Poll: The death penalty, are you for or against?

The death penalty, are you for or against?

  • For

    Votes: 221 42.6%

  • Against

    Votes: 243 46.8%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 55 10.6%
  • Total voters
    519
Ahleckz said:
They don't have an underclass of criminals who will continually breed further underlings. Until people realize that this underclass exists, and there is little (if anything) that we can do about it then crime will remain a problem in this country.

We can't copy another countries justice system because the people within the two countries are very different.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit of a slippery slope with condemning whole bits of the country, the death penalty isn't a solution to that.

There is nothing stopping us having the Nordic system apart from our obsession with using Prison as a panacea, over using custodial solutions and putting not much effort into making people different in the first place. Prison doesn't 'work' because it can't fix where people came from, the people they hang out with, the culture they are into and the circumstances they return to. The Nordic and Canadian principles are built around appropriate custody and proper interventions, ours are built on big warehouses that people scream about if someone in them gets to watch a TV for good behaviour.
 
The poll is quite fascinating, it's almost split 50:50. :eek:

From 'real life' experience, I'd say that's about right. Many, many people think some people just deserve to die (without thinking about the far more complex issues behind everything).
 
For.

But at the same time I totally agree with and understand the primary concern of those who are against it: that the wrong person will get gassed/shot/electrocuted etc.

Only if there is 100% solid evidence should this be carried out. The Norwegian whacko who killed all those poor people on that island is a good example of this. And some scum in the UK who have been in the news as well.

But no....murderers in our country have 3 meals/day & a bed..at OUR expense.....no matter how solid the evidence against them. They took a life - they should pay with theirs.
 
I am for it as there simply is no reason for keeping them alive.
I understand the cost implications but at the end of the day it is cheaper to convict and kill the guilty then lock them up.

Example:

Man commits mass murder
Spends 40 years in prison
Man is released
Man commits mass murder

And your saying we should always give them a second chance in rehabilitation. Arguementally everyone should be given a second chance and most people do rehabilitate. But it is so unlikely they will find a job, and their presence alone will scare most people. Better to be safe than sorry in my opinion.
 
Bacon? said:
I am for it as there simply is no reason for keeping them alive.
I understand the cost implications but at the end of the day it is cheaper to convict and kill the guilty then lock them up.

Example:

Man commits mass murder
Spends 40 years in prison
Man is released
Man commits mass murder

And your saying we should always give them a second chance in rehabilitation. Arguementally everyone should be given a second chance and most people do rehabilitate. But it is so unlikely they will find a job, and their presence alone will scare most people. Better to be safe than sorry in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Anyone who commits more than one murder will almost certainly never be released. And are you suggesting that the CJS should be run according to how cheap the punishment is? By that argument the best thing would be to let them go - that's even cheaper than a bullet, never mind a trial. There are reasons for and against the DP on various grounds, but cost should never be one of them.
 
Meridian said:
Anyone who commits more than one murder will almost certainly never be released. And are you suggesting that the CJS should be run according to how cheap the punishment is? By that argument the best thing would be to let them go - that's even cheaper than a bullet, never mind a trial. There are reasons for and against the DP on various grounds, but cost should never be one of them.
Click to expand...

But surely cost will always be a factor? I agree with you that it shouldn't, but realistically speaking, that's never going to happen. If someone is convicted of some heinous crime and the choice is between death penalty and lifetime in prison, cost will surely play a part in the decision.

It should never be the primary reason, but it will always have some kind of influence.
 
I personally think maybe the death penalty is too harsh, but definitely castration should be considered from any type of sexual crime.
People like that should not be allowed to reproduce or function.
 
Bacon? said:
I understand the cost implications but at the end of the day it is cheaper to convict and kill the guilty then lock them up.
Click to expand...

This I believe is incorrect. Killing a man isn't as cheap as you think once you have to factor in all the legal mumbo jumbo that goes with it. It costs something like $2 million to execute a prisoner in the States.
 
Bacon? said:
I
I understand the cost implications but at the end of the day it is cheaper to convict and kill the guilty then lock them up.
Click to expand...

Your simply wrong!

It costs significantly more money to execute inmates in America than it costs to lock them up for life. FACT
I'm not going to explain the obvious to you so I suggest you go do some research so you don't look ignorant!!

Tute said:
For. In the cases where someone is beyond rehabilitation and will always be a danger to anyone else, it's better to just get rid of them.
Click to expand...

So we execute all the sick people with dangerous mental problems? :rolleyes:
They have a medical/neurological reason for being violent and blood thirsty, what's yours ? Makes people with opinions like this worse than them imho
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
It costs significantly more money to execute inmates in America than it costs to lock them up for life. FACT
Click to expand...

Well tbf it's not a "FACT", there are variables. Life without parole given to a 16 year old who lived to 100 would be more expensive than the one off cost (as high as it might be) of executing him.

Also, the cost of executing a man mainly comes from legal fees which aren't non-existent when life is given so it's unfair to say for example it cost £2 million in legal expenses to excute a man and then ignore it may have still cost $1m to send him to prison for life without parole.

It CAN be more expensive to execute a man rather than keep him locked up but it can also be cheaper, it depends on the circumstances involved.
 
I'm against, if there is any risk at all of an innocent person being executed then it has to be out of the question. Historically speaking, I don't think the ultimate deterrent has proved to be much of a deterrent anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom