FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The Death sentence

The Death sentence

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

So what do all you think should UK/Ireland bring the death sentence back do you think it would make an impact on crime so its yay or nay

I'm

Yay

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

No, emphatically no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *isaB45Woman over a year ago

Fabville

No.

It's not reversable, is it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

If there's any evidence it'd have any positive effect on crime rates (studies have been done), and we could either guarantee that the justice system never got it wrong or undo the sentence when they did, I might be for it.

As the death penalty does not do this, humans are flawed, and death is irreversible, I'm going to go with no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Nope.

My view, not that is matters but someone has to take that life, I could feel very differently if a horrific crime happened to someone I love of course but to me, someone has to push a button or whatever it is it might be.

Danish x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Terrorists , peodos,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"No.

It's not reversable, is it?"

Not as far as I know.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust PeachyWoman over a year ago

Prestonish

Nay!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I would say no probably.

what about if a criminal was bang to rights, without shadow of doubt guilty and facing multiple life sentences for 1st degree murder....could they be afforded the option? I'm sure there are a shit load of holes to be picked in what i ask but....just wondering not looking to lobby for it!! Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Massive no

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not at all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"I would say no probably.

Give them the choice you mean?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm in favour of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes from me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

To busy to think it through but a quick thought is that it Depends on the crime but for some vile crimes the time in prison needs to be such a horrific experience that they wished there was a death sentence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tace 309TV/TS over a year ago

durham

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *teveanddebsCouple over a year ago

Norwich

"No.

It's not reversable, is it?"

No but the re-offending rate is excellent.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Do we (as a society) want to exact revenge or rehabilitate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If guilt cannot be ascertained 100% then ALL forms of punishment become unjust! Arguing that "we could get it wrong" is an argument against an entire penal system and not the death penalty exclusively. People who rot in prison for crimes they didn't commit lose their freedom, families, livelihoods, reputation, youth, health, identity, dreams, they lose time, they lose it all. It's hypocrisy to argue against the death penalty by citing reversal of conviction as though it's perfectly OK to take an innocent person's freedom away. Death to pedos, death to scrapists and death to premeditated murderers. There are some cases where the evidence is sufficient for the guillotine!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Do we (as a society) want to exact revenge or rehabilitate?"

Having worked in child protection for over 10 years, I can assure you rehabilitation rarely works.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nabelle21Woman over a year ago

B38

There have been times when I think peple deserve it but I'd say nay

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *acey_RedWoman over a year ago

Liverpool

No. I don't believe anyone has the right to take another's life, not even the state. You couldn't ever guarantee an innocent person wouldn't wrongly be killed. Also if you look at America it ends up being horrendously expensive with all the appeals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's always going to be a 50/50 split. But, if a horrific crime was committed against any of our loved ones then that would change to a resounding yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Do we (as a society) want to exact revenge or rehabilitate?

Having worked in child protection for over 10 years, I can assure you rehabilitation rarely works. "

As a general rule I mean. I understand that there are some people that will never be rehabilitated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"To busy to think it through but a quick thought is that it Depends on the crime but for some vile crimes the time in prison needs to be such a horrific experience that they wished there was a death sentence.

I agree that they should really suffer whilst serving a sentence for a horrific crime. Not sure about the death penalty, although if someone killed one of my loved ones, I may change my mind.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *sm81Couple over a year ago

warwickshire

A life for a life, I agree although they have to definatly be guilty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"It's always going to be a 50/50 split. But, if a horrific crime was committed against any of our loved ones then that would change to a resounding yes. "

Yes it would, I admit that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I would say no probably.

Give them the choice you mean?"

yes...if they are guilty 100% and gone through all apeals and whatever re-trials they are due...where the judge says something like no parole hearing for 50 years or whatever... rather than be caged for the rest of your life you could choose to check out early...

But of course now i'm thinking....there would be some sort of 'sound of mind' determination....and probably saying 'i want the death penalty' would deem that person to be not sound of mind....

i'll get me coat....TAXI!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do you think it would keep crime down?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I have never seen or heard of an executed murderer, pedo, or sexual assailant getting up and murdering, pedo-ing, or assaulting anyone again! So it looks like a pretty damn good deterrent to me! It works!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Thing is in the states they are on death row for over 20 years

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I have never seen or heard of an executed murderer, pedo, or sexual assailant getting up and murdering, pedo-ing, or assaulting anyone again! So it looks like a pretty damn good deterrent to me! It works! "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"I would say no probably.

Give them the choice you mean?

But of course now i'm thinking....there would be some sort of 'sound of mind' determination....and probably saying 'i want the death penalty' would deem that person to be not sound of mind....

i'll get me coat....TAXI!!!"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obyn GravesTV/TS over a year ago

1127 walnut avenue

killing the killer wont bring the victim back..but it will stop the killer from killing again..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

yorkshire ripper ..tommorrow. brady &hindly hang draw &quartered them.

If not 100pc proven(easier now with dna forensics) then no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uartz24Man over a year ago

Barnsley

Yes

Old people & the homeless struggle to cope while murderers rapists & peodaphiles sit in a warm cell eating 3 nice meals a day, all paid for by us for the next 20 years

Too many do gooders in this world

We all know right from wrong & if you choose wrong then you should pay the price

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes

Old people & the homeless struggle to cope while murderers rapists & peodaphiles sit in a warm cell eating 3 nice meals a day, all paid for by us for the next 20 years

Too many do gooders in this world

We all know right from wrong & if you choose wrong then you should pay the price "

If the money used to house and feed prisoners was saved by executing them do you really think our government would direct it towards helping the homeless and the elderly?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ay19720Man over a year ago

Ashford kent

Yes..for ..dna proved murder. .

For kiddy fiddlers

Extremists. .

Hang um high ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hunderstruckMan over a year ago

Northampton

If it was someone in your own family who was killed you’d want the same justice .

That 17 yr old murdered in London totally innocent and some cunt took her life . Her family will have to live with that all their lives .

The murderer will probably get off on a technicality if not serve less that ten years

Where’s the justice in that .

What about those that killed Lee Rigby ?

Waste of money keeping them alive

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No.

I happen to believe in rehabilitation and to be fair the kind of criminals I would advocate the death penalty for, should it be in effect, are the kind that I believe death to be a mercy.

If the intention is to punish instead of rehabilitation, (which for me would be on crimes against children, disabled, elderly or premeditated murder) I would much rather be cruel beyond measure and force them to a life behind bars. Shove them in a hole so deep that the world forgets of their existence.

