Poll: Death Penalty - Yay or Nay

Should the death penalty be reinstated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 321 42.6%
  • No

    Votes: 432 57.4%

  • Total voters
    753
Soldato
Joined
23 Jul 2009
Posts
14,083
Location
Bath
It's not changing the country it's just disposing of the most sickest people on this planet that don't deserve to be alive.

As long as it's watertight 100%.

We do it to animals all the time, if a dog kills a baby it's put down. In fact I would class the "humans" that commit those crimes worse than dogs, because dogs don't have the intellect nor ability to think as us.

For a human to torture a human for days, rape and then kill them shows they lack any morality at all. Times like that when middle eastern justice should be enacted.

People are too soft now, bunch of ******* "oooh don't hurt the feelings of murderers they should be given a second chance, let's hug them to make them feel better and release them back into the community " :rolleyes:

Oh man, I squish flies that get in my house because they irritate me. Should we use that as a basis to decide who deserves to live? Yes, that is as ridiculous as your point was.

Capital punishment is not a punishment with a rational argument behind it. It is an emotional response to something abhorrent, and I still assert that it offers nothing of real value.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
8,332
No rational person could justify the killing of innocent people, but the fact that innocent people are killed is just an unpalatable fact of life. People are not perfect and act on intelligence and when that intelligence in flawed, innocent people get killed. But to not have the deterrent of lethal force when dealing with criminals or terrorists would be a mistake.

So your saying not having a deterrant of lethal force against criminals is a mistake, which is what the death penalty is no? The threat of lethal force for performing a criminal action of sufficient magnitude?

And killing innocents as an unpalettable fact of life would also be part of the death penalty.

Do you see where i'm coming from?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
After talking to a bloke in a pub I've changed my stance on capital punishment but only if low life scum have to do LIFE and put in solitary. Since they don't value life they can look at bare walls for the rest of their lives and the only contact they have is with the guard who brings their 1 meal a day.
At least I've moved on this and I can't see any no voters disagreeing with me on this.


Oh no, that child killer still deserves to be treated like a human being and given a chance of rehabilitation shout the crowd
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2006
Posts
16,005
Location
In The Sea Of Leveraged Liquidity
People are too soft now, bunch of ******* "oooh don't hurt the feelings of murderers they should be given a second chance, let's hug them to make them feel better and release them back into the community " :rolleyes:

People who don't believe in capital punishment don't think like that though, you're getting emotionally involved. I think anyone who does something horrendous like torture & murder deserves to be locked up for life with an occasional meal thrown at them every other week. A government has to be seen as progressing society though, state sanctioned killing has a whiff of hunger games about it, no?
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
Indeed. I think the effectiveness of executions as a deterrent is clearly in-effective.

It isn't "Clearly infective" at all.

All you can say is that it didn't deter the people who were not deterred.

You cannot really know how many people were deterred who might not otherwise have been.

The trouble is the deterrence/no-deterrence thing cant be tested because we do not have a control experiment.

What we do know is that in the 1950's, even violent youth conflicts (Mods/Rockers) were carried out with great care so as not to actually risk killing anybody, (one presumes because of the threat of the gallows)

Similar conflicts today result in people being seriously injured and killed as a matter of routine.

And that is just one example as to how things have changed over the last 50 years or so. Post-Noose as it were.

While it is almost impossible to put meaningful numbers to it, the inference is clear.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
27 Dec 2011
Posts
10,821
Location
Darlington
It isn't "Clearly infective" at all.

All you can say is that it didn't deter the people who were not deterred.

You cannot really know how many people were deterred who might not otherwise have been.

When I said in-effective I meant for certain people, I should have been clearer, my bad.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
When I said in-effective I meant for certain people, I should have been clearer, my bad.

Ok :)

But this is the point on the pro side.

It isn't the irredeemably undeterrable that we are concerned about, they will always be with us whatever we do.

It is the others, the ones that might be deterred that we are concerned about.

