Is it time for the death penalty?

[boyfalldown]

I really wouldn't compare the average Swiss with the average Yank though ... comparisons again.

 

[big soft moose]

Switzerland has very high gun ownership levels. Nearly that of the US fact, but nothing like the homicide rate, in fact the homicide rate compares to the UK (all per capita)

yes but aren't the swiss procedures for vetting gun owners much stricter than in the states - you can't just wander into a shop and buy whatever you like there and then

 

[Laudrup]

that I'm afraid is absolute garbage - administering the death penalty hardly costs anything at all - its all bleeding heart inspired repeated appeal process thats expensive - however even that isnt as expensive as keeping someone in prison for 50 or 60 years

(it may not be quite as clear cut as to whether it is cheaper than keeping in for 5 yeasrs then releasing him on a badly supervised parole - but only if you don't count the costs of subsequent reoffending and reaprehension)

You could administer the death penalty far more cheaply - trial, one apeal, one plea for clemency - bullet in the head (or long drop hanging , guilotine, lethal injection , gas chamber - etc) over in less than 6 months from conviction

You can argue with The Economist if you like:

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

 

[Laudrup]

Chain gangs, hard labour etc - Alabamba have the right idea IMO

plus basic amenities only - bed, toilet and thats it no tvs, computer, xbox, sports facilities etc - if they want extras they have to earn the money to pay for them working 40 hours a week doing nasty ****** manual work like road ganging, and shovelling crap out of ditches

Some 35 percent of the 10,880 state inmates who got out of prison in Alabama in 2004 returned within 3 years, a rate that was virtually unchanged from the 3-year period between 1999 and 2002, according to a study released Tuesday.

Almost as if breaking rocks and digging ditches wasn't very helpful for them reentering society.

 

[Garry Edwards]

yes but aren't the swiss procedures for vetting gun owners much stricter than in the states - you can't just wander into a shop and buy whatever you like there and then

It varies tremendously from one state to another, in some states they are literally available to almost everyone, in others they are available to nobody.

I don't know about the Swiss vetting procedures, but as I understand it every man aged under 50 is an army reservist and has an assault rifle in his home - shouldn't think that there's a lot of vetting going on there...

At the end of the day, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[gramps]

You can argue with The Economist if you like:

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

But surely that's the point the article is making the existing way is too expensive.

 

[Laudrup]

Given how heavily armed he was i'm quite suprised the police didnt take the oportunity to exercise a little CP of their own and just shoot him on the spot - with that much weaponry on the scene it would have come out as a righteous shoot.

That aside this a a great example of what i was saying about apeals - there is no doubt at all that they have the right man , and the only question is whether he's fit to plead. If its established that he is , trial and conviction are pretty much a foregone conclusion and appeals a waste of everryones time .. just take him out back and nine him to the head.

You can't just take him out and 'nine him to the head' though, even parts of China have evolved past that. You wouldn't find the appeal being a waste of time if you asked the accused or their lawyer. What if you had a terrible lawyer or defence? It's not a pick and choose what steps you want to follow.

 

[Laudrup]

But surely that's the point the article is making the existing way is too expensive.

The chemical brew for injection and a stainless steel needle has never been a major concern to the budget. You will still have trials costing millions, appeals, segregation and observation of death row inmates that doesn't change. Then an appeal will be lodged, the original lawyers sacked and new ones brought in and it all starts over again. You could execute people on death row after 6 months, but then you'll have to pay out a lot of compensation to the families of the people you executed wrongly.

Life in jail is a better option.

 

[boyfalldown]

yes but aren't the swiss procedures for vetting gun owners much stricter than in the states - you can't just wander into a shop and buy whatever you like there and then

they are very different. But the point is that you can't say the high level of violent crime is because of the high level of gun ownership. You can't wonder freely into a shop in the US either though. There is some vetting. (allegedly)

 

[cambsno]

Looking at people like Huntley, or had they lived the likes of raul moat or the taxi driver in Cumbria who went on the rampage, is there any justification for NOT having the death penalty. 100% guilty, evil people and will or should never be released. I certainly see no benefit to keeping them alive?

 

[Reidy36]

Can you explain how you would achieve this?

Regards.

It would help if the prison system was one that people don't want to spend another day in.
When you look at how some of the prisons in the US are run, you can see why people don't want to go back in. Hard manual labour, chain gangs.
Make the prisoners over here do things like that, put something back into society, after all it's the tax payer who is paying.
I know a few will be shocked, but they are not on holiday, while they are inside make them work.

