Man of Honour
Apparently iit costs over £1,000,000 a year to protect Ian Huntley, I could think of much better things to spend that on. It's a complete waste of money.
Poll: Death Penalty - Yay or Nay
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
Apparently iit costs over £1,000,000 a year to protect Ian Huntley, I could think of much better things to spend that on. It's a complete waste of money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 5,952
I said Yes but understand both sides and the different aspects and have internal debates over it sometimes 
. I think today we are in a situation where we can know without a doubt that someone is guilty of a terrible crime, not always of course, but in some cases we are. There's also the smoking gun crimes, we all remember the two guys who cut off the soldier's head in broad daylight, right?
I think it should be reserved for very special circumstances.
It's difficult because it means ending a life and life is special and precious. However, one has to consider if the commiting of some crimes should be punishable be ending the life?
Although life is special, the world is also overcrowded. Many people die needlessly daily, including children starving. So, why should we maintain a life with money and food that is probably going to spend the rest of it jailed with no contribution to society or to the human race, and in fact,they may have already ended the life of others. Because life is special, it makes me think some don't deserve it, due to what they have done.
There's also the chance of course that people can change and turn the whole thing around to do real good for society
. And there's also the chance that mistakes will be made by the decision makers.
For those totally against the death penalty I wonder what they would do if in a situation where a relative could be killed by someone but you have the small opportunity to stop it, violently. Or if in a room with a terrorist with 10 other innocent people and you have this sharp knife in your pocket and the terrorist has their back to you....... If you think you'd act then surely you should be for the death penalty? Why 'after the fact' where they've survived the committing of the crime should they live?
. I think today we are in a situation where we can know without a doubt that someone is guilty of a terrible crime, not always of course, but in some cases we are. There's also the smoking gun crimes, we all remember the two guys who cut off the soldier's head in broad daylight, right?I think it should be reserved for very special circumstances.
It's difficult because it means ending a life and life is special and precious. However, one has to consider if the commiting of some crimes should be punishable be ending the life?
Although life is special, the world is also overcrowded. Many people die needlessly daily, including children starving. So, why should we maintain a life with money and food that is probably going to spend the rest of it jailed with no contribution to society or to the human race, and in fact,they may have already ended the life of others. Because life is special, it makes me think some don't deserve it, due to what they have done.
There's also the chance of course that people can change and turn the whole thing around to do real good for society
. And there's also the chance that mistakes will be made by the decision makers.For those totally against the death penalty I wonder what they would do if in a situation where a relative could be killed by someone but you have the small opportunity to stop it, violently. Or if in a room with a terrorist with 10 other innocent people and you have this sharp knife in your pocket and the terrorist has their back to you....... If you think you'd act then surely you should be for the death penalty? Why 'after the fact' where they've survived the committing of the crime should they live?
Last edited:
Man of Honour
You're gobsmacked because you're either unwilling or unable to differentiate between justice and vengeance.
Would I kill those men if I was the survivor and I had the chance to do so? I don't know, but I might well do so. I understand what revenge is.
Do I think that the entire legal system should be abandoned in favour of revenge? No. Absolutely not. That would make society much worse. If I were the survivor and I did kill them, I should be jailed for murder.
Since you're in favour of ditching a legal system in favour of vengeance, where would you draw the line and how would you justify doing so? You can't make any appeal to the idea of justice or a reasonable response, since you have rejected those ideas. Would you be OK with, for example, someone killing someone because that person drew an image of Mohammed? The killer undoubtably considers that to be justified revenge. On what basis could you disagree?
Associate
Self defense is in the moment and based on the situation. Capital punishment is always after the fact, sometimes decades after, and carried out in cold blood. The two are in no way comparable.
Man of Honour
I really don't give a stuff if it's justice, vengeance, revenge or whatever name you want to call it, the fact is that certain crimes don't deserve us to spend millions of pounds on the upkeep of 100% guilty scum when the money can be spent elsewhere.
People moan and moan about taxpayers money being wasted and this is a great example.
Posters hark on about how it's taken 100s of years to get our Justice system to where it is now, well to some of us it still isn't in the right place and needs to progress further.
There are extreme cases where there is 100% proof and I can't see a problem where the Judge sends them straight to sleep.
Permabanned
The UK justice system is rightly held as a model the world over, it was when we had the death penalty, and it is now we do not. All that has changed is a wave of liberal thinking is currently engulfing younger members of our society and they are unwilling to face unpalatable facts of life and probably honestly believe that the death penalty is abhorrent due to relatively recent trends in education that has made tolerance outweigh tough decisions, and sensitivity outweigh sensibility.