To be told when one can see the sun, when to eat, when to smoke, when one can have clean clothes or shower, etc as ones entire world passes one by without as much as an acknowledgement by family or loved ones, to me sounds like a far more cruel punishment than the eternal slumber.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *os19Man over a year ago

Edmonton

I don’t believe in a death sentence but what I do believe in is certain rights taken away whilst in prison especially for murdererers , rapist , child abusers. I believe only one hot meal a day the rest of the time 2 slices of bread and water , no heating in the cell if it’s too hot or too cold tough , no televisions , radio , internet , books.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andonmessMan over a year ago

A world all of his own

No. Our justice system isn't perfect and fault free.

How many people have had sentences subsequently reversed after new evidence has come to light? Witness statements found to be inaccurate?

And that's before you get to moral standpoint of a civilised society taking a life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Ok so...for all those who said 'yes' to the death penalty....how should it be carried out?

Choose from...the chair, injection, noose, firing squad, death by a thousand cunts...cuts sorry, walk the plank, keel haul, thrown to the lions or death by mauw mauw.... or should they be all put in the hat and the accused has to pull one out?...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders "

What do you mean it is "not working"?? Are the executions not killing the criminals? Again, I have never seen or heard of an executed murderer, pedo, or sexual assailant getting up and murdering, pedo-ing, or assaulting anyone again! So it looks like a pretty damn good deterrent to me! It is working perfectly! And if we're talking about deterrents then why didn't school, parenting, the law, education, knowledge of right from wrong, and social conditioning deter them? Doesn't that mean that all institutions "aren't working"? So that person will do it again without fail! You must execute them! Plus you have the research that shows that psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated and moreover, attempts to rehabilitate them make them worse criminals. Psychopaths are responsible for around 50% of violent crimes. Justice is not about rehabilitation. That's social conditioning and corrections. Once you murder or pedo about or sexually assault someone, you should die! Simple! Nothing prevented you before? Nothing will now. In fact, now that they've tasted their evil lust, there's no going back. Off with their heads!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andonmessMan over a year ago

A world all of his own

"If it was someone in your own family who was killed you’d want the same justice."

And what if a member of your family was wrongly/falsely accused? You know above anything and everything that they're innocent, but due to failings they're found guilty and sentenced to death?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not the way our justice system is, they often get things wrong.

Plus the cost, people think it would save money than keeping a prisoner in prison for a life sentence but to put someone to die actually costs millions too, don’t think many people know that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Paedophiles should get it. As painfully as possible preferably

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Have a look at Tim Evans story.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *itty9899Man over a year ago

Craggy Island

yep! hang them all or gas, shoot, whatever the cheapest way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

What they mean by not working is people know the death penalty exists in these countries yet they still commit crimes that will earn them the death penalty. That’s what they mean by it not working. It’s not a deterrent as people still commit crimes in countries that carry the death penalty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Never confuse justice with vengeance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have a look at Tim Evans story."

Googling now x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *itty9899Man over a year ago

Craggy Island

"Paedophiles should get it. As painfully as possible preferably "

They should be chemical castration or a pair of garden shears with no Anesthetic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hunderstruckMan over a year ago

Northampton

"If it was someone in your own family who was killed you’d want the same justice.

And what if a member of your family was wrongly/falsely accused? You know above anything and everything that they're innocent, but due to failings they're found guilty and sentenced to death? "

If they were PROVEN to be guilty of course they should .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Hypothetical scenario for you

Those that said yes to the death penalty; would you be pulling the lever?

Say ‘of course you would’ and you later find out the accused had been found not guilty..... I don’t know; a technicality like evidence tampering or unreliable witness statement (it doesn’t matter but it’s happened before)........

Would you still feel ‘righteous’ then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ethany10Couple over a year ago

falkirk

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have a look at Tim Evans story."

But he initially admitted it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andonmessMan over a year ago

A world all of his own

"If it was someone in your own family who was killed you’d want the same justice.

And what if a member of your family was wrongly/falsely accused? You know above anything and everything that they're innocent, but due to failings they're found guilty and sentenced to death?

If they were PROVEN to be guilty of course they should .

And I'll say it again, what if at some point in the future, it was proven that they were innocent?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Albert Pierrepoint was England’s hangman for about 25 years. He executed 600 odd people, including Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis, Nazi war criminals and many more.

In his book he reflected that he didn’t believe that a single murder had been prevented because of the existence of the death penalty.

Worth pondering on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

An eye for an eye is a very religious approach ... and let's face it religion never causes any problems does it?

No matter what punishment a criminal endures... it will never change the original wrong

We need those precogs in Minority Report ... that ended well also

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, never

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

I actually can’t tell if that is irony or not.

But in case it isn’t, your definition of ‘deterrent’ is a bit vague. Clearly if people have committed the crimes, the DP hasn’t deterred them from doing so.

Anyway, no to the DP for obvious reasons.

It’s unworkable.

It’s immoral.

It’s not an effective deterrent.

It can never be guaranteed that no-one will be executed in error.

You can’t have it for cases where guilt is established beyond any and all doubt, because then you would have inequity in the justice system, where some people would receive either prison or the DP, not based on the severity of the crime, but based on the certainty of their guilt.

To everyone who said they were in favour, could you talk a bit more about why you are in favour despite all of the above?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

It deters the person who is executed from committing the crime again! It works perfectly! And how would we know how many people decided not to commit those crimes because of the death penalty? Who has those statistics? Nobody! So that's a false statement that it's not working! Every single citizen who has not committed the crime is a living proof that it's working! That's millions compared to a minority. See how that works!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes from me. If there isn't a shadow of doubt and the crime fits the punishment then 100% yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Have a look at Tim Evans story.

But he initially admitted it. "

Yep. The whole case was confused and muddied.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

I can’t argue a case against your views. It frustrates me so I’m backing away.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Terrorists , peodos, "

Why those groups in particular ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have a look at Tim Evans story.

But he initially admitted it.

Yep. The whole case was confused and muddied."

Very sad x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Yeah like when I said yay I didn't mean for any old crime a real horrific innocent lives being taken simply because they wanted to here's a scenario I want you to think about a random person approaches one of your loved ones takes them does horrific things to them and still kills them in a gruesome way for literally no reason simply cos they wanted to gets caught sure yeah gets life sentence lives a luxury life behind bars cos believe me its not like it used to be they still have certain rights now despite what they did so living the rest of their lives safe in prison while your loved one is 6ft under causing so much pain in your family would you allow that person to live going through that now give that a thought and come back to me and god forbid it doesn't happen to any of us

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *loswingersCouple over a year ago

Gloucester

I guess I must be different to the majority on here . I’ve been accused of lacking empathy and that’s probably true . Oh well , that’s fine with me as empathy is hugely overrated . Empathy is one of those emotions that serves the purveyor of it far more than the receiver . And here’s why I think the death penalty should return .

I don’t care whether it’s a deterrent or not , I like the idea of revenge and justice , and killing the perpetrators of horrific crimes does that .

They certainly won’t do it again , nor will they groom or encourage anyone else to do it .

It’ll save money , time and resources which would have kept them alive . I fail to see how keeping someone alive for fifty years is not going to cost more than a lethal injection .

Those who are so against it use the fact that there may be mistakes made . In today’s world of advanced forensics , dna etc.... that’s very unlikely . But to rid the world of the worst people in our society who murder , r*pe kids , commit atrocious and heinous acts , it’s worth it .

And as for rehabilitation .

What a crock of shit !

Let’s reward them shall we ? Send them on workshops , teaching them that what they’ve done isn’t nice , spending millions to rehabilitate scum is not my idea of how to deal with people who commit the crimes that I speak of . These people are not deserving of our time , effort and attention . They gave that up when they did what they did .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If it was someone in your own family who was killed you’d want the same justice.

And what if a member of your family was wrongly/falsely accused? You know above anything and everything that they're innocent, but due to failings they're found guilty and sentenced to death?

If they were PROVEN to be guilty of course they should .

And I'll say it again, what if at some point in the future, it was proven that they were innocent? "

Ok then. Forgetting the past, in this day and age with all the advancement, DNA etc how would a murderer, paedophilie then be proven innocent later on if the evidence is concrete. I’m not saying hang someone who may have killed someone or may have abused a child. It is more common for guilty people to walk away because some poor stressed out policeman didn’t cross his t’s and dot his i’s unfortunately.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *os19Man over a year ago

Edmonton

"Have a look at Tim Evans story.

But he initially admitted it.

Yep. The whole case was confused and muddied.

Very sad x"
. I am assuming you mean Timothy Evans , John Christie and 10 Rillington Place story from what I have read and watched the film and bbc1 drama Timothy Evans had a low IQ and John Christie set him up.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Definitely not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heLaserGuyMan over a year ago

Coventry

"Yes

Old people & the homeless struggle to cope while murderers rapists & peodaphiles sit in a warm cell eating 3 nice meals a day, all paid for by us for the next 20 years

Too many do gooders in this world

We all know right from wrong & if you choose wrong then you should pay the price "

This, massive yes from me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Have a look at Tim Evans story.

But he initially admitted it.

Yep. The whole case was confused and muddied.

Very sad x. I am assuming you mean Timothy Evans , John Christie and 10 Rillington Place story from what I have read and watched the film and bbc1 drama Timothy Evans had a low IQ and John Christie set him up."

That's the one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I also believe there is more chance of someone getting killed/abused from a released criminal than there is of someone mistakenly being given the death sentence in this day and age.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

I’m sure you can find relevant statistics. You take two US states, one with DP and one without and you just look at the number of crimes punishable by death are committed in both (expressed as a percentage of the population) by looking at courts of justice records for condamnations. I’m sure you could find this info if you could be bothered instead of making silly statements about the e executed person being deterred.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Terrorists , peodos, "

Nelson Mandela was classed as a terrorist by much of the West

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"I guess I must be different to the majority on here . I’ve been accused of lacking empathy and that’s probably true . Oh well , that’s fine with me as empathy is hugely overrated . Empathy is one of those emotions that serves the purveyor of it far more than the receiver . And here’s why I think the death penalty should return .

I don’t care whether it’s a deterrent or not , I like the idea of revenge and justice , and killing the perpetrators of horrific crimes does that .

They certainly won’t do it again , nor will they groom or encourage anyone else to do it .

It’ll save money , time and resources which would have kept them alive . I fail to see how keeping someone alive for fifty years is not going to cost more than a lethal injection .

And as for rehabilitation .

What a crock of shit !

I'm with you up until you begin to talk of 'revenge' and 'justice'.....

For me , most of the answers on this thread fail to look below the surface of society.

It's very simplistic to say hang the bastards.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes I think they should or they should get life in a jailhouse abroad were there no human rights once you kill someone you loses your rights to life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *itty9899Man over a year ago

Craggy Island

"Hypothetical scenario for you

Those that said yes to the death penalty; would you be pulling the lever?

Would you still feel ‘righteous’ then?"

If the Jury find some GUILTY of murder and I was the person hired to pull the lever to the death penalty and was later FOUND TO BE INNOCENT the Jury would be responsible as much as the COUNTRY and the LAW was, where I was just hired to do the job and would probably compensated for my ALARM And distress.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

Well, it stops them if that’s what you mean. But if they’re dead, it’s not really a deterrent is it?

Actually, statistics are widely available by comparing countries with and without the death penalty. There has been a ton of research on the subject which almost exclusively concludes that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don’t care whether it’s a deterrent or not , I like the idea of revenge and justice , and killing the perpetrators of horrific crimes does that .

They certainly won’t do it again , nor will they groom or encourage anyone else to do it .

It’ll save money , time and resources which would have kept them alive . I fail to see how keeping someone alive for fifty years is not going to cost more than a lethal injection .

And as for rehabilitation .

What a crock of shit !

Well said.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hunderstruckMan over a year ago

Northampton

ian Huntley should never breathe another breath .

There are countless others too but all the

do-Gooders who think these despicable individuals can be rehabilitated and set free

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

[Removed by poster at 09/03/19 14:13:10]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ik MMan over a year ago

Lancashire

This is one referendum there definitely won’t be and mainly because of the likely result.

I can see both sides of the debate but while we continue to hand out whole life sentences, albeit for the most heinous of crimes the rehabilitation argument doesn’t really stack up.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

I know ... why don't we just turn New York into a large penal area and send people who commit heinous crimes in there... and they then have to fend for themselves ...

In fact .. I'm gonna copyright that idea before someone else nicks it ... oh ... wait ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It doesn’t save money either. It costs more to put someone to death than it would to keep them in prison for 60 years. Would be around 804 thousand to keep someone in prison for 60 years and would cost around 969 thousand to kill them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I agree that they should really suffer whilst serving a sentence for a horrific crime. Not sure about the death penalty, although if someone killed one of my loved ones, I may change my mind. "

Isn't loss of freedom suffering enough?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes. "

How would that work exactly?