 

[ding76uk]

I wonder how much the murder by guns statistics vary in states where they have abolished the DP.

Usually lower.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

A better correlation is to look at the amount of poor, uneducated (also black) people living in poverty and the murder rate. To me that seems it would be a more telling statistic.

 

[pepi1967]

It would help if the prison system was one that people don't want to spend another day in.
When you look at how some of the prisons in the US are run, you can see why people don't want to go back in. Hard manual labour, chain gangs.
Make the prisoners over here do things like that, put something back into society, after all it's the tax payer who is paying.
I know a few will be shocked, but they are not on holiday, while they are inside make them work.

I would take a look at this first you may change your mind on that

 

[ding76uk]

Looking at people like Huntley, or had they lived the likes of raul moat or the taxi driver in Cumbria who went on the rampage, is there any justification for NOT having the death penalty. 100% guilty, evil people and will or should never be released. I certainly see no benefit to keeping them alive?

Evil or mentally ill? The brain is a wonderful machine, but one that when it goes bang can make normal people do the most evil things.

 

[srichards]

Evil or mentally ill? The brain is a wonderful machine, but one that when it goes bang can make normal people do the most evil things.

It doesn't even need to go bang. You can make ordinary people do all sorts of things if you manipulate the situation they're in.

I've just read 'Rip it up' by Richard Wiseman. It is full of many studies showing how easily you can change behaviour and make normal ordinary people do vicious things like give fatal electric shocks or get two groups of normal kids to start attacking one another over territory.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Usually lower.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Thanks . Clearly lower, by quite a margin.

For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3

A better correlation is to look at the amount of poor, uneducated (also black) people living in poverty and the murder rate. To me that seems it would be a more telling statistic.

I'm not sure I'm getting this. Are you suggesting the DP still exists mainly in sates that have the poorest people?...which matches with the highest murder rates.

 

[Headless Lois]

Looking at people like Huntley, or had they lived the likes of raul moat or the taxi driver in Cumbria who went on the rampage, is there any justification for NOT having the death penalty. 100% guilty, evil people and will or should never be released. I certainly see no benefit to keeping them alive?

Thing is, we can't have degrees of guilt in the legal system, can we? You can't say 'those people were definitely guilty, so we'll have the death penalty for them. However, this other set of people, who just happen to have been FOUND guilty, well we won't for them, just in case, because they are only mostly guilty, not, like, definitely'

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Thing is, we can't have degrees of guilt in the legal system, can we? You can't say 'those people were definitely guilty, so we'll have the death penalty for them. However, this other set of people, who just happen to have been FOUND guilty, well we won't for them, just in case, because they are only mostly guilty, not, like, definitely'

Up here we have the "not proven" verdict, which essentially means "we know you did it, we just can't prove it", which is one of the reasons the Americans were so against the Lockerbie bomber trial being held under Scots' Law, as there was a fairly good chance that was the verdict which would be handed down.

 

[big soft moose]

Thanks . Clearly lower, by quite a margin.

For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3

.

thing is your assumption is that the DP causes a higher murder rate - it could also be that those states are inherently more violent areas and therefore the legislators are more inclined to have the death penalty

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

thing is your assumption is that the DP causes a higher murder rate - it could also be that those states are inherently more violent areas and therefore the legislators are more inclined to have the death penalty

Could be, if the legislators where of a contrary view to me that is, .... I think this is what Ding is suggesting.

 

[big soft moose]

You can't just take him out and 'nine him to the head' though, even parts of China have evolved past that. You wouldn't find the appeal being a waste of time if you asked the accused or their lawyer. What if you had a terrible lawyer or defence? It's not a pick and choose what steps you want to follow.

yeah but he's guilty - he did it, loads of people saw him do it, he's admmited it and he was arrested at the scene in possesion of the guns that killed those people , with nitrate residue on his hands. Theres probably even video of him doing it.

So what defence can possibly be given - its not like he can plead self defence or something

and what's the point of an appeal ?

IMO an appeal should only be allowed if there is fundamental new evidence that could change the verdict - otherwise its just a waste of time for everyone (except the lawyers who do rather well out of it)

Take the **** out and shoot him , job done - moving to a situation where bleeding heart liberals worry about the rights of someone who thinks its perfectly okay to gun down a bunch of inocent people , is IMO not a step forwards

 

[posiview]

Take the **** out and shoot him , job done - moving to a situation where bleeding heart liberals worry about the rights of someone who thinks its perfectly okay to gun down a bunch of inocent people , is IMO not a step forwards

I found some friend for you. NSFW. Clicky linky

 

[big soft moose]

I'd take exception to that , except I really can't be bothered to expend the energy

if you can't see the difference between executing a man provably guilty of mass murder, executing a woman guilty of sweet FA except for two men fancying her, then you really need a reality check

 

[Laudrup]

Diminished capacity Holmes could plead most probably, but who knows. It's certainly not considered normal behaviour to dress up as the Joker and go and shoot people in a cinema. If that fails you'd appeal, sack your 'incompetent' legal team and hire another.

Taking people out and shooting them just won't happen. Imagine trying to get that through Parliament or the EU. It's really not worth it morally or financially to get revenge.

 

[posiview]

I'd take exception to that , except I really can't be bothered to expend the energy

if you can't see the difference between executing a man provably guilty of mass murder, executing a woman guilty of sweet FA except for two men fancying her, then you really need a reality check

Of course I can see the difference I posted it for dramatic effect; but there are countries where justice is far too swift and convenient for me.

 

[big soft moose]

Diminished capacity Holmes could plead most probably, but who knows. It's certainly not considered normal behaviour to dress up as the Joker and go and shoot people in a cinema. If that fails you'd appeal, sack your 'incompetent' legal team and hire another.

Taking people out and shooting them just won't happen. Imagine trying to get that through Parliament or the EU. It's really not worth it morally or financially to get revenge.

The trouble with diminished capacity with the offence itself being evidence of the person being unfit, is that its a sliipery slope - it could equally be argued that the commision of any crime is not normal behaviour , and therefore pretty soon no one is responsible for anything

The other problem with deciding that criminals are mentally ill, is that sooner or later some pillock decides they are cured (or that the state can't afford to keep them so they can be 'cared for in the community') at which point they are released to reoffend

which is the point - its not about revenge, its about making sure they don't do anything like it again.

 

[Reidy36]

I would take a look at this first you may change your mind on that

But have you got one that shows a US state that doesn't have the death penalty as then you could say either way. Could also do with it having close to same population and same amount of unemployment etc.

 

[boyfalldown]

The trouble with diminished capacity with the offence itself being evidence of the person being unfit, is that its a sliipery slope - it could equally be argued that the commision of any crime is not normal behaviour , and therefore pretty soon no one is responsible for anything

The other problem with deciding that criminals are mentally ill, is that sooner or later some pillock decides they are cured (or that the state can't afford to keep them so they can be 'cared for in the community') at which point they are released to reoffend

which is the point - its not about revenge, its about making sure they don't do anything like it again.

if its simply about making sure they never do do it again, then keeping him locked away without access to firearms, teargas or joker costumes would have the same effect.(or for that matter allowing them a media mouthpiece)

If its punishment then surely he needs to understand (not saying he doesn't but if he's unfit to plead then how knows) that punishment, else it is vengeance

 

[big soft moose]

Except that as already discussed you can't keep him in complete solitary so some unfortunate person has to come into contact with him , thus giving him the opportunity to inflict harm on them.

come to that if he's nuts then he'll get locked up for good (or until some prat decides to let him out) and be a threat to the psychriatic nurses, doctors and other patients

Personally I don't have much truck with the bad or mad argument -my opinion is it should be commit mass murder face a firing squad - don't want to face execution , don't commit mass murder, simples.

(come to that war criminals who are quite frequently executed could be argued not to be quite right in the head either)

 

[ding76uk]

I'm not sure I'm getting this. Are you suggesting the DP still exists mainly in sates that have the poorest people?...which matches with the highest murder rates.

It is the fact that in the areas with the poorest people the crime rate is the highest. If you look at Michigan which held the title for years as the murder capital of America it is easy to see the real cause of crime. The proportion of those living in poverty, with no education and no futures would be a massive contributing factor. If you have nothing to lose then you are more likely to commit crime, get involved in substance abuse etc.

This is the point I raised earlier, which will I am sure get my shot down as a bleeding heart liberal by most (those who don't have me pinned already), but the key to reducing crime is not figuring a punishment for criminals and scare people into not committing crimes (the figures back this up). It is trying to find a way for people to be engaged in society and give them a reason to not need to commit crimes. Finding the best way to punish is like closing the stable door once the horse has bolted. The only way to reduce the crime figures as a whole (including murder) is to pull people out of poverty and give them a reason for living.

When you have nothing to live for and can see no future, drugs and criminal activity can have a VERY powerful pull to it.

 

[ding76uk]

Except that as already discussed you can't keep him in complete solitary so some unfortunate person has to come into contact with him , thus giving him the opportunity to inflict harm on them.

