Should capital punishment be brought back?

[Wizard.]

I used to think no, but in certain cases I agree with it. You might know about that family who died in a fire, the mum and the children recently and it's near where I live. A few people have been arrested, and basically the guy not only set fire to the house with innocent children in it but also got his mates to set fire to all escape routes - they knew what they were doing.

Now I'm not saying lets hung, drawn and quarter them in public like medieval times, but privately, and in this case and in similar cases, make sure it's painful.

[Glenn.]

Yes. Convicted murderers where the evidence is sufficient and child molesters etc.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes for revenge and closure

[smudgie]

I have nothing against the death penalty, as long as it is carried out humanely.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough either, it would have to be totally beyond doubt that the person was guilty.
Murder and not manslaughter as well, premeditated is a lot different to accidental.

[Wizard.]

Yes. Convicted murderers where the evidence is sufficient and child molesters etc.

Yes for revenge and closure

Here here!

And I don't think these days that there would be a problem of "oh but what if they've been wrongfully convicted"

Well if the evidence is based on circumstances maybe they get a prison sentence but if it is based on factual DNA evidence then they did it.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Definitely not. For two reasons:

a) if we allow it for certain extreme cases, where do we draw the line? Everybody has a different idea of what constitutes extreme cases and when jt should be used.

b) There have been far too many miscarriages if justice in the past where the death penalty would have been used if it had been available. If only one inmocent person is killed for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many to justify the death penalty.

[Shaun]

Something that interests me on this topic is that those who are in favour of the death penalty are more than often also the same people who want to see captured terrorists suffer, rather than receive immediate (or, 6 months down the line) death in a relatively humane way.

Even without the "easy get out clause" point for deluded fanatics and religious murderers/terrorists, state-endorsed killing is still killing IMO.

It just makes no sense in some parts of America anyway, some murders are punishable by death but others are not? :suspect:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Definitely not. For two reasons:

a) if we allow it for certain extreme cases, where do we draw the line? Everybody has a different idea of what constitutes extreme cases and when jt should be used.

b) There have been far too many miscarriages if justice in the past where the death penalty would have been used if it had been available. If only one inmocent person is killed for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many to jistify the death penalty.

name 3

[DemolitionRed]

I used to think no, but in certain cases I agree with it. You might know about that family who died in a fire, the mum and the children recently and it's near where I live. A few people have been arrested, and basically the guy not only set fire to the house with innocent children in it but also got his mates to set fire to all escape routes - they knew what they were doing.

Now I'm not saying lets hung, drawn and quarter them in public like medieval times, but privately, and in this case and in similar cases, make sure it's painful.

I don't believe anyone (other than in war) has a right to take a life. A soldier that goes out at the field and shoots at known enemies is very different to someone sitting in a court room, looking a man in the eye and passing a death sentence. That makes us as bad as them. It makes us cold blooded murderers.

Look at the Middle East. An eye for an eye and all that bullsiht. Its backward thinking.

[Wizard.]

Definitely not. For two reasons:

a) if we allow it for certain extreme cases, where do we draw the line? Everybody has a different idea of what constitutes extreme cases and when jt should be used.

b) There have been far too many miscarriages if justice in the past where the death penalty would have been used if it had been available. If only one inmocent person is killed for a crime they didn't commit, then that is one too many to jistify the death penalty.

A) It is common sense where to draw the line. Child murderers and serial killers, terrorists etc... who have no chance of rehabilitation or who do not deserve rehabilitation. It would also solve the overcrowded prisons.

B) Yes but they were a decade ago. Advances in technology means that the likelihood of DNA evidence being wrong is very small.

I actually think jury's should get to decide whether someone should receive it. All 12 have to agree or it doesn't happen.

[Black Dagger]

I'm not blood thirsty enough.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I don't believe anyone (other than in war) has a right to take a life. A soldier that goes out at the field and shoots at known enemies is very different to someone sitting in a court room, looking a man in the eye and passing a death sentence. That makes us as bad as them. It makes us cold blooded murderers.

Look at the Middle East. An eye for an eye and all that bullsiht. Its backward thinking.