Do you suggest changing possible verdicts from ‘not guilty’ and ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’, to ‘not guilty’, ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’, and a new ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ option?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *esires of HertsCouple over a year ago

Herts and London Borders

yes of course we should

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Absolutely not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I know ... why don't we just turn New York into a large penal area and send people who commit heinous crimes in there... and they then have to fend for themselves ...

In fact .. I'm gonna copyright that idea before someone else nicks it ... oh ... wait ..."

Or send them to Australia

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The death sentence is largely supported by the public bit not by parliamentarians - so there won't be a referendum on it.

Fun fact: there is loose correlation between supporters of the death penalty, voting Leave, watching Mrs Brown's Boys and not having higher education.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

"I know ... why don't we just turn New York into a large penal area and send people who commit heinous crimes in there... and they then have to fend for themselves ...

In fact .. I'm gonna copyright that idea before someone else nicks it ... oh ... wait ...

Or send them to Australia "

Hey ... didn't they do that ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hunderstruckMan over a year ago

Northampton

I agree that they should really suffer whilst serving a sentence for a horrific crime. Not sure about the death penalty, although if someone killed one of my loved ones, I may change my mind.

Isn't loss of freedom suffering enough?"

People live with loss of loved for a longer time than the cunts that committed the crime and show no remorse upon release

So it’s never enough just to lose their freedom

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

I agree that they should really suffer whilst serving a sentence for a horrific crime. Not sure about the death penalty, although if someone killed one of my loved ones, I may change my mind.

Isn't loss of freedom suffering enough?"

Exactly. I did not know where people get this notion that being in prison is like being on holiday in a nice hotel. People often seem to say bizarre stuff like “but they have tv in their cell!” as if having tv is summer me sort of luxury that makes up for not because my able to see who you want when you want, do what you want when you want, or go where you want when you want.

Doesn’t sound like much fun.... but.... EastEnders!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *loswingersCouple over a year ago

Gloucester

"It doesn’t save money either. It costs more to put someone to death than it would to keep them in prison for 60 years. Would be around 804 thousand to keep someone in prison for 60 years and would cost around 969 thousand to kill them. "

How does it possibly cost that ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I know ... why don't we just turn New York into a large penal area and send people who commit heinous crimes in there... and they then have to fend for themselves ...

In fact .. I'm gonna copyright that idea before someone else nicks it ... oh ... wait ...

Or send them to Australia

Hey ... didn't they do that ...

Yes, and since not all Australians are criminals can we conclude that rehabilitation does work?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heLaserGuyMan over a year ago

Coventry

I agree that they should really suffer whilst serving a sentence for a horrific crime. Not sure about the death penalty, although if someone killed one of my loved ones, I may change my mind.

Isn't loss of freedom suffering enough?"

No.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

I agree that they should really suffer whilst serving a sentence for a horrific crime. Not sure about the death penalty, although if someone killed one of my loved ones, I may change my mind.

Isn't loss of freedom suffering enough?

People live with loss of loved for a longer time than the cunts that committed the crime and show no remorse upon release

So it’s never enough just to lose their freedom "

If the problem is people being released too seriously soon, the solution is longer sentences, not the death penalty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

I agree that they should really suffer whilst serving a sentence for a horrific crime. Not sure about the death penalty, although if someone killed one of my loved ones, I may change my mind.

Isn't loss of freedom suffering enough?

Doesn’t sound like much fun.... but.... EastEnders!"

Now there's a punishment ... back to back Eastenders

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hunderstruckMan over a year ago

Northampton

"The death sentence is largely supported by the public bit not by parliamentarians - so there won't be a referendum on it.

Fun fact: there is loose correlation between supporters of the death penalty, voting Leave, watching Mrs Brown's Boys and not having higher education."

And the remoaners who support the loony left and the terrorist loving Corbyn and lets rehabilitate child murderers and terrorists

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ik MMan over a year ago

Lancashire

Last year the average cost per prisoner in UK was £37k. Taking into consideration that the type of offender who would fit the death penalty would require extremely high security their cost is considerably more. 60 x 37k equals 2.2m...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And the remoaners who support the loony left and the terrorist loving Corbyn and lets rehabilitate child murderers and terrorists "

Classic tabloid bantz

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tephTV67TV/TS over a year ago

Cheshire

Exactly what crime someone commits gets the death penalty ?

Peado, looking at material, creating but not participating, participating but not penetrating etc...

Murder, recent case Woman killing her abusive partner but he didn't actually hit her, only the ones in which violence happens,it's still complicated, each case is different and society does change its attitude, see Ruth Ellis case.

Terrorism, these days they blow themselves up, but how about those who groom them but don't actually do any of the killings themselves, or creating martyrs of those we do excecute.

Rape... Killing a child .. vulnerable person like an OAP.. d*unk drivers , what if the killer has mental health issues ?

It's already been mentioned, but you would have an appeals process, that could take years, also what execution method would you use ?

It's not an easy solution to a difficult problem, it can actually complicate matters even more, also I have no doubt very few rich people will find themselves on death row no matter what crimes they commit.

It's a no from me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"The death sentence is largely supported by the public bit not by parliamentarians - so there won't be a referendum on it.

Fun fact: there is loose correlation between supporters of the death penalty, voting Leave, watching Mrs Brown's Boys and not having higher education."

Support for the DP fell from 75% in 1983 to 48% in 2015.

That there is a correlation between voting leave and watching Mrs Brown’s Boys is a very fun fact!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"The death sentence is largely supported by the public bit not by parliamentarians - so there won't be a referendum on it.

Fun fact: there is loose correlation between supporters of the death penalty, voting Leave, watching Mrs Brown's Boys and not having higher education.

And the remoaners who support the loony left and the terrorist loving Corbyn and lets rehabilitate child murderers and terrorists "

What is a ‘remoaner’ and what are some of the looniest policies of the left? Is it that crazy shit like notions of fairness and equality?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?"

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

To be fair, it doesn’t quite work like that as so many of the costs of the prison service are fixed.

So if one person was added to the prison population today, the cost of running the prison service would not need to increase by £37k.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

I’m not being a smart arse though. Under the current system people are found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’. So under the current system people can be, and are, found guilty when there may be a degree of guilt.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

These arguments can go on for ever both have strong arguments for and against...some deterrent against crime is needed, punishment and rehabilitation/education is what's needed we think a mixture of both. How we would feel if one close to us was seriously sexually assulted, murdered or such we can not say if we would change our minds. I know J would want revenge if it was anything towards O or her son...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

I actually can’t tell if that is irony or not.

But in case it isn’t, your definition of ‘deterrent’ is a bit vague. Clearly if people have committed the crimes, the DP hasn’t deterred them from doing so."

But we have prisons and prison didn't deter them either. So we shouldn't have prisons by your logic. We have laws and the laws didn't deter them so the laws didn't work! Let's do away with laws. They have a conscience but their conscience didn't deter them so having a conscience didn't work! You get the point. That's not a very good argument against capital punishment. EVERY system failed to deter them! The death penalty isn't about deterrence it's about those who aren't deterred. Same for prison. If you aren't deterred then say hello to my little friend.

Now let's see if it's true that it doesn't deter. What about people who haven't committed the crime? Have they not been deterred then? Why not? What is your definition of deterrence? Are you suggesting that no system is working as long as there is someone who commits the crime? Doesn't that mean that all systems aren't working that should have deterred them? I don't think you have a reasonable definition of deterrence if it means there's ZERO crime in some fantasy utopia of deterrence. It deters millions of people who don't commit the crime. Every person who doesn't commit the crime is living evidence that it is deterring them. See how that works?

"Anyway, no to the DP for obvious reasons.

It’s unworkable."

It obviously is working!

"It’s immoral."

Let's hear more! Make your case! According to who's morals?

"It’s not an effective deterrent."

It effectively deters the criminal from ever reoffending and millions of people don't commit the crime. It's a very effective deterrent.

"It can never be guaranteed that no-one will be executed in error."

That's an argument against having a penal code period, not against the death penalty exclusively. Can you guarantee that no one will be sent to prison for life in error? Ok then why aren't you against life imprisonment? People are still losing their lives. Or are you ok with locking up innocent people and letting them rot to death?

"You can’t have it for cases where guilt is established beyond any and all doubt, because then you would have inequity in the justice system, where some people would receive either prison or the DP, not based on the severity of the crime, but based on the certainty of their guilt."

That's more of a problem for those arguing against the death penalty because you're arguing that because we might get it wrong then everyone should receive similar milder punishment even though their crimes vary greatly in severity! That's inequality! So that strawman is an indictment against those who use it I'm afraid.

"To everyone who said they were in favour, could you talk a bit more about why you are in favour despite all of the above?"

We've made it pretty clear in many comments. Could you talk a bit more about your stance in response? Especially your definitions and expectations of an effective deterrent and why you still support having a penal system when clearly the existence and execution of any form of punishment is proof itself that they aren't deterrents! It's a contradiction. No punishment is a deterrent except the death penalty which guarantees no reoffending.

Please advise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The death sentence is largely supported by the public bit not by parliamentarians - so there won't be a referendum on it.

Fun fact: there is loose correlation between supporters of the death penalty, voting Leave, watching Mrs Brown's Boys and not having higher education.

And the remoaners who support the loony left and the terrorist loving Corbyn and lets rehabilitate child murderers and terrorists

What is a ‘remoaner’ and what are some of the looniest policies of the left? Is it that crazy shit like notions of fairness and equality?"

Absolute madness. So called loony left policies are absolutely standard in many Scandi countries. And having open dialogue with terrorist organisations in order to try and bring peace is more constructive than say, Thatcher's stance of secretly meeting the IRA while publicly grandstanding re zero negotiations.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict. "

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

969 thousand for killing someone ? You must be joking.

Are you planning to charter a year long luxury cruise liner for the condemned prisoner with butlers, caviar and champagne baths ?

£100 tops and that's expensive

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Hypothetical scenario for you

Those that said yes to the death penalty; would you be pulling the lever?

Would you still feel ‘righteous’ then?

THANKS for the ‘ONLY following ORDERS’ line ; NICE to know THAT you could dodge any responsibility by saying it was someone else’s fault.

You don’t write for the Daily Mail by any chance???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict. "

Are you OK with locking innocent people up? I really need to know this because it seems that you're fine with that if you're arguing that we may get it wrong to it death penalty. Doesn't that mean that we cannot punish anybody? Unless you have a twisted philosophy that it's fine to punish innocent people as long as it isn't death penalty. Please advise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I don’t care whether it’s a deterrent or not , I like the idea of revenge and justice , and killing the perpetrators of horrific crimes does that .

They certainly won’t do it again , nor will they groom or encourage anyone else to do it .

It’ll save money , time and resources which would have kept them alive . I fail to see how keeping someone alive for fifty years is not going to cost more than a lethal injection .

And as for rehabilitation .

What a crock of shit !

Here here

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

It’s not twisted, it’s the practical need to find some sort of workable, common sense balance between protecting society from criminals and still providing the option of reversing any wrongful convictions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Arguing that other countries have lower crime due to having good social systems is not an argument against death penalty. It would only mean that they have less people to execute. They can still have the death penalty and no one needing to receive it. Unless you are arguing that having the death penalty ENCOURAGES capital crime! Look! The penalty is not about deterrence, it's about punishing those who aren't deterred. Deterrence is the job of other social institutions, education, etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Say what?? WTF? So you ARE ok with locking up innocent people? That's not twisted to you?

How do you 'reverse' someone who has died in prison? How do you 'reverse' taking 20 - 30 years from someone? Their livelihood, their reputation, their dreams, their family, their relationships, their identity, their sanity, their health, their freedom, their happiness, their rights, their LIFE? You're talking as though you can "reverse" wrongful convictions in that way. You CAN'T!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"The USA is prime example of the death sentence not working.

Look at solving the causes of crime, look at custodial rehabilitation instead of custodial punishment and keep life long imprisonment for the worst offenders

I actually can’t tell if that is irony or not.

But in case it isn’t, your definition of ‘deterrent’ is a bit vague. Clearly if people have committed the crimes, the DP hasn’t deterred them from doing so.

Anyway, no to the DP for obvious reasons.

It’s unworkable.

It obviously is working!

It’s immoral.

Let's hear more! Make your case! According to who's morals?

It’s not an effective deterrent.

It effectively deters the criminal from ever reoffending and millions of people don't commit the crime. It's a very effective deterrent.

It can never be guaranteed that no-one will be executed in error.

To everyone who said they were in favour, could you talk a bit more about why you are in favour despite all of the above?

Please advise. "

In summary... the practical difference between the death penalty being the only final and irreversible punishment, and other punishments. And stopping someone from doing something by executing them is not what a deterrent is.

