Should there be the death penalty in Britain?

Should there be the death penalty in Britain?

A massive voting count has been taken in Britain to say that the death penalty should be brought back. The funny thing is 99% of the population can’t be that harsh. In my view even I think that the death penalty should not be brought back because I would not like some one (even if I hated them) to me killed in front of me. The man reason that I think that it would be not a good Idea to bring this law back is because people have been wrongly killed even though they were innocent, once some one is dead they are dead.

The conspiracy behind this is in my view is, I think that the British government deliberately made people vote to bring back the death penalty because of the cover crowding of the British jail system.

There are probably people that can see the good side of this law although I can’t see it so if you disagree or agree with me share you view in this thread!

www.bnp.org.uk/2008/02/23/public-calls-for-death-penalty/

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article841077.ece

Read the articles above for more info


Ohhhh Yay more crap weather! Why me?

I can't speak on the UK but I can speak on the death penalty.

There are three reasons somebody murders. Passion/Rage, premeditation/planning and insanity.

The person who commits murder out of an instance of rage or passion didn't exactly expect to be killing anyone. It's an overemotional off the handle reaction.

The person who plans it out and premeditates it doesn't expect to get caught.

The person who kills because he's insane is, well, insane.

In neither of these cases can a deterrent have any effect. The killer either acts in reflex not considering the consequence, knows the consequence and acts anyway expecting to evade the consequence, is completely insane and doesn't care if there is a consequence.

The death penalty if reduced in overall cost can be an effective means to save the taxpayer some cash and cull the prison population but as a deterrent it is useless.

This is why I prefer deadly force as a means of self defense. If you are being attacked then there really is no need for a trial and a jury. You know you're being attacked and the criminal is obvious. Killing the attacker is much less expensive than imprisonment or death penalty. And a few of these on the front page would still not deter the three murdering types I have laid out but it would deter things like muggings, assaults and rapes.

Murder would go on just the same as it ever has but overall quality of life for the law abiding would improve.

reply to post by ohhhh well


First of all there was no "vote". Opinion pools do not policy make. If they did then we wouldn't be preparing to pay more in taxes as outlined by Darling's new budget.

There has been a spate of some horrific crimes in the UK, which have put the idea of the death penalty back in the public eye. Mostly crimes perpetuated by young, unemployed, youth who hang out in front of your local shop drinking cheap lager and NOT hardworking immigrants.

When a father is kicked to death by drunken yobs in front of his kids it can attract some vehement reactions in people, I understand that.

To bring the death penalty back would put us in this exclusive club Countries where the death penalty is allowed

I do not believe that Britian should bring the death Penalty back.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Killing seems a bit of an overreaction. Surely just trying to incapacitate the person would suffice.

We need to attack the reasons people kill - mental health, poverty, etc., then the problem will go away. Turning each civilian into some sort of killing machine won't help, as we can see from the US.

I think a punishment that reflects the crime as opposed to generic punishments.

If say a chav goes on a vandal spree and destroys bus shelters and cars, then I believe 200 hours community service would make him think twice.

If a gang brutally attacks someone (as is becoming all too common these days) then maybe a fair time spent in a harsh boot camp and/or hard labour, as jail is becoming too cosy.

Paedophiles should be chemically castrated and kept out of society.

Rapists should face time in a tough prison, where they may face a taste of their own medicine, so to speak.

Murderers should face varying degrees of options, all dependant on the situation, including life or a long term imprisonment or for the case of serial killers, the death penalty (same for child murderers)...

I consider myself a fairly liberal person, but in todays society, we really are too soft on the bad people and too heavy on the good.

We Jail for unpaid speeding tickets, yet the same penalty for a chav who stamps a man to death in front of his kids.

My opinion is :

There are some crimes which are so callous as to warrant the death penalty. The murder of police officers, the rape of children and multiple murders amongst them.