Why is killing a child rapist in the middle east with the parents watching backward

is letting him live for 30 years watching sky, wanking over children and his rapes and playing a ps4 progress??

i dont think so

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'm not blood thirsty enough.

the victims family may disagree

[Wizard.]

Something that interests me on this topic is that those who are in favour of the death penalty are more than often also the same people who want to see captured terrorists suffer, rather than receive immediate (or, 6 months down the line) death in a relatively humane way.

Even without the "easy get out clause" point for deluded fanatics and religious murderers/terrorists, state-endorsed killing is still killing IMO.

It just makes no sense in some parts of America anyway, some murders are punishable by death but others are not? :suspect:

I don't understand how people think that punishment by death is any more 'worse' than making someone rot in jail for their whole lives. People let their guilty conscience rule over their moral judgement.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

name 3

The website deathpenaltyinfo.org lists many examples in America of people who were on Death Row and exonerated, as well as people who were executed but their guilt has been called into question.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

It is also worth pointing out that some of the above cases were in the last few years, and several involved DNA. As good as our justice system is, no system will ever be perfect. There will always be mistakes.

[Wizard.]

I don't believe anyone (other than in war) has a right to take a life. A soldier that goes out at the field and shoots at known enemies is very different to someone sitting in a court room, looking a man in the eye and passing a death sentence. That makes us as bad as them. It makes us cold blooded murderers.

Look at the Middle East. An eye for an eye and all that bullsiht. Its backward thinking.

When someone does something as evil as take someone else's life then frankly it doesn't make us as bad as them as all their rights go out the window. I think it's more 'humane' to kill someone than to send them to somewhere like Guantanamo Bay for torture.

And it's not an eye for an eye, it's levelling up what is deemed as the appropriate punishment for a certain type of crime. The only reason these people don't want to get caught is because they want to carry on committing their crime whether it be a serial killer or child rapist, they're not scared of prison and certainly not scared of being killed. Once they've been caught they would probably rather die because they can't continue being evil bastards, and frankly let them.

[Wizard.]

The website deathpenaltyinfo.org lists many examples in America of people who were on Death Row and exonerated, as well as people who were executed but their guilt has been called into question.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

Okay but the most recent conviction was 2002, and so if they have been found innocent in 2017 it proves that technology now is so advanced that you can prove with hard factual evidence that someone committed the crime.

[Shaun]

the victims family may disagree

And plenty don't.

[DemolitionRed]

Another thing,

A human hand is still needed to kill a person. Yes, we call it a 'state killing' but its a physical being that has to turn that switch, press that button, pull that trigger or put a noose around that persons neck. A human has to live with his actions of killing someone.

And what about the doctor who needs to assess if the prisoner is fit enough for execution and declare the prisoner dead after the deed is done. A doctor who has taken an oath to never deliberately hurt or kill someone.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Okay but the most recent conviction was 2002, and so if they have been found innocent in 2017 it proves that technology now is so advanced that you can prove with hard factual evidence that someone committed the crime.

Eh? You need to look further up the list- it's not in order of conviction date. There are several much more recent. Also, if you look at the right hand side of the table, many of these cases involved DNA evidence, which proves that even modern techniques don't always get it right.

[lewis111]

Parts of America have the death penalty yet they have the largest percentage of their population in prison worldwide
A suggestion for both countries would be, instead of just killing people off to make room, stop giving people prison time for petty drug crimes and focus more on rehabilitiom for smaller crimes rather than pure punishment

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Parts of America have the death penalty yet they have the hugest percentage of their population in prison worldwide
A suggestion for both countries would be, instead of just killing people off to make room, stop giving people prison time for petty drug crimes and focus more on rehabilitiom for smaller crimes rather than pure punishment

:clap1:

[DemolitionRed]

Parts of America have the death penalty yet they have the hugest percentage of their population in prison worldwide
A suggestion for both countries would be, instead of just killing people off to make room, stop giving people prison time for petty drug crimes and focus more on rehabilitiom for smaller crimes rather than pure punishment

I just read that it costs an average $250 million for every prisoner that is executed.

