Poll: DELETED_74993

[pioneer2000]

Not necessarily. If they're not receiving the proper rehabilitation 'treatment', then they're not going to be rehabilitated.

But they are (aren't they...?).

There's little point blaming the system when these people clearly have no intention of ceasing their unacceptable behaviour.

 

[scorza]

It is sort of reassuring that the e-petition to not reinstate the death penalty currently has a greater number of signatures than the one asking for it to return.

While I agree with the petition I do find it quite ironic that if the petition to retain the abolishment of the death penalty gets more than 100k signatures, it will have to be debated in parliament. You can't debate retaining the ban on capital punishment without hearing the arguments for why it should be re-introduced - which was of course the point of the original petition.

In theory I guess it would be possible to debate the merits of retaining the ban on capital punishment and actually end up re-introducing the death penalty.

 

[agnes]

Why not send 16 year old yobs into the army again?

ags

 

[RDM]

Why not send 16 year old yobs into the army again?

ags

Because the army doesn't want them?

 

[ShortWarning]

Perhaps I'm just playing devils advocate here, I have done no research on the subject.

For everyone saying "the death penalty doesn't work, people still murder/rape in the States". If the death penalty was abolished is there not be a chance that murder/rape rates would rise?

I'm not sure you would know, either way (unless of course it actually was abolished).

 

[RDM]

Perhaps I'm just playing devils advocate here, I have done no research on the subject.

For everyone saying "the death penalty doesn't work, people still murder/rape in the States". If the death penalty was abolished would there not be a chance that murder/rape rates would rise?

I'm not sure you would know, either way (unless of course it actually was abolished).

You can't know for sure, however if you compare states with the death penalty and states without then the evidence doesn't seem to suggest that the death penalty makes any real difference.

 

[Glaucus]

So the UK will kill innocent babies who've never had a chance at life simply for having a cleft lip, but not someone who is guilty of murder, that would be against human rights

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6556815/Government-seeks-secrecy-on-cleft-palate-abortions.html

What a mad house.

never had q chance at life, you kind of pointed out the reason in your own question. A fetouse isn't a human, doesn't have self awareness. So yes you clan happily side with one and not the other.

 

[trigger-happy]

there is too much crime and the prisons are getting full. So maybe death penalty is good?

 

[Glaucus]

It stops people re-offending

So does life behind bars.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm torn..

FOR
- it would act as a (pretty damn good) discincentive
- cheaper to society
.

Wrong and wrong.

America has death penalty, are they put off? Do they have a lower series crime rate per capita than we have? Also cheaper, for death penalty you need a huge safety margin that requires many appeals in court which costs millions.

 

[Jokester]

Err with a 3 strike rule with a death penalty attached you're going to bankrupt the country not save it money, unless of course you're go into hack down the burden of proof and their legal rights like all the "kill them it's cheaper" lot claim, at which point **** it why bother with the three strikes you're executing dozens/hundreds of people why bother with the charade?

you're going to need to dump it further for the inevitable riots you'll spark and have massive problems dealing with because lots of your police officers will have quit let alone judges*.


quick test on this point burnesy and von smallhausen would you continue to work as police officers if the uk instituted a 3 strikes death penalty for any 3 custodial sentences.

The burden of proof will have already been achieved the previous two offences, 3rd offence, out the back and shot. The US system is so expensive because they make it so.

Can you name one individual, who, under UK law, has had 3 custodial convictions quashed for 3 separate crimes?

 

[jumpy]

wow what the hell has sharia law got to with it?? britian used to have capital punishment before labours propaganda on muslims you know....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom

Before you get all righteous on propaganda, it's called hyperbole - exaggeration for effect - if we bring back the death penalty (a massive retrograde step, in my opinion) we might as well institute something else as equally barbaric. Sharia being an example as it's is a current issue in some places, though I could just have easily have said papal authority (reference to monastic purges) or the spanish inquisition (no-one expects the spanish inquisition... )
Neither of those is anywhere near as contemporary, however.

