Is it time for the death penalty?

[ruffdog64]

My opinion when it comes to the death penalty is simple, Yes! there`s no reoffending, the do-gooders won`t get the scum released after playing the game for a few years, with the modern dna testing there is less likely to be any mistakes and if say 1 in 10,000 in put to death wrongly it`s an acceptable loss, it far outways the ridding of society of the killers.
The other problem we have is the situation we had with raul moat when cornered by the police he should have been positively identified and just shot , no messing about , the scum/criminals know they have rights and aren`t frightened by the prospect of prison

 

[ruffdog64]

I don't see why agreeing with killing people is common sense

The only comparable Western country that has it in place has massive crime problems and it has not solved anything.

Plus the errors made an innocent people being killed.

Plus even if you don't care about them, it costs more!

It doesn't work. It is easy to say kill 'em all, it will solve all problems. If it really worked then do you not think politicians would be putting it back in place? It is flawed logic usually spouted by those who have not thought the full consequences through.

It won`t be reinstated unless a member of parliment or royalty is murdered by someone

 

[TriggerHappy]

My opinion when it comes to the death penalty is simple, Yes! there`s no reoffending, the do-gooders won`t get the scum released after playing the game for a few years, with the modern dna testing there is less likely to be any mistakes and if say 1 in 10,000 in put to death wrongly it`s an acceptable loss, it far outways the ridding of society of the killers.
The other problem we have is the situation we had with raul moat when cornered by the police he should have been positively identified and just shot , no messing about , the scum/criminals know they have rights and aren`t frightened by the prospect of prison

Would 1:10,000 be an acceptable error if it was a member of your family wrongly sentenced to death? I can't imagine you'd think that would be a worthy sacrifice for society when it's someone close to you who unjustifiably has their life taken from them. As long as it's someone else's father/mother/daughter/son etc. than that's fine

 

[Flash In The Pan]

My opinion when it comes to the death penalty is simple, Yes! there`s no reoffending, the do-gooders won`t get the scum released after playing the game for a few years, with the modern dna testing there is less likely to be any mistakes and if say 1 in 10,000 in put to death wrongly it`s an acceptable loss, it far outways the ridding of society of the killers.
The other problem we have is the situation we had with raul moat when cornered by the police he should have been positively identified and just shot , no messing about , the scum/criminals know they have rights and aren`t frightened by the prospect of prison

The DNA argument is an interesting one. You might remember the murder of English holidaymaker Peter Falconio in the Australian outback in 2001.

A man called Bradley Murdoch was convicted, based on specks of DNA found on
his clothing which it was claimed made the odds of Murdoch not being the killer 150 quadrillion (that's 150 with 15 zeros after it) to 1.

There are now rumblings that there is a distinct possibility (based on other evidence) that they got the wrong man and to say it is "acceptable" to put an innocent man to death beggars belief...

 

[big soft moose]

Really! Does a human being have more right to life than a bull? If so, why? :shrug:

I find myself in agreement with steve here (there is a first time for everything ) particularly in regard of cop killers (and the killers of the innocent generally) and nonces - I would argue that such scum give up their 'right to life' when they commit such abhorrent crimes.

Its also odd that we/ the government (and politicians in general) can legally send armed forces to kill all manner of people (many of whom richly deseve it) and accept the regretable collateral damage which tends to attend such enterprises, but not endorse the much more structured killing of those who deserve it for fear of a much smaller likelihood of the collateral killing of the possibly innocent

 

[ruffdog64]

Would 1:10,000 be an acceptable error if it was a member of your family wrongly sentenced to death? I can't imagine you'd think that would be a worthy sacrifice for society when it's someone close to you who unjustifiably has their life taken from them. As long as it's someone else's father/mother/daughter/son etc. than that's fine

Obviously if it`s you or a member of your family it would be horrendous but think of the scum that it gets rid of, there isn`t a perfect answer to this problem it just my answer

 

[ruffdog64]

The DNA argument is an interesting one. You might remember the murder of English holidaymaker Peter Falconio in the Australian outback in 2001.

A man called Bradley Murdoch was convicted, based on specks of DNA found on
his clothing which it was claimed made the odds of Murdoch not being the killer 150 quadrillion (that's 150 with 15 zeros after it) to 1.

