Poll: Death Penalty - Yay or Nay

[Burnsy2023]

So if your partner and children were murdered (assuming you're married with kids) and the killer admits it in court, are you still going to bealtruistic enough to spare him/her from the gallows? Personally, I think I might go for death penalty. Four years ago my cousin was murdered in a very brutal way by her alcoholic scum bag partner. He got 12.5 years. 12.5 years for murdering a mother of two who was nothing but nice to everyone her whole life. My family are livid about this leniency but without capital punishment all we can do is await his release.

The criminal justice system shouldn't be about revenge.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Still no.

Not even that holds up though does it as there are plenty of cases that innocent people have confessed through coercion or mental illness/impairment

Well what I was trying to get at is whether the issue is the death penalty or the risk of killing someone who is innocent. I am guessing from H_L's reply, the issue is not whether someone is potentially innocent or not. BUT, for the sake of clarity:

Let's assume the person commits the crime in view of a crowd of hundreds, their is CCTV and DNA evidence and they confess. And the crime is utterly heinous. Would you then still object to the death penalty?

If the answer is yes, then why even bring up the issue of someone potentially being innocent?

 

[Freakbro]

So if your partner and children were murdered (assuming you're married with kids) and the killer admits it in court, are you still going to be altruistic enough to spare him/her from the gallows?

Some people not only do that but forgive the perpertrator.

Not sure I could that far myself, but I wouldn't wish the death penalty no

Personally, I think I might go for death penalty. Four years ago my cousin was murdered in a very brutal way by her alcoholic scum bag partner. He got 12.5 years. 12.5 years for murdering a mother of two who was nothing but nice to everyone her whole life. My family are livid about this leniency but without capital punishment all we can do is await his release.

Sorry to hear of that tragedy

 

[Sliver]

The criminal justice system shouldn't be about revenge.

I know it should be about justice. And justice is what the victims want and not what the general public who are safely removed from such horrors judge and form opinion.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Murder for murder, awesome!

 

[Junglist]

What about if they confess to the crime so there is no doubt of their guilt?

Many people have confessed to crimes they haven't committed.

There's times where I think people deserve to die but I can't say I'd be happy with us implementing capital punishment. To me the death penalty is nothing more than a legal revenge system.

"An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind" or something.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I know it should be about justice. And justice is what the victims want and not what the general public who are safely removed from such horrors judge and form opinion.

No justice isn't about what the victims want as a sentence, which is why a judge does sentencing.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

The criminal justice system shouldn't be about revenge.

1. Why should it not?
2. Assuming the sentence is handed down by an impartial judge based on the laws of the land, how can that be construed as revenge?
3. If the death penalty is "revenge" for a crime, then so is imprisonment.

 

[NoobCannon]

Why on earth was my post deleted for mentioning the guys name. Its in the damn article??

 

[LzR]

The criminal justice system shouldn't be about revenge.

I wouldn't consider someone wanting a fitting punishment to suit the crime as wanting revenge, I'd say they simply wanted justice. 12 years for murdering an innocent woman is not in my opinion, justice.

 

[EddScott]

So if your partner and children were murdered (assuming you're married with kids) and the killer admits it in court, are you still going to be altruistic enough to spare him/her from the gallows? Personally, I think I might go for death penalty. Four years ago my cousin was murdered in a very brutal way by her alcoholic scum bag partner. He got 12.5 years. 12.5 years for murdering a mother of two who was nothing but nice to everyone her whole life. My family are livid about this leniency but without capital punishment all we can do is await his release.

The problem is convictions aren't infallible. Convict someone, kill them, then discover they were innocent.

Although I appreciate when it's cut and dried the argument for is quite persuasive - the above case in particular.

 

[Sliver]

There's times where I think people deserve to die but I can't say I'd be happy with us implementing capital punishment. To me the death penalty is nothing more than a legal revenge system.

"An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind" or something.