The moral thing - sure, you’ve got me. It’s entirely subjective. But being a loonie leftie, I guess my subjective opinion is that everyone, without exception, at least has a right to live.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ik MMan over a year ago

Lancashire

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me."

That’s exactly what we currently have, albeit without the death penalty!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Say what?? WTF? So you ARE ok with locking up innocent people? That's not twisted to you?

I’m not saying it’s OK. I’m saying it’s a better, more practical situation than the death penalty. You can’t undo the time, but clearly if they were found to have been wrongly convicted, released, and compensated financially, then clearly that much is only possible if they haven’t been executed years previously.

Your argument that we may as well not have any penal system is just a pedantic straw man ignoring common sense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me."

But that's what you're advocating. So you're OK with imprisoning innocent people? That doesn't sound wrong to you.

That's your dilemma. The death penalty executes the guilty for certain crimes. Either you're guilty and are executed or you are innocent and no punishment! At present all criminals can receive the same punishment for very different crimes. You agree with that. It's hypocrisy I'm afraid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me."

I did specifically say for certain crimes. And would completely depend on the situation the crime was committed.

A murderer who pre meditated killing someone just for the hell of it and got a sick thrill from it eg fred/rose west , is completely different to someone murdering a proven abusive spouse after years of physical and mental abuse eg, Sally challen.

Both murderers, but very, very different circumstances.

Not hard to guess in that example which one I think deserves the death penalty and which deserves a significantly more lenient sentence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict. "

Exactly

if people want guilty beyond all doubt as the threshold for the death sentence then that has to become the threshold for all convictions and would inevitably lead to far more acquitals for lesser crimes. No justice system can have convinctons based on differing levels of guilt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

That’s exactly what we currently have, albeit without the death penalty! "

Oh, what are the verdict options?

Are they not ‘not guilty’ and ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’. I know there’s also ‘not proven’ in Scotland, but I didn’t think there was something like ‘guilty, with no doubt’.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

I did specifically say for certain crimes. And would completely depend on the situation the crime was committed.

Both murderers, but very, very different circumstances.

Not hard to guess in that example which one I think deserves the death penalty and which deserves a significantly more lenient sentence.

You’re missing my point.

What happens when there are two who pre meditated killing someone just for the hell of it and got a sick thrill from it eg fred/rose west...

One is found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’, and the other is found ‘guilty beyond any and all doubt’.

Does that be get executed, and the other sent to prison?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

* does one get executed and the other sent to prison?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Say what?? WTF? So you ARE ok with locking up innocent people? That's not twisted to you?

Your argument that we may as well not have any penal system is just a pedantic straw man ignoring common sense."

The more severe the punishment, the less likely to convict based on evidence that isn't strong enough to execute them. These are SERIOUS CRIMES! Either the person is guilty or they are innocent. If they are not guilty enough to execute them then we must not imprison them. Whereas you're OK with imprisoning them and arguing that you can reverse it. NO, YOU CAN'T! You are perpetuating a system that finds innocent people guilty simply because you can sleep at night with the punishment you gave them because you feel "it's ok, I can reverse it if I effed up". You can't pay with people's lives like that. We should have higher penalties and higher standards of evidence. If the evidence falls short of that standard, NO punishment! You are arguing for punishing as often as possible instead of accepting that you cannot punish people with weak evidence. Torturing people physically and psychologically is not OK.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

But that's what you're advocating. So you're OK with imprisoning innocent people? That doesn't sound wrong to you.

I’m not so much advocating it, I’m saying the two things are on different sides of a line marked ‘acceptable consequence’.

The consequence of killing someone in error is clearly and unambiguously greater than the consequence of someone spending time in prison.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

That’s exactly what we currently have, albeit without the death penalty!

Oh, what are the verdict options?

Are they not ‘not guilty’ and ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’. I know there’s also ‘not proven’ in Scotland, but I didn’t think there was something like ‘guilty, with no doubt’. "

Answer my question! Are you OK with giving a murderer the same sentence/punishment as a lesser crime? Isn't that inequality? Especially since you're giving the murderer the milder punishment because he/she "might be found innocent later". Aren't you doing the same thing of being unequal and philosophically inconsistent? You are!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

This thread deserves the death sentence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

"This thread deserves the death sentence. "

Give it about 35 more posts and thankfully it will

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

But that's what you're advocating. So you're OK with imprisoning innocent people? That doesn't sound wrong to you.

I’m not so much advocating it, I’m saying the two things are on different sides of a line marked ‘acceptable consequence’.

The consequence of killing someone in error is clearly and unambiguously greater than the consequence of someone spending time in prison."

The consequence of locking someone up in error is unambiguously greater than the consequence of someone spending time free. See how that works? Why are you comparing two very bad things instead of dismissing them both? It's inconsistent. You ARE saying that it's OK to imprison innocent people. The more we tease it out, the clearer it becomes. To be consistent you should be saying that we need higher standards of evidence for these crimes and that we shouldn't lock people up because it's too much of a risk to imprison someone in error. Do you not get that? Do you see your inconsistency? Why are you ok with taking people's freedom and destroying their lives? Don't compare it to death penalty. Remove BOTH if they are harming innocent people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

I did specifically say for certain crimes. And would completely depend on the situation the crime was committed.

Both murderers, but very, very different circumstances.

Not hard to guess in that example which one I think deserves the death penalty and which deserves a significantly more lenient sentence.

Yep completely agree I sorta made that point way back at the start of this lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Haven't read the responses but a resounding 'nay' from me. Society has lost enough of it's humanity already without bringing back executions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Definitely bring it back, for those that have been proven guilty for murder and other horrendous things,.... Also all this knife crime going around , if you stab someone and you're proven guilty there's solid evidence you committed said crime you should get the death sentence.

Should be a bit of deterrent to stop people carrying knives reintroducing the death penalty.

If I ever murdered someone I'd expect the sentence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

It's not appropriate to take the life of another human, though I'm in favour of permitting euthanasia, which is someone ending their own, of course - possibly with assistance.

The state should not lower itself to the role of murderer, such as for the 'payback' of crime.

In some jurisdictions there is evidence that the death penalty does not serve to reduce crime rates, so it's not a good deterrent. Get to the causes of crimes, if you're wishing to reduce crime, rather than seeking to add something to the same awful level as some of them.

