Controversial Polls 12: Capital Punishment/Death Penalty

I think it should be brought back

Yes and No!

I voted no. Too much already guilty until proven innocent now. But if proven beyond doubt then yes for certain crimes

Only god can prove beyond shadow of a doubt. Since he's silent, we have to compromise.

I voted No. We all have seen instances of particularly horrible crimes and have thought OMG I wish I could kill that person. But that is a revenge instinct and the potential of a miscarriage of justice is too great.

I voted yes, but i do not believe it should be 'given' lightly and only the worst of the worst crimes punished in this way

No. Absolutely not.

There are too many miscarriages of justice, and nobody has the right to take a life - not the criminal, not the judicial services, nobody.

am an inbetweeney as i think we need to have stricter laws and punishment. i.e if you murder someone then you deserve life not life but you can be out in 10 years but if its the worst of the worst crimes then yes there do not deserve to be alive....

It would also be the only 'punishment' in our judicial system, since prison is supposed to be about protecting society and rehabilitating the perpetrators. There was a doc about this on TV a few months back, fascinating. Before prisons, everything was punishment. So if you stole you got X amount of lashes (or something else, can't remember) and were free to go afterwards. Capital punishment would be mixing a bit of the old with a bit of the new. It doesn't help that it's done for revenge, to soothe the minds of the wronged and has proven not to be a deterrent to serious crime at all.

No, it doesn't serve as a determent, cases are overturned after years or advances in evidence, it's used disproportionately by race and state sanctioned murder is still murder.

Agreed Mani, the death sentence has never been a deterrent.It was just revenge.

jstaff wrote:and state sanctioned murder is still murder.

Well said.

I think some people that have done horrific crimes need to be eradicated.. Some people are incapable of changing there ways and are a danger to society. Why waste our taxes and time on people who can't be let free.

I don't know though..

I think life should mean life and why should my taxes let scum have 'perks' in prison?

Jason wrote:I think some people that have done horrific crimes need to be eradicated.. Some people are incapable of changing there ways and are a danger to society. Why waste our taxes and time on people who can't be let free.

I don't know though..

And what makes 'eradicating' them any better than the murder itself? Killing is killing.

Plus, there are many cases in the past where people would have been hung if the death penalty was still around, but were found out later to be totally innocent.

janey wrote:
I think life should mean life but why should my taxes let scum have 'perks' in prison?

Janey, I agree. A life sentence for murder should be the rest of their natural life, and they should be in a bare cell with just food & water. No tvs, no studying for degrees etc, no 'home comforts'. Just a prison cell.

Caryll wrote:

Jason wrote:I think some people that have done horrific crimes need to be eradicated.. Some people are incapable of changing there ways and are a danger to society. Why waste our taxes and time on people who can't be let free.

I don't know though..

And what makes 'eradicating' them any better than the murder itself? Killing is killing.

Plus, there are many cases in the past where people would have been hung if the death penalty was still around, but were found out later to be totally innocent.

yeah but killing for the good of everybody else. Like our troops do.
I'm not saying go sentencing everybody to death only the proven guilty one's

Rather not waste my money keeping them alive then, what one gives one deserves. And if I was incarcerated like that for a murder I didn't do, I would rather be dead than live that existence,

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Jason wrote:

Caryll wrote:

Jason wrote:I think some people that have done horrific crimes need to be eradicated.. Some people are incapable of changing there ways and are a danger to society. Why waste our taxes and time on people who can't be let free.

I don't know though..

And what makes 'eradicating' them any better than the murder itself? Killing is killing.

Plus, there are many cases in the past where people would have been hung if the death penalty was still around, but were found out later to be totally innocent.

yeah but killing for the good of everybody else. Like our troops do.
I'm not saying go sentencing everybody to death only the proven guilty one's

Killing in a war situation is totally different to judicial murder. Totally.

And when you say the 'proven guilty' ones - what about all those people imprisoned in the past, who were proved guilty, and then at a later date had those sentences overturned because is was found that they were innocent? They would still be dead, wouldn't they?

How can killing someone be for the good of everybody else?

