Poll: DELETED_74993

[Hatter The Mad]

A 3-strikes rule would certainly be a deterrent to criminals, but it would also free up cash to provide proper rehabilition, drug treatment etc

Firstly, what evidence do you have that a three-strikes rule would be a deterrent?

Secondly, what makes you think putting people to death would save money vs. imprisonment?

 

[Jokester]

It's a fair argument that locking people up for decades or indeed full life terms is cruel but then again I'm not certain that you could suggest that execution is a more humane method of dealing with the issue - it seems to me that if you want to utilise the argument of cruel and unusual punishment that you've pretty much got to be against incarceration altogether.

Rehabilitation can work in many cases, the major issue with it is that to do it properly and effectively tends to cost quite significant amounts of money. This doesn't prove popular when the easiest alternative is simply to lock them away comparatively cheaply with "luxuries" such as PS3s to keep them occupied so they can while away their time with minimal trouble - getting people to really change their ways is neither cheap nor easy in vast majority of cases but it's worthwhile that we try and try properly. There will always be some people who are simply beyond changing their ways and that's unfortunate but I cannot agree that the death penalty is ever the way to go.

Locking people up, particularly repeat offenders is ultimately an admission of defeat, that they can't be rehabilitated, but I don't believe that's the case in the majority of cases. If we cut our losses with those who continue to repeat offend and then put the money saved into funding proper rehabilition to prevent those who can be rehabilitated from reoffending then we should be doing. As I said earlier on, I feel we pay lip service to rehabilitation and drug rehab in the UK as a means of preventing reoffending.

The problem is that we can't really ignore the US system, it's a legal system that is one of the closest to that of the UK in the World. If we were to ignore the ECHR and implement a death penalty then I'd suspect it's the route we're most likely to go down.

In no way would I advocate a death penalty for a single offence due to the issues with probability of guilt and where people have had convictions overturned at a later date. As such with a much higher purden of proof afforded by multiple convictions we would not require a death row situation where people facing a death sentence are kept in limbo for 10-20years which really is a cruel and degrading punishment.

If 3 strikes is a deterrent then has it had that effect in America? I haven't checked, I am just wondering if you know of any evidence to support this?

http://www.threestrikes.org/studies.html#FBI

Ok it's a pro 3-strikes site, but the stats will likely be sound. Looks like it had a fairly major impact on crime rate reduction in California.

 

[Jokester]

Firstly, what evidence do you have that a three-strikes rule would be a deterrent?

Secondly, what makes you think putting people to death would save money vs. imprisonment?

http://www.threestrikes.org/studies.html#FBI

50p a bullet v £20,000/year?

 

[Vonhelmet]

http://www.threestrikes.org/studies.html#FBI

50p a bullet v £20,000/year?

Appeals costs, etc?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

http://www.threestrikes.org/studies.html#FBI

Yeah, I'm aware of this site. It seems to be scant and offers unscientific material. A quick google will reveal an abundance of academic studies and papers that confirm an international consensus that it does not work as a deterrent.

Threestrikes.org at best identifies the deterrence relative to other high-crime states, in an anecdotal way. It doesn't stop people killing each other, it doesn't stop violent robbery or violent rapes - even in the capital punishment states, America has higher rates of these than we and most of Europe do.

50p a bullet v £20,000/year?

How naively simplistic! It isn't just 50p - there are vast legal costs involved in having someone appeal their death sentence. Once all appeal has been exhausted in the US, the total cost of putting someone to death is higher than imprisoning them for life. So, unless you want to deliver a non-exhaustive legal process to those sentenced to death, it won't be 50p.

 

[z3r0]

In favour. Locking people up for the rest of their life seems rather pointless IMHO, waste of money and time.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Locking people up, particularly repeat offenders is ultimately an admission of defeat, that they can't be rehabilitated, but I don't believe that's the case in the majority of cases. If we cut our losses with those who continue to repeat offend and then put the money saved into funding proper rehabilition to prevent those who can be rehabilitated from reoffending then we should be doing. As I said earlier on, I feel we pay lip service to rehabilitation and drug rehab in the UK as a means of preventing reoffending.

I agree that we don't do rehabilitation as well as we should right now but I don't think it's a good enough reason to abandon it, most studies I've ever seen suggest that rehabilitation is much more effective than anything else in reducing recidivism although it is inevitably not infallible.

In no way would I advocate a death penalty for a single offence due to the issues with probability of guilt and where people have had convictions overturned at a later date. As such with a much higher purden of proof afforded by multiple convictions we would not require a death row situation where people facing a death sentence are kept in limbo for 10-20years which really is a cruel and degrading punishment.

But multiple convictions doesn't demonstrate a higher burden of proof, it demonstrates that you've achieved the same level of proof multiple times. You can certainly argue that if you're convicted of a number of crimes the odds that you've committed a good proportion of them are higher but it doesn't alter the fundamental burden of proof. I could be wrong on this but I'd guess that you'd still need an appeals process because people on the third strike would want to challenge the last strike, which effectively means a death row exists.

http://www.threestrikes.org/studies.html#FBI

Ok it's a pro 3-strikes site, but the stats will likely be sound. Looks like it had a fairly major impact on crime rate reduction in California.

Thanks for the link, it's interesting so I decided to take a look at the figures behind it on the same site and I noted that Arkansas (looked at it because it's just above) showed a bigger decrease in crimes in half the categories than California did over the same time period - does that suggest that not having three strikes benefitted them? That's not entirely a serious question but it does make me consider whether there are wider social factors at work here, crime in general in America seems to have reduced over the same time period - while California may be impressive in this regard it's not entirely alone so I'd have to view the reduction in crime as hardly conclusive that it comes down to the three strikes rule alone.

Looking through some of the further pages suggests that California (and Arkansas) show higher drops than most but there's a fairly clear downward trend overall. If crime falls nationwide but maybe falls slightly more in one state then do you attribute it to a particular policy pursued or is it equally possible that it would have fallen as part of the nationwide drop anyway? And if you can grant the premise that it would likely have dropped regardless of policies pursued then you've got to question whether it might have fallen by a higher or lower amount than other states irrespective of a policy?

 

[cheets64]

Bring it back, did you see that programmer someone's daughters

A former ambulance worker who stabbed the mother of his child to death after she filed rape charges against him was yesterday *sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in jail.

Jonathan Vass, 30, killed his ex-girlfriend, A&E nurse Jane Clough, 26, in a frenzied knife attack in the car park of the hospital where she worked in July.

He had earlier been freed on bail after she had accused him of repeatedly raping her at their home while she was pregnant with his daughter.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Clough-hospital-car-park.html#ixzz1UFVylF3x

He has 99 year sentence with parole in 30 years, he will be 60, what life will he have when he comes out at 60? Just end it now, you shouldn't go around killing people, life for a life.

 

[Jokester]

How naively simplistic! It isn't just 50p - there are vast legal costs involved in having someone appeal their death sentence. Once all appeal has been exhausted in the US, the total cost of putting someone to death is higher than imprisoning them for life. So, unless you want to deliver a non-exhaustive legal process to those sentenced to death, it won't be 50p.

But multiple convictions doesn't demonstrate a higher burden of proof, it demonstrates that you've achieved the same level of proof multiple times. You can certainly argue that if you're convicted of a number of crimes the odds that you've committed a good proportion of them are higher but it doesn't alter the fundamental burden of proof. I could be wrong on this but I'd guess that you'd still need an appeals process because people on the third strike would want to challenge the last strike, which effectively means a death row exists.

It does actually, say that for a conviction you have to achieve beyond reasonable doubt. There is a small chance that they are in fact innocent, for arguements sake 1 in a 100,000. If they've been found guilty of 3 seperate crimes, the odds that they were in fact innocent of all three is 1 in 1 000,000,000,000,000 (1 in a quadrillion). Such a mind boggling high standard of proof would have been achieved of someones overall criminality that an appeal would be a waste of time.

Thanks for the link, it's interesting so I decided to take a look at the figures behind it on the same site and I noted that Arkansas (looked at it because it's just above) showed a bigger decrease in crimes in half the categories than California did over the same time period - does that suggest that not having three strikes benefitted them? That's not entirely a serious question but it does make me consider whether there are wider social factors at work here, crime in general in America seems to have reduced over the same time period - while California may be impressive in this regard it's not entirely alone so I'd have to view the reduction in crime as hardly conclusive that it comes down to the three strikes rule alone.

Looking through some of the further pages suggests that California (and Arkansas) show higher drops than most but there's a fairly clear downward trend overall. If crime falls nationwide but maybe falls slightly more in one state then do you attribute it to a particular policy pursued or is it equally possible that it would have fallen as part of the nationwide drop anyway? And if you can grant the premise that it would likely have dropped regardless of policies pursued then you've got to question whether it might have fallen by a higher or lower amount than other states irrespective of a policy?

I think it's more than coincidence that California experienced the biggest drop in crime overall of all the US states in the 5years since they implemented a 3 strike rule.

Yeah, I'm aware of this site. It seems to be scant and offers unscientific material. A quick google will reveal an abundance of academic studies and papers that confirm an international consensus that it does not work as a deterrent.

Threestrikes.org at best identifies the deterrence relative to other high-crime states, in an anecdotal way. It doesn't stop people killing each other, it doesn't stop violent robbery or violent rapes - even in the capital punishment states, America has higher rates of these than we and most of Europe do.

The deterrence effect of the death penalty in the US is not really applicable though as it's only brought against individuals for a single extremely serious crime. People don't generally kill people thinking they will go to prison for it. But after already serving 2 prison sentences, it will have a much bigger deterrent effect on whether someone will be willing to break the law again as prison will no longer be viewed as an occupational hazard but a very real consequence of law breaking.

 

[TFC]

If it is intended for the worst repeat offenders - murderers, rapists, child molesters who will never be rehabilitated and will always be a danger to society I'm all for it.

And there is no doubt at all about the guilt of the offender

 

[LoGaN_TnT]

If you take a human life on planet earth you should lose your right for a life on earth it really is as simple as that well it should be.

 

[semi-pro waster]

It does actually, say that for a conviction you have to achieve beyond reasonable doubt. There is a small chance that they are in fact innocent, for arguements sake 1 in a 100,000. If they've been found guilty of 3 seperate crimes, the odds that they were in fact innocent of all three is 1 in 1 000,000,000,000,000 (1 in a quadrillion). Such a mind boggling high standard of proof would have been achieved of someones overall criminality that an appeal would be a waste of time.

But our legal system isn't designed to take account of cumulative guilt in determining a case, it matters somewhat for sentencing but for each instant case it's irrelevant when determining guilt or innocence. You are putting in an interpretation that we can add them together to create a much higher likelihood of guilt or innocence. I appreciate that the likelihood of someone being innocent of all three is exceedingly high but the odds they are innocent of any single one is still the same - if you intend to count on all convictions equally then you've got to be able to show that each individual case is of the same standard at which point what you've done is prove to the same standard multiple times.

I think it's more than coincidence that California experienced the biggest drop in crime overall of all the US states in the 5years since they implemented a 3 strike rule.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, I'm inclined to look at the overall drops across the whole nation and wonder what causes this downward trend as I think it would be a stretch to point to California's three strikes and say it influences the whole country. It may be that California's drops are indicative of the policy working and then again it might be that they would have dropped by similar amounts anyway, especially when other states show equal or greater drops in certain areas.

 

[Jokester]

But our legal system isn't designed to take account of cumulative guilt in determining a case, it matters somewhat for sentencing but for each instant case it's irrelevant when determining guilt or innocence. You are putting in an interpretation that we can add them together to create a much higher likelihood of guilt or innocence. I appreciate that the likelihood of someone being innocent of all three is exceedingly high but the odds they are innocent of any single one is still the same - if you intend to count on all convictions equally then you've got to be able to show that each individual case is of the same standard at which point what you've done is prove to the same standard multiple times.

But that's the point, you've proven someone guily of independent crimes multiple times, so it becomes improbable that you're putting someone innocent to the gallows, even if they were innocent of one of them.

I mean it doesn't even need to be 3 offences it could be 4 or 5 just 3 strikes is a catchy title, but once you reach 3 or more the odds of killing someone innocent become so astronomical that it's become implausible.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

The courts can make a mistake. You can revert prison somehwhat, you cant revert death.

They don't admit when they make a mistake. I say bring back CP, if you do wrong you don't deserve to be here. i.e murder.

 

[JBod]

I say bring back the death penalty only if there is way to be 100% convinced someone is guilty. And then they are terminated extremely quickly (in the court room it self... Guilty! Zap!).

 

[V4NT0M]

I'm really not bothered either way.

 

[Nitefly]

I'm shocked that so many people are in favour of corporal punishment o_O

 

[Nymins]

I'm shocked that so many people are in favour of corporal punishment o_O

Same. Its making me quite ill.

 

[Dr House]

I signed this one also
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3901

The country is doing quite well, the people there are generally quite anti west, they have a space program, nuclear weapons huge army and 10% GDP grown with massive cash reserves.

I don't see what we should be handing over aid, especially considering they don't offer us any military support.

 

[TheGamingGeneral]

I would be for the death penalty in extreme circumstances however, as said, the very threat that you could get it wrong, and execute the wrong man/woman ends it as far as I am concerned.

An eye for an eye though might put the fear into some people though and deter them from certainly acts, i.e rapist/paedo, having there bits cut off. Same problem as before actually but still.......