What about having to sit and stare at that Rylan bloke without being allowed to laugh, I reckon that's pretty much impossible.
Poll: Death Penalty - Yay or Nay
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
What about having to sit and stare at that Rylan bloke without being allowed to laugh, I reckon that's pretty much impossible.
Nah. keyboard warriors are your friends.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
I think with advancements in scientific evidence to support traditional evidence like CCTV, witness testimonies etc etc its very likely the conviction would be "safe" and generally the people who are getting found guilty of the most heinous crimes, the ones that the death penalty would most likely to apply to, are guilty as charged.
But there is always a risk of a miscarriage of justice and that's where this argument falls apart for me.
Also, if you look at the USA a lot of death row prisoners spend years and years waiting to meet their maker and I don't agree with that either.
If you're going to put somebody to death do it there and then, don't keep them waiting every day thinking each day may be there last for years on end. However, the way our justice system is set up, with the ability to appeal and have retrials etc, killing somebody immediately after a guilty verdict just isn't possible.
Then there is the method of killing, this country cant even decide on a way to kill livestock with 100% support so don't fancy the chances of one being agreed on for humans.
But there is always a risk of a miscarriage of justice and that's where this argument falls apart for me.
Also, if you look at the USA a lot of death row prisoners spend years and years waiting to meet their maker and I don't agree with that either.
If you're going to put somebody to death do it there and then, don't keep them waiting every day thinking each day may be there last for years on end. However, the way our justice system is set up, with the ability to appeal and have retrials etc, killing somebody immediately after a guilty verdict just isn't possible.
Then there is the method of killing, this country cant even decide on a way to kill livestock with 100% support so don't fancy the chances of one being agreed on for humans.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Not every decision needs to be evidenced based, some decisions are based on fundamental principles. But I am glad to see once again that the the real "fascists" in our society are the very people who blither on about human rights and such like.
I think it's ok in only the most grievous, unapologetic and clear-cut cases. Serial killers and mass murderers who show no remorse and have gone well beyond any hope for redemption as a human being.
In terms of method - it's not all that difficult. We have 'humane', lethal injections that are the same as used to euthanize critically ill patients painlessly and comfortably(in places where it is legal). Anybody who advocates for anything less humane is simply acting out of a reactive, emotionally-charged state that definitely shouldn't have any place in these sorts of discussions.
In terms of method - it's not all that difficult. We have 'humane', lethal injections that are the same as used to euthanize critically ill patients painlessly and comfortably(in places where it is legal). Anybody who advocates for anything less humane is simply acting out of a reactive, emotionally-charged state that definitely shouldn't have any place in these sorts of discussions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Hanging, firing squads and even the guillotine are all fairly humane. As long as it's quick and as painless as possible, it's fine by me.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Those principles are often predicated on a set of assumptions that evidence can show are false though.
Crime is a complex area that people think is simple. Many members here seem to think that people choose to be criminals and think logically when making that choice; weighing up the pros and cons. Life doesn't work like that.
Crime is also highly emotive and further causes people to miss what actually are the causes of many of these issues, rather than what is easy to explain and vilify.
None of these things are remotely 'humane'. They are spectacle.
And hanging is not quick or painless. Being shot is hardly a guaranteed kill, either. These things are barbaric, either way. Executions built to be seen by people to strike fear in the population to stay in line.
Last edited:
American states have had problems recently sourcing lethal injections. Drug companies don't want to have their names associated with executions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Then please provide evidence which shows the principle of retributive punishment is wrong.
At best you'll restate the same arguments that have been debated for thousands of years without conclusion. But go on.. show us your superior logic. The logic which is so perfect it negates any need for democracy.
Not entirely true...
Hanging, if done correctly, results in instant death from a broken neck.
Shooting when done correctly is also quick.
The guillotine is the controversial one as there are plenty of reports of people being conscious after the chop.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 1,763
- Location
- Hokkaido
For the people who want execution for the "worst of the worst". Where do you draw the line?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I can't prove it's wrong, that as you allude to is a moral choice but there is evidence to show it's not effective at preventing crime.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 1,763
- Location
- Hokkaido
As someone touched upon earlier, I assuming this is to do with the fact that a lot of murders etc are crimes of passion. The person isn't thinking straight and the rationale of "oh I might get executed for this" never enters their minds.