And the fact that a lack of the ultimate penalty means that people in this category take a more casual attitude towards committing violent crimes today than they might have done 50 years ago.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2005
Posts
23,976
Location
In the middle
That we can make the scum suffer more by keeping them alive until they die.
No human contact, no TV or games consoles, just a bed, toilet and four walls & a door to look at.
I think that would be way worse than death.

Isn't that pretty much the American Supermax system? Yeah, I'd rather be executed than spend my life there, so good call.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 May 2011
Posts
11,868
Location
Woking
If we're looking to punish people, then death is undoubtedly the easiest way out, because they won't even know that they're dead. There's no cost to them except in the lead up to the execution.

I'm all for long term imprisonment. Loss of liberty I think is suitable for the most heinous crimes.

Having said that, personally I don't think revenge/retribution is a good idea at all, and I'm all for rehabilitation, but loss of liberty is potentially too big a punishment.

Rambling here...
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
8,332
If we're looking to punish people, then death is undoubtedly the easiest way out, because they won't even know that they're dead. There's no cost to them except in the lead up to the execution.

I'm all for long term imprisonment. Loss of liberty I think is suitable for the most heinous crimes.

Having said that, personally I don't think revenge/retribution is a good idea at all, and I'm all for rehabilitation, but loss of liberty is potentially too big a punishment.

Rambling here...

Rehabilitation is a noble cause, shame it doesnt seem to be that easily translated into practice.

As i saw someone post on here before, how do you rehabilitate a drug dealer to think doing janitor work for minimum wage is a good thing when he was making thousands a week dealing drugs?

And ofc there's the permanently un-changable, the bronson's of this world who simply cannot function in a civilised society, the death penalty isnt so much a punishment in that case as a way of freeing up a bunk for the next crazed killer.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
Rehabilitation is a noble cause, shame it doesnt seem to be that easily translated into practice.

As i saw someone post on here before, how do you rehabilitate a drug dealer to think doing janitor work for minimum wage is a good thing when he was making thousands a week dealing drugs?

And ofc there's the permanently un-changable, the bronson's of this world who simply cannot function in a civilised society, the death penalty isnt so much a punishment in that case as a way of freeing up a bunk for the next crazed killer.

however all you said is just rubbish. yeah its hard when you focus on revenge and punishment, and moving towards a more American system like so many here would like, would make it worse.
however we do not what works and why.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

and this is another case of why public absolutely should be ignored, all you and everyone else like you thinks, actually create more crime and suffering, way to go with your backward thinking intolerance.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
8,332
however all you said is just rubbish. yeah its hard when you focus on revenge and punishment, and moving towards a more American system like so many here would like, would make it worse.
however we do not what works and why.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

and this is another case of why public absolutely should be ignored, all you and everyone else like you thinks, actually create more crime and suffering, way to go with your backward thinking intolerance.

Well, somewhere in that rant is a good point, however how come if the norwegians can manage it does it seem our own justice system is so incapable?

Do you suggest we just take their system wholesale? Not 100℅ sure how that'll mesh with cultural attitudes here.

You dont nessecarily need to be quite so insulting btw ;)
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent

A little bit of sick came in my mouth

"That's why Norwegian extremist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bombing and mass shooting, was only sentenced to 21 years. Most of the outrage and incredulity over that sentence, however, came from the US. Overall, Norwegians, even some parents who lost children in the attack, seemed satisfied with the sentence"


Talk about a nation being brainwashed.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
because are legal system doesn't focus on rehabilitation.

and yes to start with its a fine starting place, however it can still be further improved. there's a huge body of scientific work on these areas.

not sure how its insulting pointing out that such backwards misinformed opinions are causing suffering and increased crime.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,634
A little bit of sick came in my mouth

"That's why Norwegian extremist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bombing and mass shooting, was only sentenced to 21 years. Most of the outrage and incredulity over that sentence, however, came from the US. Overall, Norwegians, even some parents who lost children in the attack, seemed satisfied with the sentence"


Talk about a nation being brainwashed.

selective quoting, why wouldn't you be satisfied with the sentence. he can and likely will be detained for life.

rather than you being backwards and ill informed. I no who I would rather want in charge of legal system and its not you. everything you say goes against evidence.
 
Back
Top Bottom