Society has developed, as more states have withdrawn the death penalty and it would be fantastic if all states did this in my lifetime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Its funny I've read somewhere that there is talks of guns being legal in the UK and there is no for the DP to return what do think will happen if guns are legalized everyone sitting around a campfire singing coombia shooting for the stars? lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"Its funny I've read somewhere that there is talks of guns being legal in the UK and there is no for the DP to return what do think will happen if guns are legalized everyone sitting around a campfire singing coombia shooting for the stars? lol"

Other than something Nigel Farage has mentioned, what talks are these?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Other than something Nigel Farage has mentioned, what talks are these?"

It probably was him I heard it from but still he basically predicted Brexit did he not so don't be too surprised if guns come up next

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

But that's what you're advocating. So you're OK with imprisoning innocent people? That doesn't sound wrong to you.

I’m not so much advocating it, I’m saying the two things are on different sides of a line marked ‘acceptable consequence’.

The consequence of killing someone in error is clearly and unambiguously greater than the consequence of someone spending time in prison.

It’s not inconsistent though.

The benefit to society as a whole of having a justice system which seeks to protect that society from crime is in my, and probably most reasonable people’s, opinion worth the relatively small risk of someone innocent spending time in prison.

That benefit is not, in my opinion, worth any risk of someone innocent being a executed.

Trying to draw some sort of moral equivalency between killing someone and locking them up is just pedantry.

You may as well say I am being inconsistent because I think the benefit of cars is worth the risk of people dying in RTAs, but don’t think that people should be used instead of crash test dummies to improve road safety.

Clearly one is on the acceptable side of any risk / benefit / consequence calculation, and the other is not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

Other than something Nigel Farage has mentioned, what talks are these?

It probably was him I heard it from but still he basically predicted Brexit did he not so don't be too surprised if guns come up next"

Given the current issue of knife crime, and the prevalence of gun crime somewhere like the US, I’d be very surprised if gun laws were loosened any time soon.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes bring the death penalty back, people wouldn't be so quick stabbing others to death if they thought it would cost them their own life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Other than something Nigel Farage has mentioned, what talks are these?

It probably was him I heard it from but still he basically predicted Brexit did he not so don't be too surprised if guns come up next

Given the current issue of knife crime, and the prevalence of gun crime somewhere like the US, I’d be very surprised if gun laws were loosened any time soon. "

Well I hope to god it don't happen there is a shooting here in Dublin every other week its madness

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I have the death sentence on 12 systems

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If guilt is proven with no shadow of doubt, then yes.

How would that work exactly?

So someone found ‘guilty beyond a shadow of doubt’ of a crime, is executed....

But someone only found ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ for_the_same_crime is only sent to prison?

Something like that do you mean?

I haven't suggested anything. You're the one trying to be a smart arse.

If someone is found guilty, by jury, and there is no way the verdict could possibly be wrong due to overwhelming evidence against the accused, then yes for certain crimes the bastard should die.

I hope that's clearer for you.

You are suggesting that the death penalty be applied in cases where there is no doubt.

So you would need to have that as a possible verdict.

Then that's for the powers that be to decide what verdict category to give it, if it were to ever be brought back. Which it won't, so a bit of a non issue really.

So basically a system where two people could be found guilty to different degrees, for the exact same crime, and one is executed and the other is only sent to prison?

That doesn’t sound right to me.

But that's what you're advocating. So you're OK with imprisoning innocent people? That doesn't sound wrong to you.

I’m not so much advocating it, I’m saying the two things are on different sides of a line marked ‘acceptable consequence’.

The consequence of killing someone in error is clearly and unambiguously greater than the consequence of someone spending time in prison.

It’s not inconsistent though.

That benefit is not, in my opinion, worth any risk of someone innocent being a executed.

Trying to draw some sort of moral equivalency between killing someone and locking them up is just pedantry.

Clearly one is on the acceptable side of any risk / benefit / consequence calculation, and the other is not."

That's the same as saying that it's much better to execute someone quickly rather than torture them to death slowly with crucifixion or some other torture device. You're still not getting the hypocrisy.

You're again avoiding and side stepping the issue! Stop using death penalty to justify severely harming the society by locking up innocent civilians and deal with the inconsistency in your philosophy.

".. worth the relatively small risk of someone innocent spending time in prison." Relatively small risk??? So you are using the death penalty to lessen the impact of severely harming the society by imprisoning innocent people rather than deal with the issue of improperly issuing guilty verdicts. You're proving my point. You're effectively acting as though imprisonment isn't harmful. In this situation where there is no death penalty, how do you justify harming the society by taking innocent peoples freedom away? Use the same argument you used and let's settle on a less harmful solution. Is it getting clearer? Right, how about not imprisoning people just in case they are found innocent later? How about some other less harmful punishment? Justify your stance in the context of having no death penalty, which we don't. You're contradicting yourself. Which is why you need to focus on the real issue, and that is the system of ascertaining guilt! If it cannot be relied upon then it is always more harmful to punish than it is to not punish! So what we are discovering is that you don't believe guilt can be truly ascertained. That's the real issue here. I disagree! We absolutely CAN ascertain guilt! You obviously believe it's ok to harm innocent people because it's lesser than another form of punishment. I don't! I'm consistent, you're not! I'm advocating for punishing guilty people and I firmly believe that guilt can be ascertained. You don't. That's the difference! You're making a joke of the nature of evidence. What you should be doing is arguing that there are injustices in the court system we currently have that needs changing. But you aren't. By the same logic, I can argue that it's less harmful to torture people with years of psychological damage and theft of freedom and innocence till they die in prison than it is to execute them. It's less harmful to torture people to death than it is to give them a swift death. Your hypothetical that "they could be innocent" should extend to prison as well. Don't punish people you believe could be innocent, simple. Why are you comfortable with that rather than abolishing prison sentences? I know why, because you DO believe people are 100% guilty in many circumstances, but you shift when it comes to DP because you have a separate problem with it. This argument isn't working.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Kentish79, let's tease this out a bit more. I'm curious, do you believe killing is ever justifiable? Are there circumstances where killing someone is ever justified? Yes or no and explain. Please advise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

I’m not saying imprisonment isn’t harmful, I’m saying that due to the unique finality of killing someone, it is by so many orders of magnitude more severe than imprisonment that it is not a practical comparison.

To compare killing someone quickly versus killing someone slowly with killing someone versus not killing someone is absurd.

Just because two things are bad, does not make them equally applicable.

