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 .
They should definitely make sure the prisoner has no bees coming out of their mouth before committing them to the chair, especially if they're on the large side. Don't want to make that mistake twice. :thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
i don't think anyones actually said that - but 'collateral damage' is an accepted fact of life in military operations , so the 'state' does regularly kill the innocent in order to kill the guilty, its just that it happens in iraq, afganistan etc rather than within the uk

as i said earlier its bonkers that we can legally send special forces to kill a suspected terrorist, but we cant execute a convicted one.
Click to expand...

You could reasonably expect the terrorists to be fighting back and considered armed and dangerous, so lethal force could be always be an option. It being the first resort and not the last sounds short sighted though.
 
It's either wrong to kill or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.
 
Of course you can, just because I think judicial executions are very wrong, doesn't mean I think a lawful killing by police of say an armed criminal intent on taking life is (for example)
 
No you can't. Getting into the self defence/defending the public arguments is just another circular argument, and no-one can say where the start/finish line is.

Killing is either unacceptable, or it is not.
 
NickD said:
No you can't. Getting into the self defence/defending the public arguments is just another circular argument, and no-one can say where the start/finish line is.

Killing is either unacceptable, or it is not.
Click to expand...

Ok, first of don't tell me what I can and can't think. Thanks but I can make up my own mind.

I've just explained my opinion to you. If you can't draw a difference between a judicial execution and (example again) a police officer lawfully killing in the line of duty then sorry but ........
 
NickD said:
It's either wrong to kill or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

You can use reasonable force in self-defence of yourself, family or property, and that could include killing someone. So it isn't as black and white as right and wrong.
 
so why not use reasonable force to protect the innocent from the guilty reoffending and execute convicted murderers etc for the protection of society ?
 
big soft moose said:
so why not use reasonable force to protect the innocent from the guilty reoffending and execute convicted murderers etc for the protection of society ?
Click to expand...

You're equally protecting the public by putting them in prison for the rest of their life
 
boyfalldown said:
Ok, first of don't tell me what I can and can't think. Thanks but I can make up my own mind.

I've just explained my opinion to you. If you can't draw a difference between a judicial execution and (example again) a police officer lawfully killing in the line of duty then sorry but ........
Click to expand...

I'm not telling what you can think, people are entitled to be wrong.:p

I'm aware of the difference between your proposed situations, and both are equally undesirable. The Home secretary or Mr plod are no more fit to decide who lives or dies than you or I am. The police tend to prove that every time one of them gets near a firearm.
 
NickD said:
I'm not telling what you can think, people are entitled to be wrong.:p

I'm aware of the difference between your proposed situations, and both are equally undesirable. The Home secretary or Mr plod are no more fit to decide who lives or dies than you or I am. The police tend to prove that every time one of them gets near a firearm.
Click to expand...

Ignoring your little snipe :)

The police and how they use firearms is a seperate debate. It was only after all an example to argue against your point
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
so why not use reasonable force to protect the innocent from the guilty reoffending and execute convicted murderers etc for the protection of society ?
Click to expand...

It is reasonable to keep the most dangerous inmates in jail indefinitely, killing them for crimes they might commit isn't reasonable.
 
joescrivens said:
Killing them for crimes they have committed is.
Click to expand...

Errr I hate to say it but "oh no its not".


I suspect this could go on a while
 
joescrivens said:
No we can stop there, since both are just opinions there is no right or wrong and we don't have to prove otherwise.

Right?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue with that joe :)
 
ding76uk said:
What does is solve though? The person they killed is still dead. Their family will still suffer, killing them does not make the loss any easier.
Click to expand...

It satisfies the monkey's need for revenge. (And that of the Daily Mail reader)
 
ding76uk said:
What does is solve though? The person they killed is still dead. Their family will still suffer, killing them does not make the loss any easier.
Click to expand...

It means they can never ever harm again, you may think it doesn't make the loss easier but tell that to the two people in this thread who have commented that they lost someone to murder, they may be others with different opinions of course.
 
joescrivens said:
It means they can never ever harm again, you may think it doesn't make the loss easier but tell that to the two people in this thread who have commented that they lost someone to murder, they may be others with different opinions of course.
Click to expand...

I think one of those two was me.... (but I may have missed a comment, my deepest apologies if I did) but despite losing a great friend I'm very anti death penalty
 
boyfalldown said:
I think one of those two was me.... (but I may have missed a comment, my deepest apologies if I did) but despite losing a great friend I'm very anti death penalty
Click to expand...

No I meant viv and bsm.

Missed your comment though, as I say others may think differently, it's a personal thing I'm sure, can't be generalised. I hope I never get to find out how I would feel about it.
 
I missed bsm, I'm sorry for missing that.

If we all shared opinions it would be a dull discussion
 
NickD said:
I'm not telling what you can think, people are entitled to be wrong.:p

I'm aware of the difference between your proposed situations, and both are equally undesirable. The Home secretary or Mr plod are no more fit to decide who lives or dies than you or I am. The police tend to prove that every time one of them gets near a firearm.
Click to expand...

What a stupid comment.

If someone points a gun at a soldier or armed police officer, they have sealed their own fate.

And are you telling us that if, for arguments sake you had the option of kill or be killed and all things were equal. You wouldn't pull the trigger to save your own life?? Or that of a loved one?

As for your swipe at cops, we get assailed by guns, knives, blunt force trauma, needles, broken glass, swords, axes, cars, hammers (I could go on) and 99.999% of the time we incapacitate suspects with NON LETHAL force even when the force being used against us could easily be lethal, so wind it in or get back to reading The Guardian.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
And are you telling us that if, for arguments sake you had the option of kill or be killed and all things were equal. You wouldn't pull the trigger to save your own life??
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. And, I would then be subject to legal stuff, because killing is currently considered wrong M'kay.