I reckon the way things are heading they may well be drafted and that should ensure a more balanced approach to those who commit obscene acts of violence towards others.
Soldato
Do you believe in torture then?
Permabanned
If it has the potential to obtain information that could lead to the saving of many innocent lives, it could be justified, yes. Examples, a terrorist is in custody and refuses to reveal where a time bomb is planted, or irrefutably has knowledge of a planned mass attack.
Conversely, if a terrorist is using human shields to provide cover in the act of an attack that would take many more people down, it might be justified to sacrifice a few for the many. Thankfully there are some on this forum that would not have to be tested on such decisions, as they would undoubtedly be founding wanting. This is why a country needs true Statesmen. Sadly, these days they are few and far between in UK government.
Conversely, if a terrorist is using human shields to provide cover in the act of an attack that would take many more people down, it might be justified to sacrifice a few for the many. Thankfully there are some on this forum that would not have to be tested on such decisions, as they would undoubtedly be founding wanting. This is why a country needs true Statesmen. Sadly, these days they are few and far between in UK government.
Man of Honour
You are wasting your time, unbelievably there are posters on here who would not infringe on their human rights and instead let the innocent get blown up.
What do you consider incarceration to be?
I hate the concept of imprisonment.
I consider all other options to be preferable (Even at a moral level)
I dislike fines too, the Law of the land should not be a mechanism for raising revenue! 
Associate
You do realise what a dangerous precedent this sets? If it has the potential to obtain information. This is pretty much the reason why people are tortured, and obviously the ones doing the torturing believe they can gain valuable information, but at the end of the day it's impossible to know what information the victim actually holds.
I see a lot of "if they are 100% guilty" or as you said "irrefutably has knowledge". These perfect cases don't or rarely exist in the real world.
To turn some of the pro camp's logic against them. What if it was your family member who was illegally detained and tortured. Would that change your minds? Or would you be fine knowing that it was all done because someone thought there was the potential to obtain information.
The death penalty was abolished for murder in Great Britain in 1965. The person who proposed the bill was born in 1895.
Permabanned
To paraphrase the great Lady Thatcher, this man's not for turning
Here's a salient and interesting point of view by one much closer to the Act than most of us are likely to get:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/son-last-man-hanged-britain-7080170
The son of the last man executed in Britain has called for the death penalty to be brought back in Britain.
Mark Price was three years old when his father Peter Allen , 21, and accomplice Gwynne Evans, 26, were hanged in August 1964 for murdering John West.
To paraphrase the great Lady Thatcher, this man's not for turning
Maybe not but you can't blame our current education system for the death penalty being abolished for murder. The MP who proposed the abolition bill was educated before the First a world War!
Man of Honour
Let me put this to you:
You and your family & friends are locked in the room with the bomber and his bomb that will kill & maim you all, there is 5 minutes to go and you need the code. You try different codes but none work but there is a slim hope if you torture the bomber he may give up the code - WHAT DO YOU DO?
Well obviously you would let everybody die because hey, you have morals.
Good game this.
Do you want to play tic tac toe?
Permabanned
I can, because the question posed by the original poster is "Should the death penalty be *REINSTATED*"
I blame liberal brain washing during modern education for the negative poll result 
I can, because the question posed by the original poster is "Should the death penalty be *REINSTATED*"
No doubt you base this argument on personal experience of the level of your dog breeding/eugenics anology?
Permabanned
No, experience of old friends with kids just left university, they went in quite well balanced, and came out with liberal agendas and a desire to pull up everyone from their parents down, with specious comments like "You can't say that these days", "Time has changed", "Everyone is equal", "They are misunderstood, poorly educated and in need of help". The parents despair, their potential employees despair, and those suffering their interminable whining despair.
I don't put wet opinions on crime and punishment on genetics, no, firmly on too easy a life and brainwashing from a shower of narrow minded teachers whose only real talent is finding the next reason to complain, protest or go on strike.
Fortunately I went to a school of repute at a time when it was made clear to us that we were NOT all equal, life was a bitch, money mattered, social standing mattered, political oppression in some parts was here to stay, and possibly a good thing, and if dealt a poor hand, hard work and the right attitudes could nonetheless allow us to achieve great things. Doing the wrong things could result in physical punishment, verbal belittling and social ostracising.
I suspect all that is totally at odds with what modern teachers enthral over.
They go into a place of higher learning and come out more learned and more tolerant? Oh the horror.