It is undeniably the case that any person who commits the type of acts listed above has lost his right to live in my country, because he is a threat to me and my fellow citizens. I posit the following only for cases where the crime is obviously degenerate in extremis. Give me one good reason why we should keep a paedophile rapist alive, or someone who murders a policeman, or for acts of terrorism against our nation.

We should not have to pay to incarcerate him, as this costs us tax money and detracts from using the money elsewhere where it is sorely needed. Just think that the money needed to keep a murdering paedophile in prison for life is as high as £300,000. The money from executing one of these lifers alone would save a huge number of lives on the NHS. By wasting money keeping these kinds of scum alive, you are handing a death sentence to others who are not only innocent but of value to society also. Women diagnosed with breast cancer cannot get Herceptin on the NHS even though it works 100% of the time. They are instead given alternatives which are cheaper but dont always work. This is surely handing some women a death sentence which they do not deserve. Can you understand my viewpoint here? Another example is my friend's dad recently died of MRSA... because the hospital couldnt afford to pay for bloody cleaners. How fair is that?? There is no point in keeping a disgusting criminal alive while killing an innocent law abiding citizen.

Thus my argument pro-death penalty is thus:

1. If the person cannot be rehabilitated (serial offender for rape); If the person has done something so disgusting that we cannot take a chance ever releasing him (paedophilia); or otherwise has no chance for rehabilitation to work, there is no point in him being alive. Absolutely no point- what contribution could he make to our country?

2. The money needed to keep one of these kinds of people alive could be used instead on the NHS. Using money to incarcerate terminal criminals instead of using it to combat MRSA or pay for better drugs is STUPIDITY. There is no pragmatic reason to continue this practice.


Now dont get me wrong, im not saying that the death penalty should be routine, but the judge should have an option of executing a criminal who has committed a crime so despicable as to not warrant his continued existence.

The only argument against the death penalty i can see is if an honest, innocent man is wrongly convicted. I can see no way around this if im honest. Should we consider such a case as collateral damage?

If the death penalty was to be put in place, i have to agree that it should not be routine and only made in exceptional cases, such as vile crimes against children and serial rapists/murderers....

But only when the evidence against them is 100%

There should be no margin for error. Although how this would come about is beyond me.

reply to post by dave420


I'd rather defend myself with an excessive force and have the attacker be incapacitated if not outright killed than attempt to defend myself with a level of force designed to incapacitate only to have it fail for whatever reason and successfully be attacked. I've had my share of experience with tasers, stun guns, pepper sprays of varying degrees of strength, billy clubs and more and not one of them is as effective as a bullet in the chest. I've seen criminals reach up and rip the tasers prongs right out of their own flesh and continue their attack. Sometimes they just grab the wires and pull the taser and the user toward them. I've seen them get foaming spray in the face and continue their attack. I've never seen one get shot in the chest with a 9mm or larger and continue the attack. At least not for very long or with any degree of strength.

Remember, I didn't decide that my wallet/shoes/jewelry/un-raped body was worth the attackers life. The attacker did.

Besides, once the attacker has been stopped anyone who takes the responsibility of self-preservation seriously would be trained to act as a first responder anyway. Stop the attack, call for paramedic, administer CPR and first aid. The point isn't to kill. The point is to stop the attack. Nothing does that better than a bullet. Even the most insane body building fanatic high on PCP will succumb to a bullet or two.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
If the death penalty was to be put in place, i have to agree that it should not be routine and only made in exceptional cases, such as vile crimes against children and serial rapists/murderers....

But only when the evidence against them is 100%

There should be no margin for error. Although how this would come about is beyond me.

Yes, this is the jist of my argument.

Maybe if a criminal was caught red handed in the act committing child abuse, then what? I say it would take a liberal of extraordinary idiocy to try and justify keeping such a person alive.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by dave420

 

Remember, I didn't decide that my wallet/shoes/jewelry/un-raped body was worth the attackers life. The attacker did.

