Should capital punishment be brought back?

It may be a way to reinvigorate cinemas

I mean gallows down the front, popcorn, drinks, get some trailers on before the main show and there's a mop on hand in the cleaners cupboard for afterwards. The flat layout will make disposal easier too, pretty sure most have skips around back.
 
Last edited:
Maple Leaf said:
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.
Click to expand...

I take it that you haven't been following the current mob?

But back on the subject of deterrence, the death sentence isn't one. It has never been one. In the days of the Bloody Code you could be hanged for picking a pocket. It was observed by more than one person that as the previous tranche of pick-pockets were doing the air dance, there would be more in the audience working their trade. It doesn't work for murder for reasons that ought to be obvious, but I'm going to spell out anyway. It's because murders fall into these categories:

1) Spur-of-the-moment. These people only formed the intention to kill seconds before committing the offence. They never thought about possible punishment, so how could it deter?
2) Planned. These people plan not to be caught, so a punishment that they don't believe they will get cannot deter.
3) Nothing to lose. This is drug dealers and the like. They are aware that they are likely to die young anyway.
4) The genuinely mad. They don't make rational decisions, so don't think about punishment.
5) Want to die. Mainly religious fanatics and the like. Martyrdom is their aim - why should we help them recruit others?

As for other crimes, there's little evidennce that any particular punishment deters them. Not least because so few are caught. Why would a (say) burglar care about death for his crime given the tiny chance he will be caught. And as others have pointed out, as soon as you add death as a penalty for any crime less than murder, you incentivise the crim to murder any witnesses.

Then there's the "100% solid evidence" idea. It's rubbish. There has probably been about three murders in all of this country's history that fall into this category. This is mainly a sop that pro-DP throw to try to trick anti-DP people. And also, how quickjly do you think that 100% would become 99%? 90%? Pretty much as soon as the next murder of a either a child or a young white woman. There WILL be innocent people executed. Absolutely and without question.

Finally, let's look at the logic. The state is saying: it's wrong to kill. And to prove this, we are going to kill you.".
 
Last edited:
Meridian said:
I take it that you haven't been following the current mob?

But back on the subject of deterrence, the death sentence isn't one. It has never been one. In the days of the Bloody Code you could be hanged for picking a pocket. It was observed by more than one person that as the previous tranche of pick-pockets were doing the air dance, there would be more in the audience working their trade. It doesn't work for murder for reasons that ought to be obvious, but I'm going to spell out anyway. It's because murders fall into these categories:

1) Spur-of-the-moment. These people only formed the intention to kill seconds before committing the offence. They never thought about possible punishment, so how could it deter?
2) Planned. These people plan not to be caught, so a punishment that they don't believe they will get cannot deter.
3) Nothing to lose. This is drug dealers and the like. They are aware that they are likely to die young anyway.
4) The genuinely mad. They don't make rational decisions, so don't think about punishment.
5) Want to die. Mainly religious fanatics and the like. Martyrdom is their aim - why should we help them recruit others?

As for other crimes, there's little evidennce that any particular punishment deters them. Not least because so few are caught. Why would a (say) burglar care about death for his crime given the tiny chance he will be caught. And as others have pointed out, as soon as you add death as a penalty for any crime less than murder, you incentivise the crim to murder any witnesses.

Then there's the "100% solid evidence" idea. It's rubbish. There has probably been about three murders in all of this country's history that fall into this category. This is mainly a sop that pro-DP throw to try to trick anti-DP people. And also, who quickjly do you think that 100% would become 99%? 90%? Pretty much as soon as the next murder of a either a child or a young white woman. There WILL be innocent people executed. Absolutely and without question.

Finally, let's look at the logic. The state is saying: it's wrong to kill. And to prove this, we are going to kill you.".
Click to expand...
About the only one I can ever think of was the Lee Rigby killers, and that was because they wanted to be killed by the responding police, so did it in broad daylight in front of loads of people and hung around IIRC with the intent to try and attack responding officers.

So it was not only no deterrent, it was their wish and part of their plan for the murder as for them getting killed by law enforcement was one of their aims.
Even then there could have been the question of were they mentally competent.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
100% yes
All crime should carry an instant death penalty to be issued by some kind of street judge.
Click to expand...

One that would instill dread by chance?

Interesting.

Lord-Jaffa said:
100% yes, even with mistakes it's a net positive for society to cull those that commit the most disgusting of crimes.
Click to expand...

State sanctioned murder of innocent people so you can get some revenge porn isn't a net positive for society.
 
Last edited:
There is the saying "if you can't do the time don't do the crime". The whole argument here is do you agree with the punishment of people who by their own actions have rejected the laws of the society they live in. Obviously the punishment should be inline with the crime, how many old laws do we have that are out of proportion to the crime?
Also there is more of a need to think of the victims of crime over the perpetrator.
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
I fail to see how any victim is helped by letting them indulge in darkening their reality with more murder.
Click to expand...
Don't look at it as murder, society has to protect the majority of its citizens from the minority of those who choose to go against the law. (Does a mass murderer have more rights than their victims? )
 
What I object to is the plea bargain, you commit a crime you get sentenced for that crime not a lesser one. It is called responsibility for your actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom