Should capital punishment be brought back?

[HangTime]

Let me offer an additional, different, perspective: not having the death penalty makes it safer for the police. Criminals know that they can safely surrender when caught. If the death penalty were still there they might decide that if they're going to die they might as well take as many people down with them.

I've dwelled on this a lot in the past. My gut feeling is punishment for crimes should be much tougher. But then I wonder about whether that encourages criminals to be more desperate.
Then I wonder if that should change my mind or not. Like, if we are too scared to punish criminals because it might encourage them to more violent crimes does that just iterate into a state where there is little deterrent for most crimes.

 

[Chris Wilson]

What on Earth are you waffling on about?

This is what I am waffling on about:

Germany considers ban on far-Right AfD​

Call to 'defend democracy' as party surges to 21pc in opinion polls

Germany is debating whether to ban the far-Right Alternative for Germany (AfD) as the party surges to 21 per cent in the polls, amid warnings from intelligence officials that its members are becoming increasingly extreme.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German president, warned in a speech to the country’s domestic intelligence agency that “we all have it in our hands to put those who despise our democracy in their place”.
His speech at the castle where the German post-war constitution was created has widely been seen as support for a ban after Thomas Haldenwang, the domestic spy chief, warned about growing Right-wing extremist influence in the party.
Mr Haldenwang said: “We see a considerable number of protagonists in this party that spread hate against all types of minorities here in Germany.”
It comes amid warnings of the increasing influence of Björn Höcke, the leader of the AfD in the eastern state of Thuringia.
Mr Höcke, a former history teacher, is known for his Hitler-esque language – with his allies sweeping the board for European lists at the party’s conference in Magdeburg in August.
In a rare move, the respected Der Spiegel news magazine weighed into the debate with a leader titled: “Ban the enemies of the constitution!”
It warned that “the AfD has become more and more radicalised. It’s time to defend democracy with better weapons”.
The co-leader of Olaf Scholz’s ruling Social Democrats also said a ban should be considered if the AfD is categorised as a group of “proven Right-wing extremists” by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
However Friedrich Merz, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union, warned that “banning parties has never actually solved political problems”.


It's something Germany has a history of doing. The thwarting of the democratic process there has historically had some rather nasty effects.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I've dwelled on this a lot in the past. My gut feeling is punishment for crimes should be much tougher. But then I wonder about whether that encourages criminals to be more desperate.
Then I wonder if that should change my mind or not. Like, if we are too scared to punish criminals because it might encourage them to more violent crimes does that just iterate into a state where there is little deterrent for most crimes.

Perhaps change your user name whilst you ponder your dilemma?

 

[GordyR]

This is what I am waffling on about:

*snipped waffle*

Thanks for that random and entirely unrelated interlude.

Now, back to the topic.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Thanks for that random and entirely unrelated interlude.

Now, back to the topic.

The topic is perfectly supported by asking reader's opinions on having a referendum on bringing back capital punishment, as well as diversifying into whether votes for parties holding views considered to be "extreme", (which demonstrably capital punishment appears to be just that to some in here), should be banned.

I think the interlude is perhaps more unpalatable to you, than unrelated.

 

[venomx]

I don't think it should be brought back because if someone is incorrectly killed for something they did not do or was set-up that would be terrible. There have been cases of deathrow in the USA where people who were completely innocent were killed.


It is easy to fall into the mindset that " If we had capital punishment, no one would commit crime ".. I would argue people with mental health issues would still be likely to commit crime if they were not in a healthy state of mind

 

[D.P.]

China? Japan? Singapore? South Korea? Taiwan?

Well China is not considered developed when the commit whole scale state murder.

I looked in to Japan and it seems they don't officially release such data because it is astronomically more than life in prison. So japanese researchers use American costs as a basis but indicate that Japanese costs will be considerably higher than American because they have an even more protracted legal process for the death penalty , with most on death row spending up to 30 years in legal battles, with someone even spending 46 years in legal challenges.

But really, the USA is by far the best comparison because their legal system is most closely matches the UKs, which like most of Europe come from the Roman legal process.



In any case, cost either way is utterly insignificant against the ethical, moral and societal implications of state sanctioned murder.

 

[GordyR]

The topic is perfectly supported by asking reader's opinions on having a referendum on bringing back capital punishment, as well as diversifying into whether votes for parties holding views considered to be "extreme", (which demonstrably capital punishment appears to be just that to some in here), should be banned.

I think the interlude is perhaps more unpalatable to you, than unrelated.

I think you should probably start a thread about this in speakers corner.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Well China is not considered developed when the commit whole scale state murder.