Thats a brilliantly succinct statement! Well put sir, hear hear!

Originally posted by ohhhh well
Should there be the death penalty in Britain?

A massive voting count has been taken in Britain to say that the death penalty should be brought back. The funny thing is 99% of the population can’t be that harsh. In my view even I think that the death penalty should not be brought back because I would not like some one (even if I hated them) to me killed in front of me. The man reason that I think that it would be not a good Idea to bring this law back is because people have been wrongly killed even though they were innocent, once some one is dead they are dead.

The conspiracy behind this is in my view is, I think that the British government deliberately made people vote to bring back the death penalty because of the cover crowding of the British jail system.

There are probably people that can see the good side of this law although I can’t see it so if you disagree or agree with me share you view in this thread!

www.bnp.org.uk/2008/02/23/public-calls-for-death-penalty/

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article841077.ece

Read the articles above for more info


Ohhhh Yay more crap weather! Why me?

99 % of sun readers that could be bothered to vote (ie,the irate,frustrated "they terk our jerbs" kind) think that we in Britain should have the death penatly. Luckily for us,they are stupid,knee-jerk reactionary fools who do not speak on behalf of forward thinking people.

State murder is WRONG. You can not undo that if you got it wrong. And lets face it,they get it wrong an awful lot. And anyway,you can't truly punish someone when they're dead.

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Originally posted by ohhhh well
Should there be the death penalty in Britain?

A massive voting count has been taken in Britain to say that the death penalty should be brought back. The funny thing is 99% of the population can’t be that harsh. In my view even I think that the death penalty should not be brought back because I would not like some one (even if I hated them) to me killed in front of me. The man reason that I think that it would be not a good Idea to bring this law back is because people have been wrongly killed even though they were innocent, once some one is dead they are dead.

The conspiracy behind this is in my view is, I think that the British government deliberately made people vote to bring back the death penalty because of the cover crowding of the British jail system.

There are probably people that can see the good side of this law although I can’t see it so if you disagree or agree with me share you view in this thread!

www.bnp.org.uk/2008/02/23/public-calls-for-death-penalty/

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article841077.ece

Read the articles above for more info


Ohhhh Yay more crap weather! Why me?

99 % of sun readers that could be bothered to vote (ie,the irate,frustrated "they terk our jerbs" kind) think that we in Britain should have the death penatly. Luckily for us,they are stupid,knee-jerk reactionary fools who do not speak on behalf of forward thinking people.

State murder is WRONG. You can not undo that if you got it wrong. And lets face it,they get it wrong an awful lot. And anyway,you can't truly punish someone when they're dead.

Acid why dont you try and deal with the question i posted.

If a child molester was caught while committing the crime, why should he not be executed? There is no element of doubt, there is no case for the person being rehabilitated.

The tone you are taking in your post is one of arrogance and self-concluded superiority. Let me tell you, you dont have the moral high ground and certainly have no right to call others low-brow while calling yourself "forward thinking".

reply to post by ohhhh well

The conspiracy behind this is in my view is, I think that the British government deliberately made people vote to bring back the death penalty because of the cover crowding of the British jail system.

in a word NO !

capital punishment will not magically clear the pisons , unless you are going to mandate the death penalty for a vast range of crimes

in reality it is cat D / B cell places that are most in demand - as these hare non vioilent , repeat offenders etc

reply to post by 44soulslayer
Maybe we can learn more about why someone does these things,if they're alive. And work to iscolating what causes people to do these heinous things. Killing them is just that,they're dead. Ok,they won't offend again,but they won't suffer either. Death is not a punnishment,it's an escape. A life behind bars,with crazy ass inmates growling at you day and night has to be far worse than death. As the fear is constant. (that sounds a bit sadistic,but hey)

Maybe,in real extreme cases,where there is NO chance of reabilitation,of a violent murderous sexual predator. And 100% certainty of guilt,then maybe the death penatly could be considered. But the death penalty in many other countries do not use it for extreme cases. If they got it right each time,then maybe there'd be a different side to my argument. I'd rather a guilty man go free,than an innocent man get put to death.