You may as well argue that shoplifting and murder are both “bad” so shoplifters and murderers should both receive the same punishment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entish79Man over a year ago

Glasgow

"Kentish79, let's tease this out a bit more. I'm curious, do you believe killing is ever justifiable? Are there circumstances where killing someone is ever justified? Yes or no and explain. Please advise. "

OK, I guess you’re trying to draw me into some moralistic, philosophical debate among the lines of would it, for example, be justifiable to kill one person of it meant saving the lives of two people, a hundred people, a million people.

And presumably when I saw so much as “possibly” you argue that the death penalty would be worth it if it saves lives from future reoffenders.

But I can cut to the chase and say again that if the problem is a lack of tougher prison sentences, then the solution is tougher prison sentences, not the death penalty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hunderstruckMan over a year ago

Northampton

"I’m not saying imprisonment isn’t harmful, I’m saying that due to the unique finality of killing someone, it is by so many orders of magnitude more severe than imprisonment that it is not a practical comparison.

To compare killing someone quickly versus killing someone slowly with killing someone versus not killing someone is absurd.

Just because two things are bad, does not make them equally applicable.

You may as well argue that shoplifting and murder are both “bad” so shoplifters and murderers should both receive the same punishment."

What if your son or daughter was murdered

Would it be ok for the proven

(100 percent ) killer to walk free after Serving his mandatory 25 years or 15 for good behaviour ?

Let’s hear what you think

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Right, so since it's severely harmful to imprison an innocent person, let's settle on something less harmful than that! That's what you should be doing since you're using the severity of harm paradigm. The 'finality' of having lost your freedom for 20, 30, 40 years is irreversible! It is FINAL after you have served that time. You can't give that back. And we don't release people who we think are close to death who are serving life sentences because they 'could be innocent' do we? Why aren't you arguing that we shouldn't lock people up after a certain age since dying in prison is inevitable and "final" and they could be innocent?? Do you get it? If a prisoner is about to die, should we release them so that we can say we didn't let a possibly innocent person die in prison just in case it is discovered decades later that they are innocent? You're not making sense!

"To compare killing someone quickly versus killing someone slowly with killing someone versus not killing someone is absurd."

That comment is nonsensical and absurd. Versus is between two things not three. You've made that up, I didn't argue that.

"You may as well argue that shoplifting and murder are both “bad” so shoplifters and murderers should both receive the same punishment."

False equivalence!! I'm arguing rather that shoplifting and murder are both bad therefore NEITHER of them should be done!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

To compare killing someone quickly versus killing someone slowly with killing someone versus not killing someone is absurd.

Just because two things are bad, does not make them equally applicable.

You may as well argue that shoplifting and murder are both “bad” so shoplifters and murderers should both receive the same punishment.

What if your son or daughter was murdered

Would it be ok for the proven

(100 percent ) killer to walk free after Serving his mandatory 25 years or 15 for good behaviour ?

Let’s hear what you think "

Exactly my point its easy to say the DP is inhuman cos that person didn't effect your loved ones but what if it did murdered in cold blood leaving your family in so much pain and then for that person to be set free 20 to 50 years down the line getting on with their lives as if nothing happened by Jesus id waiting for them as soon as they do step outside

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And presumably when I saw so much as “possibly” you argue that the death penalty would be worth it if it saves lives from future reoffenders.

But I can cut to the chase and say again that if the problem is a lack of tougher prison sentences, then the solution is tougher prison sentences, not the death penalty. "

Gotcha!

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

You said earlier that the death penalty was "immoral". I'm asking you if it is ever justifiable to kill someone at all? Are you afraid more inconsistency will be exposed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

If i knew there was a possiblity that i would die for a crime i commited i'd go the whole hog and do a lot more than just that one thing.

Also most of the people who should be dead are untouchable anyway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If i knew there was a possiblity that i would die for a crime i commited i'd go the whole hog and do a lot more than just that one thing.

Also most of the people who should be dead are untouchable anyway."

What do you mean by this? You don't think murdering someone is "the whole hog"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *evil_u_knowMan over a year ago

city

Yes, but only for people caught in the act.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No - just cut their hands and legs off like they do in some countries.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes, but only for people caught in the act."

But they "might be innocent" according to some. They can never ever ever be actually found guilty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

"If i knew there was a possiblity that i would die for a crime i commited i'd go the whole hog and do a lot more than just that one thing.

Also most of the people who should be dead are untouchable anyway.

What do you mean by this? You don't think murdering someone is "the whole hog"? "

Same sentence for doing one as it would be for doing 100. Get my drift?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

This thread is coming to an end will we put this to bed or will I open round 2 lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Death sentence? Is going back to the middle ages really any form of progress?

Better the "guilty" live the rest of their lives than any innocent person is murdered by the judiciary....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ed-monkeyCouple over a year ago

Hailsham

"This thread is coming to an end will we put this to bed or will I open round 2 lol"

Better to let it die it's own death .. or at least post in the correct forum ... like politics... it's not really lounge material

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If i knew there was a possiblity that i would die for a crime i commited i'd go the whole hog and do a lot more than just that one thing.

Also most of the people who should be dead are untouchable anyway.

What do you mean by this? You don't think murdering someone is "the whole hog"?

Same sentence for doing one as it would be for doing 100. Get my drift?"

Kinda. But that's the way it is now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"This thread is coming to an end will we put this to bed or will I open round 2 lol

Better to let it die it's own death .. or at least post in the correct forum ... like politics... it's not really lounge material"

Yeah sorry about that still new to the forums didn't know there was a politics one in only found out this week there is an Ireland forum proves how much I know lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xMFM3sumsxxWoman over a year ago

SouthWest Lancashire

"If i knew there was a possiblity that i would die for a crime i commited i'd go the whole hog and do a lot more than just that one thing.

Also most of the people who should be dead are untouchable anyway.

What do you mean by this? You don't think murdering someone is "the whole hog"?

Same sentence for doing one as it would be for doing 100. Get my drift?

Kinda. But that's the way it is now? "

It's the way pretty much anyone works. People weigh up risks/opportunities/chances of getting away with it and whether they are worth it. Not saying for murder but for anything in life really.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

175! Killing it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Do we (as a society) want to exact revenge or rehabilitate?"

Ah, the rehabilitate or punish argument has gone on for eons.

Is it a prisons purpose to do either. With the numbers of prison officers falling, new fangled fast track ideas to boost numbers and then these applicants leaving for being caught smuggling in contraband or having inappropriate relations with prisoners!

Unfortunately its all a farce.

*Steps off soap box and kicks it into corner

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)