Well killing a proven peodophile or rapist who keeps on offending.. A mass murderer proven on CCTV lol.. There lots of hard case proof these days compared to what there was before..
Killing a nutter who is gonna walk the street a kill again, attack or scar someone for life should be eradicated IMO.
I don't wanna start an argument I just thought I'd share my opinion.

if there no doubts what so ever it be better to put them down. keeping one person in side cost the country £40,000 a year to keep them in side for all of their life could cost the country millions, if 20 year gets found guilty of rap and murber he get tols he will never come out lives till he is 90 40,000x 70 = 2.8milllion that not right

We all have varying opinions about things like this and we all feel genuinely passionate. But i think the system of justice is too easily manipulated these days to be 100% sure of guilt ever again. A high profile case is on the news and we read all about it in the papers, 12 people who are the jurors have just been made biased or opinionated from their armchairs before a word of proof of injustice is spoken, Hence people 25-30 years later people being released from jail proved beyond doubt wrongfully convicted and said people would certainly of been executed for a crime they NEVER commited

That's what I mean.

Although my faith means that taking a life is wrong, my concience also tells me that there are grave miscarriages of justice, so where do you draw the line?

I would much prefer life to mean life, without all the little niceties they get at the moment. Enough food to keep them alive, water only to drink, a cell with a bed & a bucket. That's it, no more. Guards would look in once a day to give them their food for the day & that's the only human contact they have. To me, and I suspect a lot of others, that would be more of a punishment than a quick death.

After the weekend I had I'd be thinking yes!

But in reality, no. I don't think it would deter any crime that is already happening and I'd be afraid that people who aren't guilty would end up caught in the blame and die an undeserved death.

A little sorry, but this is a touchy for me.
Me myself and i on my little planet think there are far too many judges now, far too many people who know best. Far too many ready to dole out justice, these people who Suspect the loner down the street is a paedophile or the 35year old bloke still living at home with his parents has something to hide or they were seen innocently worried for their saftey watching the 4 year old unattended kids playing in the roads and on the street, so they tell someone and they tell someone, and these people who would normally be eligible for jury duty would be 1st to smash a window and make an innocent suffer all because someone doesn't like/jealous or suspicious of said person.There is a storm of historical crimes brewing pray you are not accused by a person you upset in the past, good luck proving where you were this day 14 or 30odd years ago

Yeah but what if there horrific crime was 100% proof it was them.. Say the man was caught on CCTV stabbing people and then when caught he admitted to it...
We're not talking sentencing people to death that can't be proven guilty

Jason wrote:Yeah but what if there horrific crime was 100% proof it was them.. Say the man was caught on CCTV stabbing people and then when caught he admitted to it...
We're not talking sentencing people to death that can't be proven guilty

How many video's have you seen on youtube and thought it must be real then found out it's cgi or tampered with, in my eyes cctv or video will never be admisable again, even police and camera operators are capable of framing someone

The only thing I'd be thinking is that there are very few 100% evidence cases and I don't know if it would warrant bringing back the death penalty for it. I'd fear somewhere along the lines it would be taken advantage of...

So many proven rapists and peodophiles. Not just by DNA but by there PC history. Why would our justice system 'doctor' and edit tapes??

Why would police extract false confessions? then there are the mental illness side of confessions attention seeking by confession, show me 100% infalible system i will back it

There's loads just like the recent news of that woman who took a butchers knife to two people walking down the road.. Not only was she on CCTV but she had the knife still in her

Is she sane? did she understand? can you condone murdering her for being ill?

Also during a person's lifespans society's views of certain crimes change. For example homossexuality was a crime in this country no that far ago. I stand by my earlier point on the futility of the death sentence in a system that's supposedly not about revenge or eye-for-an-eye.

While some criminals are a permanent danger to society, most, even violent ones are not. A murder can happen in a hot-blooded situation but that doesn't mean the murderer is going to do it again systematically. If we kill this person, then who are we protecting... or are we just adding another dead body to the tally?

not everyone who murder someone would get the Death Penalty we talking about murder where there is 100% sure they have done their crime ect. fred west, the bloke who shot the 2 female police officers and so on

But who made us the public God? who are we to decide who lives who dies? You have a different definition of deserved death penalty so how do you make your death penalty ok with mine? Or am i wrong in wanting the likes of Fred West/Myra hindley suffering s*****ng in a bucket eating rice no socialisation, suffering everyday because they can't take their own lives and have to live 50-60 years everyday reliving their crime and thinking of what they did

is anybody suffering in the uk prisons? they getting more then the poor in the uk!!! why pay £40,000 on someone who dont deserve to live? 50 homeless people are dying on the street of the uk a day and people who dont deserve anything are £40,000 a year!!

