know the accused is guilty but because of some quirk of law they can argue for a lower charge.

Didn't there used to be a law that if you were found innocent of a murder charge you could not be tried for it again? (maybe wrong but it was something like that)
Click to expand...

Double jeopardy
 
I think a death penalty should be bought in but only in exceptional circumstances.

For example, look at Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, Fred West, Harold Shipman (yes I know the last 2 killed themselves) off the top of my head. There are many cases when cold blooded murder is carried out with 100% evidence.

Also, if you are convicted of a murder or serious sexual assaults the the 3 strike rule should exits - and I would support the death penalty there.

Or, you simply make prisons complete hell holes so that people do not want to go there!
 
norters said:
The death penalty is the reserve of savages and savage nations. Eye for an eye justice has no place in these more enlightened and civilised times.

You do not set the right example by killing. You are only making more people into murderers. The only thing in would like to see is life in prison meaning life. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

I know that if a close friend or family member was murdered and I had the choice to have them executed I would - if anyone harmed my kids and I could choose prison or death I would not hesitate in choosing death, and I don't believe that makes me a savage.
 
boyfalldown said:
Turkey abolished capital punishment in 2004
Click to expand...

Apologies and yup you're right. I thought that their military law still provided for it!
 
DemiLion said:
Apologies and yup you're right. I thought that their military law still provided for it!
Click to expand...

their military law does allow for arresting my brother in law at the airport a few year ago, and making him stay in the country till he'd finished his national service though :)

Serves him right for trying to dodge it
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriggerHappy

They're 'killers' not murderers. There's no breakdown of what the original crimes committed by these people were but judging by the jail times they faced chances are even if there was the death penalty, most if not all wouldn't have faced it anyway. I suspect most of those were jailed for manslaughter charges originally.
Quote:
One in three carried out a second murder even though they should have been under the supervision of the probation service.
Click to expand...

I read the article. Yes, subsequent crimes were murder but there's no indication of what their original crime was other than the ambiguous title of 'killers'.

tiler65 said:
But that is an assumption.

Many crimes, because of the judicial system, are given a lower rating ie manslaughter down from murder just so there can be a conviction.........both sides know the accused is guilty but because of some quirk of law they can argue for a lower charge.

Didn't there used to be a law that if you were found innocent of a murder charge you could not be tried for it again? (maybe wrong but it was something like that)
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. Because of the judicial system they could have committed murder but been found guilty of manslaughter. That's an irrelevance. Capital punishment or not, those guilty of manslaughter would still be walking free eventually... unless you're suggesting that manslaughter crimes should also be punishable by death sentence?
 
TriggerHappy said:
I read the article. Yes, subsequent crimes were murder but there's no indication of what their original crime was other than the ambiguous title of 'killers'.
Click to expand...

a second murder
Click to expand...

To commit a second murder one must have already committed a first one.....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Maybe you don't..... ;)
Click to expand...

Bravo for making this personal. :thumbs: WE don't live in a civilised world. In this very forum I have read posts in which people have rejoiced in the suffering of fellow humans. Where people have wished for human suffering, and where people have admitted to enjoying watching humans being maimed. Now I admit, I do live in a different society to you, but even where you live baying for human blood is not civilised. Feel free to continue with your personal sniping.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
To commit a second murder one must have already committed a first one.....
Click to expand...

And what of the 10 who served less than 5 years? Were they serving time for murder charges?

It's a terribly ambiguously written article designed to spark outrage that held back key facts and any type of citation to actually provide details of the figures they were reporting.
 
If you want capital punishment in a major industrial or first world country move to
China or the USA.

Even Russia has not had any for a long time, but is yet to ratify the European convention.

Only the third world seems to hang on to it in any numbers.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Bravo for making this personal. :thumbs: WE don't live in a civilised world. In this very forum I have read posts in which people have rejoiced in the suffering of fellow humans. Where people have wished for human suffering, and where people have admitted to enjoying watching humans being maimed. Now I admit, I do live in a different society to you, but even where you live baying for human blood is not civilised. Feel free to continue with your personal sniping.
Click to expand...

There are only two humans worth inflicting suffering upon. Ian Brady and Simon Cowell. The rest are ok. I'm rational in my blood baying :D
 
We are all so duplicitous in our "civilised" society...

Death penalty - no
Send soldiers to go shoot people - yes

Personally, I think that there is no need for the death penalty, and there is no need for people without a "job" that requires it to have a gun. The reason there is so much more murder in the states is the availability of firearms

Yes - lock them up for a long time
Yes - punish them and make thier life difficult
Yes - sell all of their assets to pay for the jail time
and then once (if) they have served all of their time - put them on a rehabilitation program
 
can we just remind folks to keep it civil please, we may disagree on somethings but need to remember not to bait other members
 
Richard King said:
We are all so duplicitous in our "civilised" society...

Death penalty - no
Send soldiers to go shoot people - yes
Click to expand...

Exactly Richard. We like to look down at other cultures and pretend we are better than them but we (as the human race) are collectively culpable. Every day I see and read of terrible atrocities that take place in the "civilised" western world. I used to be in favour of the death penalty, but I now know it doesn't work as a deterrent, and as a punishment it's hardly removed from the original crime. And no one can fail to be concerned about those wrongly convicted surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top