Yeah this is a difficult topic, but even though I didn't vote Yay in this thread, I still believe there are exceptions to every rule. Osama Bin Lid being the most notable. Anders Breivik being another and of course my cousins scum bag murderer.

 

[Freakbro]

Let's assume the person commits the crime in view of a crowd of hundreds, their is CCTV and DNA evidence and they confess. And the crime is utterly heinous. Would you then still object to the death penalty?

Yes

Just in the same way I don't accept the 'ticking time bomb' scenario for justifying torture either.

Both are a little bit of fallacious arguments and the thin end of the wedge, as there will always be something not quite as certain, but 'I'm sure it's certain enough!'

Also, it actually comes down to a deeper philisophical debate of whether you think the judicial system is about punishment, rehabilitation, deterrance, or revenge (or what % of each)

And as much as many people have that gut feeling that harsh penalties are the best deterrent, the evidence seems to show otherwise.

 

[Johno please?]

I'm going to vote no in a minute. But consider the situation the US faced with Osama Bin Lid. They could have brought him back to stand trial, but they executed him. Now personally I thought that decision was justified. Some people need to despatched. But I agree, miscarriages of justice are terrible and a very strong argument for No.

Exactly, I voted yes but only for the most extreme clear cut cases.

Ans as much as many people have that gut feeling that harsh penalties are the best deterrent, the evidence seems to show otherwise.

I don't think the death penalty is a good deterrent, I think its a good punishment.

 

[edscdk]

Put a vote to the people each year, like a game show...

get 1000 Africans in desperate need to some vaccine / food and the convicted ?child killer?...

the convicted can tell their story, and the poor people tell you their story (might have to be edited highlights)

Then a phone in vote

1) release the convicted person (give the 50k to the poor people)
2) execute the convicted person (give the 50k to the poor people)
3) give £50k to the prison to keep the convicted for another year

there is only 1 lot of 50k so you cannot save the poor and keep the prisoner in prison

on the off chance the conviction was bad well, you saved more people that you executed (crap for the executed but you are still overall more people alive)

 

[deuse]

Hang them high.

Only lefties would say no.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Yes

Just in the same way I don't accept the 'ticking time bomb' scenario for justifying torture either.

Both are a little bit of fallacious arguments and the thin end of the wedge, as there will always be something not quite as certain, but 'I'm sure it's certain enough!'

Also, it actually comes down to a deeper philisophical debate of whether you think the judicial system is about punishment, rehabilitation, deterrance, or revenge (or what % of each)

And as much as many people have that gut feeling that harsh penalties are the best deterrent, the evidence seems to show otherwise.

I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrence, I believe it is justice. When the sentence is handed down by a fair an impartial court, it is not revenge. And I don't believe everyone is worth or capable of rehabilitation.

You say you'd not torture someone in order to save the lives of others. Fair enough, torture is not always effective so on the face of it, that's a fair argument. But, if that was really the only option left and you refused on some moral grounds, I would argue you are complicit in the deaths of everyone killed by that bomb.

As you might have guessed, I am (generally) something of a utilitarian.

 

[Nevakonaza]

I vote no.

Instead they should be put in prison until they die naturally.

 

[scorza]

Almost finished reading Starship Troopers, so voted yay because the Federation is my kind of universe. I think the biggest improvement to our society today however would be the re-introduction of corporal punishment.

 

[Junglist]

Yeah this is a difficult topic, but even though I didn't vote Yay in this thread, I still believe there are exceptions to every rule. Osama Bin Lid being the most notable. Anders Breivik being another and of course my cousins scum bag murderer.

I'm just not happy with it. I've heard stories of innocent people getting executed and not finding out until after their death that they were innocent. If it happened once it has already happened far more than it ever should've.

Obviously in the cases you said I understand it as they are sub-human but the silly liberal side of me can't agree with it.

My Uncle was shot dead buy some thieving scum in November 2013 - literally for no more than £1000 as he was moving cash from his bakery to the bank. Do I wish his killers dead? Not really, that wont bring my uncle back. However I'm certainly not strong enough to forgive them.