This point is an invalid argument though. You don't arrest them, take them to the gallows and drop them straight away. They spend a period in custody before and after the verdict. Who do you think is really more likely to attack staff? Those who will have privileged revoked, making their time harder until they earn it back, or the guy who is sentenced to death in a few months so has nothing to lose. To me, one of those people is far more dangerous.

 

[big soft moose]

if they are bonkers then it makes no difference either way

if they arent bonkers , then on the one hand you have to provide extra staff, restraint etc for a few months leading up to execution - on the other you have to provide it for 60 or so years - not hard to see where the greater risk lies

come to that you can keep them in total solitary confinement with meals passed in for a few months - but you can't do that for a whole life term (or indeed longer than about 5 years) as previously discussed

 

[Headless Lois]

It is the fact that in the areas with the poorest people the crime rate is the highest. If you look at Michigan which held the title for years as the murder capital of America it is easy to see the real cause of crime. The proportion of those living in poverty, with no education and no futures would be a massive contributing factor. If you have nothing to lose then you are more likely to commit crime, get involved in substance abuse etc.

This is the point I raised earlier, which will I am sure get my shot down as a bleeding heart liberal by most (those who don't have me pinned already), but the key to reducing crime is not figuring a punishment for criminals and scare people into not committing crimes (the figures back this up). It is trying to find a way for people to be engaged in society and give them a reason to not need to commit crimes. Finding the best way to punish is like closing the stable door once the horse has bolted. The only way to reduce the crime figures as a whole (including murder) is to pull people out of poverty and give them a reason for living.

When you have nothing to live for and can see no future, drugs and criminal activity can have a VERY powerful pull to it.

 

[gramps]

It is the fact that in the areas with the poorest people the crime rate is the highest. If you look at Michigan which held the title for years as the murder capital of America it is easy to see the real cause of crime. The proportion of those living in poverty, with no education and no futures would be a massive contributing factor. If you have nothing to lose then you are more likely to commit crime, get involved in substance abuse etc.

This is the point I raised earlier, which will I am sure get my shot down as a bleeding heart liberal by most (those who don't have me pinned already), but the key to reducing crime is not figuring a punishment for criminals and scare people into not committing crimes (the figures back this up). It is trying to find a way for people to be engaged in society and give them a reason to not need to commit crimes. Finding the best way to punish is like closing the stable door once the horse has bolted. The only way to reduce the crime figures as a whole (including murder) is to pull people out of poverty and give them a reason for living.

When you have nothing to live for and can see no future, drugs and criminal activity can have a VERY powerful pull to it.

Whilst I can listen to your argument in terms of crime in general (and yes I do think you are a bleeding heart liberal ) I am not sure that it is a valid one in respect to murder in the UK.

 

[Asha]

no never ever. We should introduce the American sentencing of 200-300 years or some other method of ensuring life means life in prison without possibility of parole.

There are no degrees of guilt, you're either guilty and you're punished or you're not guilty and you're not punished. You can't add degrees of guilt, such as an eye witness or not.

Atleast a prison sentence can be corrected if you find, however unlikely it may be, a wrong decision was made. A death sentence can't.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Whilst I can listen to your argument in terms of crime in general (and yes I do think you are a bleeding heart liberal ) I am not sure that it is a valid one in respect to murder in the UK.

Specifically, how isn't it relevant to the UK?

 

[gramps]

Chalk & cheese, they are not comparable samples IMO ... access to guns etc.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Chalk & cheese, they are not comparable samples IMO ... access to guns etc.

I think you missed his point. He was proposing the best way to address crime isn't through punishment and deterrent but through removing the poverty and lack of opportunity that is proven to be a driving force for many, but admittedly not all, to turn to crime. Now it doesn't matter whether you're in the UK, the US, or Timbuktu for that to remain true. In that sense, it's a cheese and cheese argument

 

[gramps]

But then I don't entirely agree, if poverty was the only or major reason for crime we wouldn't see so much crime amongst the middle class/richer members of society. I know the argument won't be popular with younger ones but generations coped with poverty without turning to gratuitous crime or murder.
That said, if we can agree what constitutes 'poverty', (I'm sure we won't), I will support working very hard to remove it.

 

[Splog]

But then I don't entirely agree, if poverty was the only or major reason for crime we wouldn't see so much crime amongst the middle class/richer members of society. I know the argument won't be popular with younger ones but generations coped with poverty without turning to gratuitous crime or murder.
That said, if we can agree what constitutes 'poverty', (I'm sure we won't), I will support working very hard to remove it.

I don't think it's about poverty.... it's about 'want' and greed.