Make sense now, does it?

Having lived in the middle east for a number of years I'm somewhat qualified in stating that sharia is a barbaric, backward and dehumanising practise. Much like the idea of the state killing its citizens = capital punishment is a barbaric, backward and dehumanising practice. So the association to make a point.

Honestly, everyone is sooo 'at face value' here, I despair of there being any subtlety or artifice of language left anymore.

 

[Kenai]

I genuinely despair that there are people among society who would seriously support a policy as stupid as 'three strikes = death'

You might as well go and live in the Middle East if you want that sort of 'justice' and punishment, at least that way we wouldn't need to drag the UK back into the dark ages

 

[Jokester]

I genuinely despair that there are people among society who would seriously support a policy as stupid as 'three strikes = death'

You might as well go and live in the Middle East if you want that sort of 'justice' and punishment, at least that way we wouldn't need to drag the UK back into the dark ages

So instead in these enlightened times we release criminals back into society to cause havoc to the lives of law abiding citizens and then waste resources on locking up for a bit more before releasing them again. I would rather have that money put towards rehabiliting people at first, but you can only treat them with good faith for so long.

 

[Tefal]

The burden of proof will have already been achieved the previous two offences, 3rd offence, out the back and shot. The US system is so expensive because they make it so.

Can you name one individual, who, under UK law, has had 3 custodial convictions quashed for 3 separate crimes?

no it won't be we've sent people to prison falsely before some times for decades, that's why you have to keep death row inmates alive for decades and let have so many appeals which have to be carried out under the highest specifications which costs millions per appeal.

it only takes 1 wrong conviction not all 3.

then you have to hold them, you can hold them like normal prisoners they'd ****ing tear the place apart as they have nothing to lose, the extra security is again very expensive.

what you're suggestions a hacked down system that will have many errors and mistrials and kill hundreds of people, the country would never stand for it and is no longer justice it'';s just a death squad hiding behind a pretence of a court.


after the first "shop lifter schedule for execution for stealing dvd" you'd be ****ed.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Pointless petition.

The Human Right's Act 1998 - in conjunction with the ECHR will never stand for it. The English legal system is supposed to be in a way that all laws are equal, contrary to the US where Federal law are above State Law and their Constitution above Federal law. But the Human Rights Act stands above all other legislation that it's powers stems from Europe.

So unless the UK abandon the Human Rights Act, which in turns leaves the ECC, it will never happen.

As much as I think those repeat offenders of rapist and murders should not walk the earth, the Death Penalty has no place in modern society.

 

[Astaroth]

Doesn't matter once Muslims are majority we will see much worse in our streets.

 

[Jokester]

no it won't be we've sent people to prison falsely before some times for decades, that's why you have to keep death row inmates alive for decades and let have so many appeals which have to be carried out under the highest specifications which costs millions per appeal.

it only takes 1 wrong conviction not all 3.

then you have to hold them, you can hold them like normal prisoners they'd ****ing tear the place apart as they have nothing to lose, the extra security is again very expensive.

what you're suggestions a hacked down system that will have many errors and mistrials and kill hundreds of people, the country would never stand for it and is no longer justice it'';s just a death squad hiding behind a pretence of a court.


after the first "shop lifter schedule for execution for stealing dvd" you'd be ****ed.

Even if one conviction is wrong, he's still been convicted twice... That is the check and balance, so that you don't need to go down the route of endless appeals in case the guy is innocent of the one crime he committed. As I said, how many people in the UK have had 3 convictions quashed?

And shoplifters rarely get sent to prison for a first offence so in effect they would get at least 4 goes.

 

[Jimbeam3678]

I admit skim read the thread so forgive me if its already been said. But surely if "life in prison" in this country meant life then this discussion would less likely be brought up.

I really do believe life is life in prison. No ifs or buts

 

[Nymins]

To take a quote from The Shawshank Redemption:

"They send you here for life, and that's exactly what they take. The part that counts anyway."