And I'm sorry if my post came accross as arrogant,that wasn't my intention. But I still think that state murder is wrong.

99 % of sun readers that could be bothered to vote (ie,the irate,frustrated "they terk our jerbs" kind) think that we in Britain should have the death penatly. Luckily for us,they are stupid,knee-jerk reactionary fools who do not speak on behalf of forward thinking people.

State murder is WRONG. You can not undo that if you got it wrong. And lets face it,they get it wrong an awful lot. And anyway,you can't truly punish someone when they're dead.

With all due respect that's a very arrogant and rather ignorant generalisation on your part. Remember these people probably make up a greater part of the population in the UK, they actually live on the streets where these crimes take place, not in the gated communities where the 'informed' tell us our fear of crime is out of all proportion and we really should try to understand the criminals who are terrorising us. They don't have that luxury, they are scared and they suffer, perhaps a knee jerk racton is more understandable in that light.

If only there was as much outrage expressd over a man being kcked to death for fun by stupid malicious chavs as there is in some quarters when talk of punishment rather than rehabilitation is muted those Sun readers might feel their lives and welfare were being taken a little more seriously and wouldn't resort to knee jerk reaction, we all might actually.

Personally I'd pay to see scrotes like that put up against a wall and shot but on a social level I realise the most civilised and enlightened approach is probably imprisonment. Life for murder, not 12 years and a social worker thrown in to make excuses for their evil, but life.



[edit on 14-3-2008 by Cantwara]

Yes, but do you know that it costs £300000 to keep a criminal alive for the duration of his life?

Should we not use this money on our rapidly degenerating NHS?

The only solution which i can think of that involves imprisoning criminals for life instead of executing them (when in cases which are beyond doubt and perverted to a large extent), is that the prisoners should be made to do very hard labour. But of course this is illegal under bloody EU human rights regulations.

Ergo i see only two options:

1. Execute them, let god judge them for their crimes.

2. Imprison them into very hard labour camps or chain gang them and make them build roads etc.

I would actually support that second option for more moderate criminals as well. Such as bank robbers etc should be made to work assembling items of some sort. This gives them skills and it would bolster our manufacturing sector to compete with China.

At any rate, labour should be doled out to prisoners such that they should pay for the very jails they are occupying. At least then i can condone keeping some of them alive in cases where there is no red-handed evidence, because they would not be a burden on the taxpayer.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


Your solution is, well, lazy. You don't want to spend £300k on keeping them in prison, so instead of looking for a method of rehabilitation that doesn't just say "well sod it - let's just kill them".

People who commit crimes need help. There is no punishment greater for an offender than to realise the impact of their crime on their victims. Make that person realise what they've done, and then help them get out of whatever psychological problems they were going through that would lead a person to do that, and you've saved yourself the money AND provided one more productive member of society.

Paedophiles suffer from a mental illness that is not their fault. They didn't choose to be paedophiles, so it doesn't make much sense to kill them for it. Again, helping them through their problems until the problems disappear would make far more sense.

Killing is never the answer.

I'm all for option 2 there 44. It costs far too much to keep criminals incarcerated. They should have to earn their keep. maybe medical testing on proper lost it cases. One things for sure,they shouldn't be allowed to sue the prison cos they're not quite comfortable.

Yes,bring it back.

There should be no excuse for commiting hideous crimes against any man,woman,or child in this country.

Perhaps these perpetrators would think twice about commiting their crimes if there was a death sentence reestablished.

Originally posted by scobro
Yes,bring it back.

There should be no excuse for commiting hideous crimes against any man,woman,or child in this country.

Perhaps these perpetrators would think twice about commiting their crimes if there was a death sentence reestablished.

does it deter them in other countries? No. Murder,molestation and rape still happen.