We've evolved to a point now where god doesn't play much part in our lives.. Alot people are atheists. Too much time and money is spent on cold hearted killers, rapists, peodophiles.. Did 'god' give them the right to do what they did???
God

No. Even if you could be 100% sure they did it, I don't see who has the right to decide these things. If we're meant to be all equal, then no-one should decide it's OK to end someone's life under a certain set of circumstances. And it's not even like there's any facts to back it up, it's all a point of opinion, and that's a pretty big opinion.

Plus, I think prison as punishment is a stupid idea. I think it should be more focused on rehabilitation. As opposed to locking people up for someone minor and then when they get out they can't get a job and then end up doing something even more stupid because they can't find a way to make any money. Obviously murder is different, but people's motives for murder are pretty varied. You could give someone anger management, mental health help, etc. The people that can't be helped might as well just be kept away from the public so they're not a danger.

Rehabilition costs alot and why rehab a mass muderer who cannot be let free.

dave742 wrote:But who made us the public God? who are we to decide who lives who dies? You have a different definition of deserved death penalty so how do you make your death penalty ok with mine? Or am i wrong in wanting the likes of Fred West/Myra hindley suffering s*****ng in a bucket eating rice no socialisation, suffering everyday because they can't take their own lives and have to live 50-60 years everyday reliving their crime and thinking of what they did

This is exactly what I'd like to see - let them live & suffer for what they've done!

Steve wrote:is anybody suffering in the uk prisons? they getting more then the poor in the uk!!! why pay £40,000 on someone who dont deserve to live? 50 homeless people are dying on the street of the uk a day and people who dont deserve anything are £40,000 a year!!

Steve, you're right, they shouldn't have a life of luxury, that's why I would like to see them alive & suffering, as above!

Jason wrote:We've evolved to a point now where god doesn't play much part in our lives.. Alot people are atheists. Too much time and money is spent on cold hearted killers, rapists, peodophiles.. Did 'god' give them the right to do what they did???
God

Hey, just because you're an atheist doesn't give you the right to rubbish those who believe, so enough with the stupid smiley face after the word! I, for one, am extremely insulted by that. I don't make fun of you being an atheist, so don't make fun of those who are not.

Belief in God (or a higher being) is still very much alive & well in this country & elsewhere. People may not go to church, they may not stand on corners quoting scripture, but that doesn't mean they don't believe.

Even apart from that, common goodness in people should be enough for them to realise that the death sentence is not foolproof! If you bring it back then people who are totally innocent will die - do they deserve that?

. I feel the death penalty is too soft make them suffer just like the victims families have, just like poor Keith Bennets Mother died not knowing where her son lay, the likes of Hindley,Brady and west should of been made to suffer and live everyday in pain, no medication for any illness if they are to die to a horrible God given death so be it, but by law they should be made to SUFFER and that will cost less due to only basic living locked in a room all their days. Not so long back there was a riot in an open prison, they burnt their accomodation because they weren't happy , they should be thankful i don't run prison services because i would of said the cheeky baskets have destroyed all the easy prison items they are fenced in let them sleep in the mess they created. Human rights were denied the victims so they have no human rights make every crime suffer. But we should also remember the truley rehabilitated that do come out of prison repenting their sins due to the good work done in there, and as strong as my views are on crime and punishment they are equally strong on supporting the said rehabilitated to the maximum

@caryll

yeah your right I'm sorry. I wasn't ridiculing the belief/faith I was mocking how we base our right and wrongs on god..
I withdraw myself from this topic because people are taking it too passionately and it's not my place

Sorry

Spot on, Dave.