There are now rumblings that there is a distinct possibility (based on other evidence) that they got the wrong man and to say it is "acceptable" to put an innocent man to death beggars belief...

There`s no perfect answer to the problem , this is just my answer

 

[big soft moose]

Would 1:10,000 be an acceptable error if it was a member of your family wrongly sentenced to death? I can't imagine you'd think that would be a worthy sacrifice for society when it's someone close to you who unjustifiably has their life taken from them. As long as it's someone else's father/mother/daughter/son etc. than that's fine

that argument could equally be applied to the otherside of the argument - what if it was your mother/sister/daughter who was raped and murdered by someone who has 'served his time' (or more likely about a quarter of an already derisory sentence) and is then let out to do it again

I'm fairly sure that in that instance you would feel a) that it was warranted to give him a 9mm to the head, and b) that this should have been done first time round

 

[posiview]

My opinion when it comes to the death penalty is simple, Yes! there`s no reoffending, the do-gooders won`t get the scum released after playing the game for a few years, with the modern dna testing there is less likely to be any mistakes and if say 1 in 10,000 in put to death wrongly it`s an acceptable loss, it far outways the ridding of society of the killers.
The other problem we have is the situation we had with raul moat when cornered by the police he should have been positively identified and just shot , no messing about , the scum/criminals know they have rights and aren`t frightened by the prospect of prison

1:10,000 you say. Would 2:10,000 be OK? or 3:10,000...you see where I'm going?

Imagine being that 1 :shrug:

 

[ruffdog64]

1:10,000 you say. Would 2:10,000 be OK? or 3:10,000...you see where I'm going?

Imagine being that 1 :shrug:

Like i said not a perfect solution just mine

 

[Marc]

It won`t be reinstated unless a member of parliment or royalty is murdered by someone

Both of which happened when the IRA were at their most active, no death penalty brought in then.

 

[big soft moose]

Imagine being that 1 :shrug:

Or imagine being a victim of the other 9,999 when they are let out/off to reoffend.

Like I said that argument cuts both ways

 

[Stratman]

Nobody today would be convicted on nothing more than a confession

Stefan Kiszko was.

He wasn't the brightest person, and for whatever reason the Police decided he was their man. They didn't try to discover who had actually killed Lesley Molseed, they tried to prove Stefan Kiszko did.

Their case was based on his 'confession', which Kiszko gave because the Police 'kept shouting at him, and he thought if he said what they wanted they'd stop shouting'. The problem was he was innocent of the murder. Kiszko was released in 1992 after forensic evidence showed that he could not have committed the murder. He died in December 1993. Ronald Castree was eventually found guilty of the crime on 12 November 2007

He would have undoubtedly hanged. He was a big unintelligent man with a funny foreign name, she was a pretty little white girl.

Still, what does a bit of collateral damage matter?

 

[Splog]

1:10,000 you say. Would 2:10,000 be OK? or 3:10,000...you see where I'm going?

Imagine being that 1 :shrug:

But you are far more likely to be murdered than wrongly convicted of murder :shrug: Given the choice I would prefer to die by state execution than killed on the street!

Murder victims don't get a right to appeal against their sentence handed out by the scum that choose to kill for a few quid.... or sadistic pleasure!

 

[big soft moose]

Both of which happened when the IRA were at their most active, no death penalty brought in then.

but the government did send the SAS after the perpetrators - and i'm fairly sure their orders wouldnt have been to bring them back alive.

Which is what i was saying above - its bonkers that its okay to send special forces to kill a suspected terrorist, but not okay to execute a confirmed one after conviction (for terrorist also read nonce, rapist, muderer - except that the SAS arent usually sent after the latter 3, mores the pity)

(incidentally [pedant] it was the INLA that killed mountbatten [/pedant] )

 

[odd jim]

No surely not!

>>>>The point I was making badly, was we could also argue its the poor management of those caught, that's the cause of any secondary murders.<<<<

The thing is we know that one is a sum of ones experiances. Its not a guessing game, we do know these things for sure....We must look at the whole effect of what capital punishment would mean as a statement of our intent, as we're effectively saying is ok to kill.

which it isn't is it.

No, the cause of secondary murders (or any other less serious crime) is purely and simply down to the person who commits the crime.

You can't blame anyone else.

 

[TriggerHappy]

that argument could equally be applied to the otherside of the argument - what if it was your mother/sister/daughter who was raped and murdered by someone who has 'served his time' (or more likely about a quarter of an already derisory sentence) and is then let out to do it again

Sentencing someone to death isn't the only way the prevent that though. I'm all for stricter prison sentences that keep people behind bars for longer or forever and that removes the chance for them to reoffend entirely.

I'm fairly sure that in that instance you would feel a) that it was warranted to give him a 9mm to the head, and b) that this should have been done first time round

Not so. I don't believe that anyone deserves to die, and even less so that the state should have the right to take a life.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Or imagine being a victim of the other 9,999 when they are let out/off to reoffend.

Like I said that argument cuts both ways

That's absurd. To say that if you don't accept the 1 innocent death that all the offers will go on to be serial killers is ridiculous even with the current state of lenient sentencing.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Sentencing someone to death isn't the only way the prevent that though. I'm all for stricter prison sentences that keep people behind bars for longer or forever and that removes the chance for them to reoffend entirely.

Sorry, but keeping a murderer behind bars, even for life, doesn't prevent them from killing again.

 

[tiler65]

Stefan Kiszko was.

He wasn't the brightest person, and for whatever reason the Police decided he was their man. They didn't try to discover who had actually killed Lesley Molseed, they tried to prove Stefan Kiszko did.

Their case was based on his 'confession', which Kiszko gave because the Police 'kept shouting at him, and he thought if he said what they wanted they'd stop shouting'. The problem was he was innocent of the murder. Kiszko was released in 1992 after forensic evidence showed that he could not have committed the murder. He died in December 1993. Ronald Castree was eventually found guilty of the crime on 12 November 2007

He would have undoubtedly hanged. He was a big unintelligent man with a funny foreign name, she was a pretty little white girl.

Still, what does a bit of collateral damage matter?

Read Garry's quote again!

 

[big soft moose]

Not so. I don't believe that anyone deserves to die, and even less so that the state should have the right to take a life.

At present - however would you still feel that way if someone killed your wife/girlfreind/daughter etc ? - I sincerely hope you never have to find out

The IRA killed my first serious girlfreind (in a bomb attack) when I was just 18 - those responsible were never properly aprehended though the police believe it is likely that they were caught for other similar crimes - of course if so they have now been released as part of the good friday agreement.

I am not and never have been by nature a violent man, but twenty years later I would still quite happily shoot the ***** responsible in the head or see them go to the electric chair.

When its personal its different and no ammount of armchair moralising means a bucketfull of warm spit when the matter is real rather than theoretical

 

[big soft moose]

That's absurd. To say that if you don't accept the 1 innocent death that all the offers will go on to be serial killers is ridiculous even with the current state of lenient sentencing.

I meant the victim of any of the other 9,999

 

[Keith W]

(incidentally [pedant] it was the INLA that killed mountbatten [/pedant] )

No it wasnt

He was killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, also known as and referred to as the IRA

 

[Splog]

Sentencing someone to death isn't the only way the prevent that though. I'm all for stricter prison sentences that keep people behind bars for longer or forever and that removes the chance for them to reoffend entirely.



Not so. I don't believe that anyone deserves to die, and even less so that the state should have the right to take a life.

If someone destroyed a plane killing all 250 people on-board? What then?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If someone destroyed a plane killing all 250 people on-board? What then?

Then the US govt need to pay the Iranians another $61.8 million

 

[TriggerHappy]

If someone destroyed a plane killing all 250 people on-board? What then?

It makes no difference, in my opinion, whether someone has killed 1 or 1000 people. Who are we to say that they deserve to die too? And more-so, how can we on one hand oppose one person killing another, but on the other hand say we're entirely justified in killing them? It's hypocritical, barbaric and counter-productive. Not to mention that the justice system is so inherently flawed and humans are unavoidably fallible that we will sooner or later condemn an innocent person to an irreversible, terminal punishment.

Let me pose you a question. If you are to be that unfortunate soul who's in the wrong place at the wrong time and is to face the death sentence for something you haven't done, what's the minimum number of guilty murders that you would you also like to see dead in order to justify the loss of your own life for the 'greater good' of society?

 

[srichards]

The management of Stafford hospital have been indirectly responsible for hundreds of deaths, ditto many other mis managed hospitals. The number of people murdered by released prisoners is miniscule in comparison. Risk is relative.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...tics-causes-death-england-wales-2010#external

Bottom line is you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. If someone you know is released from prison after murdering someone else. Keep out of their way

 

[Splog]

It makes no difference, in my opinion, whether someone has killed 1 or 1000 people. Who are we to say that they deserve to die too? And more-so, how can we on one hand oppose one person killing another, but on the other hand say we're entirely justified in killing them? It's hypocritical, barbaric and counter-productive. Not to mention that the justice system is so inherently flawed and humans are unavoidably fallible that we will sooner or later condemn an innocent person to an irreversible, terminal punishment.

Let me pose you a question. If you are to be that unfortunate soul who's in the wrong place at the wrong time and is to face the death sentence for something you haven't done, what's the minimum number of guilty murders that you would you also like to see dead in order to justify the loss of your own life for the 'greater good' of society?

I think I already said that....

But you are far more likely to be murdered than wrongly convicted of murder Given the choice I would prefer to die by state execution than killed on the street!

Murder victims don't get a right to appeal against their sentence handed out by the scum that choose to kill for a few quid.... or sadistic pleasure!

As for the number? .... Not sure, but 1 in 200 would be okay(ish)

 

[potter]

I have this discussion quite a lot at work, and we never really come up with an answer.

It's easy to say yes to the death penelty, but then is it morally right? If it were in place then there would be no re-offending, problem solved... but then the "suspects" family have to deal with the death of their son/daughter etc..

I am a serving police officer, and have seen some things people would wish to never see, and thats the part that makes me feel like saying yes, but then I am biased. I see the family trauma afterwards, but would it be fair to put another family through that when they more then likely played no part in the offence itself?

I think harsher pubishments should be handed out, esp for things such as assaults on police, paramedics, firefighters etc. -- I know of a colleague who got headbutted and had his nose broken whilst trying to arrest someone... he now gets a cheque for £1.24 every week which he has to pay in... eventually this will total £250something

If they were to bring this in, they could only use it if there is stone cold evidence that this person is guilty, ie, on CCTV and forenisc's

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

No, the cause of secondary murders (or any other less serious crime) is purely and simply down to the person who commits the crime.

You can't blame anyone else.

Of course we can, think of it like we.re walking a dog, and we've let it off the lead to maul a child again. So whose fault is it ..the dog or the dogs keeper?

We cant just give up responsibility when the dogs lose can we ...not when we know for sure its a maula ...murderer.

 

[purpleclouds]

Ronald Castree was eventually found guilty of the crime on 12 November 2007

I used to go to his comic book shop on Saturday mornings. Was rather freaked out when his faced popped up on the tellybox.

 

[odd jim]

Of course we can, think of it like we.re walking a dog, and we've let it off the lead to maul a child again. So whose fault is it ..the dog or the dogs keeper?

We cant just give up responsibility when the dogs lose can we ...not when we know for sure its a maula ...murderer.

We're not talking about dogs though are we?

And if a dog attacks anyone, we put it down so it doesn't attack anyone again....

 

[joescrivens]

We're not talking about dogs though are we?

And if a dog attacks anyone, we put it down so it doesn't attack anyone again....

True!

And if animals and humans should be treated equally like some feel then that means we should do the same to the human!

 

[srichards]

They also put dogs down that haven't even attacked anyone because they happen to look like a dangerous breed. Not a great parallel to draw!

 

[Laudrup]

True!

And if animals and humans should be treated equally like some feel then that means we should do the same to the human!

Who is wanting animals treated the same as humans?

 

[joescrivens]

Who is wanting animals treated the same as humans?

I don't think there is any need to pick out specific names of people.

 

[Laudrup]

I don't think there is any need to pick out specific names of people.

I don't think they've thought it through.

 

[joescrivens]

I don't think they've thought it through.

I agree

 

[Flash In The Pan]

They also put dogs down that haven't even attacked anyone because they happen to look like a dangerous breed. Not a great parallel to draw!

Can I invoke Godwin's Law here?

 

[srichards]

Can I invoke Godwin's Law here?

Not really. It was considered as a potential government policy to lock away people that they thought *might* be dangerous. Can't remember when it was though.