I looked in to Japan and it seems they don't officially release such data because it is astronomically more than life in prison. So japanese researchers use American costs as a basis but indicate that Japanese costs will be considerably higher than American because they have an even more protracted legal process for the death penalty , with most on death row spending up to 30 years in legal battles, with someone even spending 46 years in legal challenges.

But really, the USA is by far the best comparison because their legal system is most closely matches the UKs, which like most of Europe come from the Roman legal process.



In any case, cost either way is utterly insignificant against the ethical, moral and societal implications of state sanctioned murder.

There is no unified international definition for the classification of developing and developed countries among various international organizations at present, so your opinion statement is totally personal and arbitrary.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I think you should probably start a thread about this in speakers corner.

I'm banned from there as you know, I make uncomfortable comments to the overly sensitive, as the above demonstrates <LOL>

What exactly is "THIS"? Everything I've mentioned is related to punishment and our population's various takes on it in the UK, and more widely, how voting in Europe may be barred for parties holding unpopular to some opinions. Capital punishment certainly appears a contentious issue in here, and as such a party supporting it in the UK may be deemed "radical" and barred an opportunity to be elected, as seems to be currently a possibility in Germany.

If, to coin a phrase, it's too hot in the GD kitchen...

 

[Murphy]

... and more widely, how voting in Europe may be barred for parties holding unpopular to some opinions. ...

Yea, because political parties just hold unpopular opinions and they'll never have the ability to enact them.

 

[GordyR]

I'm banned from there as you know,

Actually I didn’t know, although it’s hardly surprising.

I make uncomfortable comments to the overly sensitive, as the above demonstrates <LOL>

Or, as I suspect is far more likely, you simply broke the forum rules and now feel a bit fragile and sore about it.

What exactly is "THIS"? Everything I've mentioned is related to punishment and our population's various takes on it in the UK, and more widely, how voting in Europe may be barred by parties holding unpopular to some opinions.

We’re supposed to be discussing capital punishment and you’re randomly copy & pasting unrelated articles about the German far-right.

This is odd, and frankly quite boring behaviour.

I wonder if it was these sorts of attempts to derail threads that led to your SC ban?

Anyway, back to the topic.

 

[D.P.]

There is no unified international definition for the classification of developing and developed countries among various international organizations at present, so your opinion statement is totally personal and arbitrary.

Actually, there are lots of definitions of developed vs developing, no personal opinion required at all. The UN, WTO, World Bank, etc. all have definitions .


I will tell you what is arbitrary, ignoring the cost of capital Punishment in the only country on the planet that is the most similar to the UK

 

[Efour]

I will tell you what is arbitrary, ignoring the cost of capital Punishment in the only country on the planet that is the most similar to the UK

Somalia?

 

[Werewolf]

I've dwelled on this a lot in the past. My gut feeling is punishment for crimes should be much tougher. But then I wonder about whether that encourages criminals to be more desperate.
Then I wonder if that should change my mind or not. Like, if we are too scared to punish criminals because it might encourage them to more violent crimes does that just iterate into a state where there is little deterrent for most crimes.

This is a large part of why I don't think it's a great idea.

America has it and it does little to stop murders, in part because their rate of solving murders is low and a lot of those that commit a planned murder are already living a lifestyle where they don't see the death penalty as any worse than what they deal with as a risk daily, and a lot of other murders are committed without a thought to the future or an expectation they'll get away wtih it.

What expanding it (which I keep seeing people suggest at various times) to things like rape does is actively incentivise the murder of the victim, as why leave a witness alive when the outcome is the same if you kill them or not and are caught, and you're far less likely to get caught if no one finds the victim, or the victim can't give evidence.

The best deterrent tends to be the one that costs the most and is hardest to do, that is to say actually catch a high percentage of the criminals and do it correctly and with enough evidence that you can get a conviction.
Unfortunately the idea of a proper investigation and a properly conducted trial seems to upset some who would like to "streamline" the process by basically cutting corners and removing the safeguards that are in place to help (hopefully) ensure you've got the right person. I always laugh when people talk about how "lefty lawyers" make things hard by pushing the police and courts to actually do their job properly and follow procedure correctly, and have the temerity to point out where there have been failings that could negate the evidence or case.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

This is what I am waffling on about:

Germany considers ban on far-Right AfD​

Call to 'defend democracy' as party surges to 21pc in opinion polls

Germany is debating whether to ban the far-Right Alternative for Germany (AfD) as the party surges to 21 per cent in the polls, amid warnings from intelligence officials that its members are becoming increasingly extreme.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German president, warned in a speech to the country’s domestic intelligence agency that “we all have it in our hands to put those who despise our democracy in their place”.
His speech at the castle where the German post-war constitution was created has widely been seen as support for a ban after Thomas Haldenwang, the domestic spy chief, warned about growing Right-wing extremist influence in the party.
Mr Haldenwang said: “We see a considerable number of protagonists in this party that spread hate against all types of minorities here in Germany.”
It comes amid warnings of the increasing influence of Björn Höcke, the leader of the AfD in the eastern state of Thuringia.
Mr Höcke, a former history teacher, is known for his Hitler-esque language – with his allies sweeping the board for European lists at the party’s conference in Magdeburg in August.
In a rare move, the respected Der Spiegel news magazine weighed into the debate with a leader titled: “Ban the enemies of the constitution!”
It warned that “the AfD has become more and more radicalised. It’s time to defend democracy with better weapons”.
The co-leader of Olaf Scholz’s ruling Social Democrats also said a ban should be considered if the AfD is categorised as a group of “proven Right-wing extremists” by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
However Friedrich Merz, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union, warned that “banning parties has never actually solved political problems”.


It's something Germany has a history of doing. The thwarting of the democratic process there has historically had some rather nasty effects.

I'm a little rusty when it comes to history, but wasn't the silencing of political opponents the exact thing that lead to Hitler getting into power to start with.

 

[Diddums]

I'm a little rusty when it comes to history, but wasn't the silencing of political opponents the exact thing that lead to Hitler getting into power to start with.

If you haven't cottoned on to Chris Wilson's political leaning, he's basically Cartman Hitler but with a winkyface.

 

[Maple Leaf]

I've dwelled on this a lot in the past. My gut feeling is punishment for crimes should be much tougher. But then I wonder about whether that encourages criminals to be more desperate.

Yes, if you make the punishments too harsh then you will create a set of completely alienated people who develop an intense hatred for society. Take the case of John Dillinger, whose first custodial sentence after a childhood as a juvenile delinquent was 10 years in prison with hard labour, even though he pled guilty to stealing $50 from a grocery store and assaulting an employee. While in prison, he befriended many gangsters and bank robbers who taught him how to become a successful criminal. After he was released he set up a gang which robbed 24 Banks and 4 Police Stations (for guns) and he personally killed a Policeman in a gunfight.

I also recall the case of a young man (in England) who received a long prison sentence with hard labour in the 1920s for stealing a car and after he was released he went on to become an anti-social serial killer.

We already have a mandatory life sentence for anyone convicted of committing a murder when aged 21 or over. That means that even if they are released from prison after 15 years (standard minimum term) they will be "on license" for the rest of their life and can be recalled to prison if they are believed to be a threat.

Then I wonder if that should change my mind or not. Like, if we are too scared to punish criminals because it might encourage them to more violent crimes does that just iterate into a state where there is little deterrent for most crimes.

It should be about having a punishment proportionate to the crime (to deter casual criminality) and also helping people to change their direction in life (especially for the young/drug addicted/poorly educated/abuse victims).

Given the many miscarriages of justice we have had in this country I frankly don't trust the Police and the CPS enough to allow them to use the death penalty. (Even, Michael Howard, the former leader of the Conservative Party and an ex-practising Defence Barrister/Prosecutor agrees with me on this.) In the past, they have not just made honest mistakes in such cases, they have also deliberately failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the Defence, destroyed exculpatory evidence, fabricated/planted incriminating evidence or even forced innocent people to sign false confessions. Corruption is a problem in most justice systems around the world though, so I'm not singling ours out as being particularly bad.

America has it and it does little to stop murders

The Red states in the USA mostly have it and the Blue states mostly do not. As you rightly say, it does not deter murder any more than life imprisonment, as a comparison of their homicide rates shows.

What expanding it (which I keep seeing people suggest at various times) to things like rape does is actively incentivise the murder of the victim

Agreed. Although, rape stopped being a capital crime in the UK in 1841, so any government wanting to reintroduce it for that would have to be right-wing nutters.

 

[GordyR]

Yes, if you make the punishments too harsh then you will create a set of completely alienated people who develop an intense hatred for society. *snipped*

Brilliant post.

 

[Quartz]

My gut feeling is punishment for crimes should be much tougher.

I actually agree, but not in the way that some might think. Society is such these days that your neighbour can disappear for a week or two, maybe months - be it abroad or in prison - and people don't ask. I'm for good old fashioned public shaming: bring back the stocks for lower crimes and have them outside supermarkets and shopping centres. (BTW originally stocks locked the feet.)

Legalising drugs would, I think, cut a lot of crime in itself, but that's a debate for another thread.