A murder trial with the prosecutor calling for the death penalty costs millions more than one where the sought verdict is life without parole. Additionally, the accommodation of death row prisoners is several times more expensive than that of regular prisoners, and the procedure itself also costs a ridiculous amount of money, especially if the method of execution is lethal injection. The drugs that are used are very specific and can’t really be replaced or substituted without risking horrible side effects (Pancuronium Bromide, the drug used second in the sequence, relaxes the muscles and paralyses the body, including the diaphragm, causing the prisoner to slowly suffocate to death unless they’re not given the other two drugs as well, which knock them out and stop the heart). At the end of the day, even if you hold someone in prison for 50 years, that’s still not going to cost nearly as much as an execution would.
http://www.cuadp.org/why-the-death-penalty-is-wrong/

[Shaun]

I don't understand how people think that punishment by death is any more 'worse' than making someone rot in jail for their whole lives. People let their guilty conscience rule over their moral judgement.

Because death is an immediate consequence and imprisonment *should be* punishing. If someone is ready to die and decides to take out a couple of his/her classmates or work colleagues with them, what's the point in killing them anyway? I know that if I lost a loved one and that person killed themselves, or was put to death, I'd effectively be left with no answers as to why they did it. In actuality I did lose a cousin in a stabbing nearly fifteen years ago and the perpetator received a ridiculously short amount of jail time (roughly 6-8 years, IIRC). Does that make me angry? Of course. But only because of the length of the sentence. I don't feel I'd have any more resolution with what happened if he'd been killed. But then I was very young at the time and I can't really say I was "incredibly close" with him (he was twice my age) so I know I can't directly speak for all grieving relatives/partners. I just think the reason we can call ourselves civilized is because the law isn't dealt out with emotive interests and vendetta.

The glamour of taking a vengeance to the grave and becoming a martyr to whatever cause they're pushing, or indeed whatever mental illness they're taken over by, just seems to create more killers.

I don't doubt that prison's too easy in some cases. Of course prison costs are not ideal but the figures spent on lethal injections are on the rise at a bizarre rate (at least in America, because anything pharmacological is :laugh:) And I also don't have a lot of sympathy for child rapists/killers being killed in retribution / by other inmates, of course, but that would really be their actions and not society's.

[joeysteele]

I've always had times of yes and no on this issue.

If there was a vote to bring it back I'd vote no at this time.

Those who murder children particularly have me wrestling with this issue.

However one mistake,for me anyway,would be in itself too many and unacceptable.
I really think no matter the criteria mistakes could occur.

So for me,no.

[Denver]

Not every convicted murderer is guilty

[Marsh.]

Why is killing a child rapist in the middle east with the parents watching backward

is letting him live for 30 years watching sky, wanking over children and his rapes and playing a ps4 progress??

i dont think so

That's an argument for looking at the prison system, not for killing someone.

[Wizard.]

Not every convicted murderer is guilty

99% are.

Also what if someone confesses to the crime? Surprisingly a lot do.

[Marsh.]

I don't understand how people think that punishment by death is any more 'worse' than making someone rot in jail for their whole lives. People let their guilty conscience rule over their moral judgement.

So if it's not any worse, what's the point in it?

And what's moral about killing anyone, no matter who that person might be?

[Marsh.]

99% are.

Also what if someone confesses to the crime? Surprisingly a lot do.

Technicality. Some are advised to confess when a trial reaches a stage where they are likely to be found guilty by a jury. A confession sometimes leads to a lighter sentence.

[Black Dagger]

the victims family may disagree

That's on them.

[Wizard.]

So if it's not any worse, what's the point in it?

And what's moral about killing anyone, no matter who that person might be?

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

[Marsh.]

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

A terrorist and someone who breaks into your home are two opposing ends of a very large spectrum. I'd hope the "line" would be a lot clearer were this to become a reality.

What statement does this punishment make? Killing is wrong... except when a jury of strangers decide it isn't?

[bots]

I prefer to look at the issue another way.

Do you consider human life to be precious. Do you want to do everything possible in terms of health care etc, to both improve life expectancy and quality of life

or ....

do you not put a value on life like the murderous bastards that commit these crimes

The 2 do not reconcile, you do not fight bad with more bad

We can't as a nation promote excellent health care and respect for life on the one hand, and then kill those we do not deem worthy of life on the other.

[Wizard.]

A terrorist and someone who breaks into your home are two opposing ends of a very large spectrum. I'd hope the "line" would be a lot clearer were this to become a reality.

What statement does this punishment make? Killing is wrong... except when a jury of strangers decide it isn't?

Well no - someone poses a threat to your life and the innocent lives around you you’re not just going to stand around and do nothing are you? Killing is wrong of course it is but these criminals obviously don’t know that so what will locking them up do? Protect society yes but it’s not protecting them from other prisoners and from themselves.

[Marsh.]

Well no - someone poses a threat to your life and the innocent lives around you you’re not just going to stand around and do nothing are you?

That's an entirely different question.

We're discussing capital punishment, not your instinct to defend yourself when you're attacked. Two completely different things.

Killing is wrong of course it is but these criminals obviously don’t know that so what will locking them up do? Protect society yes but it’s not protecting them from other prisoners and from themselves.

You suggest killing them, because they are murderers and don't know killing is wrong? You've lost me now.

[Wizard.]

That's an entirely different question.

We're discussing capital punishment, not your instinct to defend yourself when you're attacked. Two completely different things.

“What’s moral about killing someone no matter what?” Is the question you asked.

[Marsh.]

“What’s moral about killing someone no matter what?” Is the question you asked.

No, I didn't. I asked what's moral about killing someone, no matter who the person is.

Defending yourself resulting in the manslaughter of that person is something entirely different to what we were discussing. The intent in that case is to defend/protect yourself and others, not to murder someone.

Someone being incarcerated for a crime and a judge and jury who have no connection to this person or anyone they've hurt deciding they must die is what we were actually talking about. What's moral about that?

[Wizard.]

That's an entirely different question.

We're discussing capital punishment, not your instinct to defend yourself when you're attacked. Two completely different things.



You suggest killing them, because they are murderers and don't know killing is wrong? You've lost me now.

Okay government says that prison is about rehabilitation except for those who are in for life because they never get out so the point is to punish. People are asking about the moral implications, and frankly I don’t see the difference between locking up a psychopathic murderer in prison or inflicting the death penalty if their crime warrants such punishment.

[Marsh.]

Okay government says that prison is about rehabilitation except for those who are in for life because they never get out so the point is to punish. People are asking about the moral implications, and frankly I don’t see the difference between locking up a psychopathic murderer in prison or inflicting the death penalty if their crime warrants such punishment.

Why is there no difference?

[Daniel-X]

No, it does absolutely nothing to reduce crime and as APWD pointed out where do we draw the line, what's punishable and what isn't?

I'm studying crime in sociology at the moment so this topic has been popping up frequently in lesson. I do understand some of the pros to having it, such as it's cheaper (although this isn't always the case surprisingly due to how expensive lethal injections are to carry out etc.), it solves the crowding issue of prisons and so on and so forth. But there's just far too many cons that massively outweigh the pros.

[Wizard.]

No, I didn't. I asked what's moral about killing someone, no matter who the person is.

Defending yourself resulting in the manslaughter of that person is something entirely different to what we were discussing. The intent in that case is to defend/protect yourself and others, not to murder someone.

Someone being incarcerated for a crime and a judge and jury who have no connection to this person or anyone they've hurt deciding they must die is what we were actually talking about. What's moral about that?

What defines morality? We say we can’t use capital punishment because it means we’re just as bad as them but we’re really not. There is a difference between killing someone, murdering them, in a pre meditated way, in cold blood, to inflicting the appropriate punishment for that crime. And if people choose not to inflict the death penalty but choose inprisonment then that’s their choice, it’s about choice.

[Wizard.]

Why is there no difference?

Erm they’re both outside of society away from being able to kill more people. One is on earth and the other is hopefully in hell.

[Wizard.]

No, it does absolutely nothing to reduce crime and as APWD pointed out where do we draw the line, what's punishable and what isn't?

