Your opinion is a joke right, you see society is screwed and the government are not doing a thing about it but you're just being argumentative right, right?
This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
- Status
Even DNA can be planted / manipulated / wrong, the possibility of human error is simply too great to risk state-sponsored murder (which is what capital punishment is, ultimately)
As @Quartz mentioned above, there is a multitude of reasons why capital punishment is bad and you only need to look at US states which still have the death penalty to see that it is no deterrent at all.
Last edited:
Right? Wrong, right? Left? Maybe, who knows.
I don't see the point of keeping murderers, rapists and Paedos alive, other than the tax payer money waste.
Again, if you look to the US you will find that in many cases it actually costs significantly more to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate them, as they spend years (sometimes decades) on death row with repeated appeals and so forth.
But again, it does not address the root issue.
Human beings are involved in all steps of the process of justice.
Human beings are not infallable.
Mistakes will be made.
With capital punishment those mistakes will lead to innocent people being executed.
The Gilford 4, the Birmingham 6... If we had capital punishment they would surely be dead, yet they were innocent.
Are you really ok with state-sanctioned murder of (potentially) innocent people?
That does not address any of the counter-points I raised, or that @Quartz raised which I referenced above.
Not doing nothing isn't working, the prison system isn't working(except for those that earn from it) police are no deterrent.
The US system is ridiculous, the shot alone costs 12k, pointless when oxygen is free.
You would only use it when there is video or perfect 100% dna evidence.
Both the prison system and the police suffered significant reduction in manpower and have been dramatically underfunded for the last decade+, along with the NHS and almost every other service.
20,000 Police were cut at a time when our population was continuing to grow year on year. It's hard to be a deterrent when you lack the numbers to deter much of anything.
Last edited:
except when the video turns out not to be perfect, or the 100% dna evidence turns out to be due to contamination or something years later..
DNA evidence basically shows you were there at some point, or someone/something that had contact with you was, it in itself doesn't actually show you did it most of the time.
So let's spend more of our money keeping bad people in line, to me that is stupid.
That is the problem, there have been several cases of "perfect" evidence where it has turned out the person is innocent due to corruption or being framed or incompetence, etc.
I think there are enough examples of false allegations just for the second for that to be a non-starter. Here is just the first google result for an overturned rape case where police withheld evidence, then another false allegation case where the complainant deleted messages.
Police withheld evidence making man’s rape conviction unsafe, says UK court
Judgment rules ‘jury’s verdict may have been different’ in case of Andrew Malkinson if defence had been given full facts
www.theguardian.com
Man wins appeal against rape conviction after deleted Facebook messages found
Court of Appeal says Danny Kay might not have been convicted if jurors saw the full exchange
www.independent.co.uk
That wouldn't be conclusive then would it, it would be for the 100% guilty.
Im sure it does seem stupid... right up until it's someone you know / care about who it affects, then I am pretty sure you would feel very differently.
Imagine for a moment, your brother, or father, or sister, or uncle etc... was convicted of a crime they were in-fact innocent of and the punishment for that crime was the death penalty.
Would you just accept it and be like "oh well, my brother / father / sister / uncle is dead even though he's innocent, but it's cool" ?
Last edited:
There's not such thing as 100% guilty.
Should be clear enough from the fact that some people admit to crimes under duress that they didn't actually do.
I think you misunderstand what "conclusive" means. Something can be "conclusive" and still *wrong*.
The courts believed they were being presented with "conclusive evidence" that the Gilford 4 and Birmingham 6 were unequivocally guilty.
As such they carried out sentencing, which if capital punishment had been a thing would have undoubtedly resulted in the death sentence for most, if not all of them.
That "conclusive" evidence turned out to be false / fraudulent / incorrect.
That doesn't mean we need the death penalty. Let me offer two suggestions:
1. Legalise drugs - all of them.
2. Bring back stocks - public humiliation / shame works. And no, you don't put head and arms in them; you put legs in the stocks.
- Status