Soldato
Yeah, beheading would be wicked, we could all stand round and throw vegetables at the person.
Unfortunately, a large chunk of society would still turn out to do that.
Poll: The death penalty, are you for or against?
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Yeah, beheading would be wicked, we could all stand round and throw vegetables at the person.
Unfortunately, a large chunk of society would still turn out to do that.
Soldato
For starters, a state sanctioned execution is not murder. Murder is an unlawfull killing. So a death sentence, given following the law, is not murder. It's just a kill you don't agree with.
Second, the last execuition in the UK was in 1964, forensics, infact the whole investigation process has come a LONG way. It's easier now to be certain, and more importantly know when we are not certain, about who commited a crime.
Yeah, beheading would be wicked, we could all stand round and throw vegetables at the person.
Unfortunately, a large chunk of society would still turn out to do that.
Well i would happily, if they where murderers. Not a problem.
Quite...Society has no place deciding whether a person deserves to die or not when their are alternatives such as life imprisonment.
Personal Vengeance is something separate.
Associate
Against. We should have a poll 
Although 100% certainty can be reached in most cases, innocent people will - and have been killed with the system in question.
Although 100% certainty can be reached in most cases, innocent people will - and have been killed with the system in question.
Soldato
Fair one, it just doesn't set a good example though. Killing people that have killed people...makes no sense.
Soldato
Like many, for in theory, but against in practise. There's no way to 100% guarantee the guilty with some cases, and all it takes is 1 wrongly accused death and the system is flawed.
Associate
Until we can devise and implement a perfect and infallible legal system for this sort of thing (i.e. never) then I'd rather not entrust the state to kill its own citizens.
Soldato
For it. But use a gun as it's cheaper 
Man of Honour
Mistakes are made, against.
Man of Honour
Ok, you've got a poll now. 
I'm against for a whole host of reasons which have been debated in numerous threads. At the heart of the matter I don't think that the state should be executing its citizens but you can also point to the fact that it's not cost effective (unless you forgo all reasonable safeguards), has not been shown to have any deterrent effect, has killed innocent people, offers no potential for rectification of mistakes after punishment has been carried out, doesn't admit the possibility of rehabilitation and so on.
I'm against for a whole host of reasons which have been debated in numerous threads. At the heart of the matter I don't think that the state should be executing its citizens but you can also point to the fact that it's not cost effective (unless you forgo all reasonable safeguards), has not been shown to have any deterrent effect, has killed innocent people, offers no potential for rectification of mistakes after punishment has been carried out, doesn't admit the possibility of rehabilitation and so on.
Soldato
Yeah, let's make a martyr of Andreas Breivik for all the rest of the extreme right-wing nut-jobs <golf-clap>
Against, for the following reasons.
1. Guilt is never certain, innocent people have been executed.
2. The state should not have the authority to execute people, to give the state that power shows a feel lust for authoritarianism.
3. Escalation theory - A. If people expect to be killed when caught for a certain crime, what reason do they have not to end it in a "blaze of glory"?.
B. If we have the death penalty for rape/child-rape you will have more dead women & children - as the rapist literally has nothing to lose by killing the victims after, the murder of witnesses only decreases the chance of getting caught.
4. It's revenge, not justice.
5. It doesn't act as a deterrent (As people who commit crimes, don't commit them with the expectation of getting caught), we also have no evidence that suggests that it reduces the over-all crime rate.
6. It's never applied evenly anywhere, certain genders or racial groups are always more likely to be put to death than others (in any country in which they still execute people).
7. It's incredibly expensive to run, as the amount of tests, physiatric evaluations, the cost of the lawyers & the entire legal system which has to work around it.
Glad to see the overall intelligence level on this forum is higher than I first suspected.
Last edited:
Soldato
A few people have mentioned cost savings as a case for the death penlty as opposed to life imprisonment, the "why should we pay to keep them alive" argument.
If they did their research they would realise that the death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment, the court costs of the many levels of appeals being the main factor.
The death penalty is a disgusting, primitave form of revenge - not punishment. No person should have the authority to willingly kill a man, it makes them no better than the murderers being put to death. This is why virtually all civilised nations have abolished it, a few states in America being the main exceptions.
There are plenty of cases of innocent people being put to death. Angry victims' relatives, pressure by the police to suspects to confess, uneducated juries and flimsy evidence have killed many innocent people, proven to be so by DNA evidence after they're dead.
If they did their research they would realise that the death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment, the court costs of the many levels of appeals being the main factor.
The death penalty is a disgusting, primitave form of revenge - not punishment. No person should have the authority to willingly kill a man, it makes them no better than the murderers being put to death. This is why virtually all civilised nations have abolished it, a few states in America being the main exceptions.
There are plenty of cases of innocent people being put to death. Angry victims' relatives, pressure by the police to suspects to confess, uneducated juries and flimsy evidence have killed many innocent people, proven to be so by DNA evidence after they're dead.
Soldato
For it, only if it's proven 100%.
Can't see any sense keeping killers in prison for life, costing us a fortune.
But, there are people who have been charged with murder, Miles Evans is one, who I still have my doubt he killed.
Can't see any sense keeping killers in prison for life, costing us a fortune.
But, there are people who have been charged with murder, Miles Evans is one, who I still have my doubt he killed.
Soldato
Are you joking? You think you can measure the value of someone's life with money?
Soldato
There's no such thing as proven 100%. What happens if you are satisfied that it's 100% but then new evidence comes along which clearly proves he's innocent? What a shame, they're dead.
The most you can claim is that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. In my eyes that's not good enough though.