As for my swipe at coppers, yup, that was great non-lethal force on that unarmed Brazillian sparky. Not a guardian fan BTW, nor particularly liberal as a rule.
 
odd jim said:
What a stupid comment.

If someone points a gun at a soldier or armed police officer, they have sealed their own fate.

And are you telling us that if, for arguments sake you had the option of kill or be killed and all things were equal. You wouldn't pull the trigger to save your own life?? Or that of a loved one?

As for your swipe at cops, we get assailed by guns, knives, blunt force trauma, needles, broken glass, swords, axes, cars, hammers (I could go on) and 99.999% of the time we incapacitate suspects with NON LETHAL force even when the force being used against us could easily be lethal, so wind it in or get back to reading The Guardian.
Click to expand...

The last thing we need is the rank and file with guns. We're trying to bring the killings down, not ramp them up.
 
Laudrup said:
The last thing we need is the rank and file with guns. We're trying to bring the killings down, not ramp them up.
Click to expand...

Where did I say give the rank and file guns (those that don't already have them)?
 
NickD said:
Absolutely not. And, I would then be subject to legal stuff, because killing is currently considered wrong M'kay.

As for my swipe at coppers, yup, that was great non-lethal force on that unarmed Brazillian sparky. Not a guardian fan BTW, nor particularly liberal as a rule.
Click to expand...

Ok, one guy in exceptional circumstances. doesn't really represent police firearms use now does it?

You know you can use deadly force to protect yourself and others if its justified? So no, killing is not always "wrong in law". Even for a member of the public.

Look at Anders Breivic. You're saying shooting him after the first bomb would not have been justified, even when he went on to shoot a further 60 plus women and children?
 
Last edited:
For me the difference of opinion comes down to is CP retribution or vengeance, given that we all want to see the punishment match the crime in some meaningful and working reality that helps reduce it ... how effective long term is the CP message aiding our evolving a populations general moral compass and in doing so ensuring less crime like murder for instance?

...research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis.
The key to real and true deterrence is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.
The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.
Amnesty International
Click to expand...

I think the message the state gives when it uses CP is its ok because the person was a murderer and therefore its fair retribution...which is true, and also morally and ethically acceptable to many Id guess.
However the moment we kill a person later proved innocent, our morally correct legal system has just turned to mud, we've now committed vengeance (since they where innocent) instead of retribution.

And there's not much future for any of us in a legal system that uses vengeance Id suggest.
...the state's power deliberately to destroy innocuous (though guilty) life is a manifestation of the hidden wish that the state be allowed to do anything it pleases with life.
George Kateb, The Inner Ocean 1992
Click to expand...
And in combination ...This is not a message we want to run with surely?
The murder that is depicted as a horrible crime is repeated in cold blood, remorselessly
Beccaria, C. de, Traité des Délits et des Peines, 1764
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
No I meant viv and bsm.
.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for ruth but in my case I would definitely have preffered the perpetrators to get executed - that way the goverment couldnt have later decided to release them under the good friday agreement. :annoyed: - the no politics rule prevents me from going further into my feelings about that
 
gramps said:
So another police officer has been shot dead (See BBC News Report Here) and the perpetrator appears to be known.

Do you think that the death penalty should be returned for murder?
Should it be just for the murder of the likes of police, prison officers or should it be for any murder.
Click to expand...

No, don't be stupid.
 
How many of you have had someone close to you murdered. Not many I doubt. I have, I would bring it back tomorrow. The suffering we went through especially my mum I would not wish on anyone.
 
DavidMartin said:
How many of you have had someone close to you murdered. Not many I doubt. I have, I would bring it back tomorrow. The suffering we went through especially my mum I would not wish on anyone.
Click to expand...

That sounds very unpleasant, and I'm very sorry to hear this :(
 
DavidMartin said:
How many of you have had someone close to you murdered. Not many I doubt. I have, I would bring it back tomorrow. The suffering we went through especially my mum I would not wish on anyone.
Click to expand...

Except the relations of the murderer, of course. Then it's entirely justified that they should suffer the same loss in the name of vengeance.

I'm sorry for your experience, I really am, but killing them is not the solution.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I'm sorry for your experience, I really am, but killing them is not the solution.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is maybe it isn't, but I wonder what the effect of the death penalty,
would have as a deterrent ?

I know there are "serial criminals" that re-offend time and again,
but according to some sources and reports, prison isn't really a deterrent
for the harden criminals, what ever their chosen path of crime is.
 
It's the trivial reasons that can make someone pull a trigger or use a knife. My mum's sister's boyfriend shot my nan all because she was against them getting married. Simple as that. Not only did we lose my nan tragically but the relationship between my mum and her sister,and the rest of the family, was damaged as well. She was actually babysitting my aunts children when it happened.
If not the death penalty then life in prison should mean life not the trivial sentences they hand out now.
 
I had an uncle murdered, disemboweled by a teenager who was sentenced to 15 years minimum due to the severity of the cirme, and absconded from prison for a week before recapture. The missus had an elderly relative that was killed for £26 by a junkie with previous for hitting old ladies, it was on Murder Squad on ITV. He got life at the Old Bailey. We both still don't believe in the death penalty though.

Europe has shown how to be progressive and share a core value on banning the death penalty. It's something to be applauded.
 
If life meant actually life, and I mean in a crappy prison and not one with an LCD tv etc...then fair enough, but far too many cold bloodied murderers are out too early.

Can anyone really justify why the likes of sutcliffe, Brady or Huntley ate still alive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top