Jason wrote:@caryll

yeah your right I'm sorry. I wasn't ridiculing the belief/faith I was mocking how we base our right and wrongs on god..
I withdraw myself from this topic because people are taking it too passionately and it's not my place

Sorry

The thing is, Jason, we have to base our rights & wrongs on something - what is wrong with basing them on a religion that preaches peace & understanding? And before anybody jumps on me & says about religion causing wars, yes I know it does. But that's people's interpretation of religion, not the actual fact of it. Christianity is based on Jesus, who preached goodwill & peace.

And as for people taking things too passionately - what on earth do you expect? It's life & death, how else can you take it?

Jason wrote:@caryll

yeah your right I'm sorry. I wasn't ridiculing the belief/faith I was mocking how we base our right and wrongs on god..
I withdraw myself from this topic because people are taking it too passionately and it's not my place

Sorry

Jason the thread is called controversial for a reason, to turn it towards religion is all that is wrong with what you have said, surely it's ok to debate about things we so totally believe in, Caryll has comfort in her beliefs and like you in yours and i in mine,how we feel about this subject if you look closely is not religion based or Caryll would be saying the lord says forgive but she is not, she agrees with us all that people should suffer for their crimes but just not in death. I apologise if i have that wrong Caryll and i do realise i have no right to speak for you. I love debates like this because normally you find a happy medium thats where civilisation is born

Our society is based on its Christian origins, and our Christian origins are based on our society. Hard to separate them. Your calls for a life of torture to prisoners disgusts me, though. But hey, we can be friends on the doggy stuff anyway.

Caryll wrote:

Jason wrote:@caryll

yeah your right I'm sorry. I wasn't ridiculing the belief/faith I was mocking how we base our right and wrongs on god..
I withdraw myself from this topic because people are taking it too passionately and it's not my place

Sorry

The thing is, Jason, we have to base our rights & wrongs on something - what is wrong with basing them on a religion that preaches peace & understanding? And before anybody jumps on me & says about religion causing wars, yes I know it does. But that's people's interpretation of religion, not the actual fact of it. Christianity is based on Jesus, who preached goodwill & peace.

And as for people taking things too passionately - what on earth do you expect? It's life & death, how else can you take it?

well its too passionate for us here. We are supposed to just be discussing it.. Im not arguing my point im just giving a side.

dave742 wrote:I apologise if i have that wrong Caryll and i do realise i have no right to speak for you. I love debates like this because normally you find a happy medium thats where civilisation is born

That's near enough what I mean!

Mani wrote: Your calls for a life of torture to prisoners disgusts me, though. But hey, we can be friends on the doggy stuff anyway.

So would you prefer to kill them?

Jason, this is a controversial poll - controversial because Steve knows it'll cause controversy! That's the idea of it! I only got the ump with you because you appeared to be ridiculing my belief in God.

Tara wrote:No. Even if you could be 100% sure they did it, I don't see who has the right to decide these things. If we're meant to be all equal, then no-one should decide it's OK to end someone's life under a certain set of circumstances. And it's not even like there's any facts to back it up, it's all a point of opinion, and that's a pretty big opinion.

Plus, I think prison as punishment is a stupid idea. I think it should be more focused on rehabilitation. As opposed to locking people up for someone minor and then when they get out they can't get a job and then end up doing something even more stupid because they can't find a way to make any money. Obviously murder is different, but people's motives for murder are pretty varied. You could give someone anger management, mental health help, etc. The people that can't be helped might as well just be kept away from the public so they're not a danger.

labour threw a silly amount of money at trying to rehab people and it clearly dont work, only time you be able to rehab someone is when they cant do whatever they do anymore, a drug dealer who earns £400/£500 a day is not going want a job that only earn him £185 a week but this not about minor crimes this is about murder

Mani wrote:Also during a person's lifespans society's views of certain crimes change. For example homossexuality was a crime in this country no that far ago. I stand by my earlier point on the futility of the death sentence in a system that's supposedly not about revenge or eye-for-an-eye.

While some criminals are a permanent danger to society, most, even violent ones are not. A murder can happen in a hot-blooded situation but that doesn't mean the murderer is going to do it again systematically. If we kill this person, then who are we protecting... or are we just adding another dead body to the tally?

it's all depend on the crime, people like fred west, the bloke who kill 2 police officers, gangstar who sent hit men to kill rivals hole family these people will never step out side in he public domain again