I'm studying crime in sociology at the moment so this topic has been popping up frequently in lesson. I do understand some of the pros to having it, such as it's cheaper (although this isn't always the case surprisingly due to how expensive lethal injections are to carry out etc.), it solves the crowding issue of prisons and so on and so forth. But there's just far too many cons that massively outweigh the pros.

Yeah I appreciate that I’m just thinking more on a philosophical level

[Marsh.]

Erm they’re both outside of society away from being able to kill more people. One is on earth and the other is hopefully in hell.

That doesn't make them remotely the same thing.

Both protecting society from their crimes does not make them the "same".

It's like saying whether my mum is dead or alive in the next room makes no difference, she's still in the next room. :shrug:

[AnnieK]

I used to think no, but in certain cases I agree with it. You might know about that family who died in a fire, the mum and the children recently and it's near where I live. A few people have been arrested, and basically the guy not only set fire to the house with innocent children in it but also got his mates to set fire to all escape routes - they knew what they were doing.

Now I'm not saying lets hung, drawn and quarter them in public like medieval times, but privately, and in this case and in similar cases, make sure it's painful.

You from manchester riley? This happened 5 mins from my works and a lot of people who work for me knew this family. Absolutely heartbreaking. The kids barely stood a chance and mum in a coma and if/when she wakes up she has to be told her babies are dead.

Know some people who know the ****s that did it too......

[Wizard.]

You from manchester riley? This happened 5 mins from my works and a lot of people who work for me knew this family. Absolutely heartbreaking. The kids barely stood a chance and mum in a coma and if/when she wakes up she has to be told her babies are dead.

Know some people who know the ****s that did it too......

Yeah I do and I have talked to people who know the people who did it, and well I can’t say much on a public forum, but he deserves more than life imprisonment.

[DemolitionRed]

99% are.

Also what if someone confesses to the crime? Surprisingly a lot do.

And some nut jobs confess to the crime when they didn't actually do it. The law doesn't take a confession as truth without full evidence to back up that confession.

There's been a recent re-opening of the Megan and Jossie Russel murders. Michael Stone, the convicted killer has been behind bars in a high security prison for 21 years but recently another prisoner, Levi Bellfield started telling other prisoners he did it. Its highly likely that Bellfield didn't do it but why would he admit to such a thing. Insanity perhaps?

Then again, maybe Michael Stone, one of the most hated men in Britain, will turn out to be an innocent man.

[AnnieK]

Yeah I do and I have talked to people who know the people who did it, and well I can’t say much on a public forum, but he deserves more than life imprisonment.

Yeah I've heard a lot too.

Where in Manchester are you?

[Tom4784]

We must be better than those we judge in a court of law, I don't see murdering those we find guilty very just.

Murdering someone that's murdered someone else is stupid, backwards and below us. Why should we lower ourselves to support or commit the same acts we condemn people for in the first place?

[Wizard.]

And some nut jobs confess to the crime when they didn't actually do it. The law doesn't take a confession as truth without full evidence to back up that confession.

There's been a recent re-opening of the Megan and Jossie Russel murders. Michael Stone, the convicted killer has been behind bars in a high security prison for 21 years but recently another prisoner, Levi Bellfield started telling other prisoners he did it. Its highly likely that Bellfield didn't do it but why would he admit to such a thing. Insanity perhaps?

Then again, maybe Michael Stone, one of the most hated men in Britain, will turn out to be an innocent man.

If they confess to something as big as serial killing or child killing then they deserve whatever punishment suitable people aren’t psychics to know that they’re lying. If they can be jailed for confessing they can receive the death penalty too.

[Marsh.]

If they confess to something as big as serial killing or child killing then they deserve whatever punishment suitable people aren’t psychics to know that they’re lying. If they can be jailed for confessing they can receive the death penalty too.

:unsure:

So you'd kill someone based on the fact they're insane and don't know what they're confessing to?

See, this is now exactly why I'm against it. The waters are getting murky now and the line blurring.

[DemolitionRed]

The point is the statement that the punishment makes.

And yes I would have no problem killing someone who was a terrorist about to carry out an attack on my home country or someone breaking into my house threatening my family. Yes it probably better to try and debilitate them but when faced in that situation I'm sure you wouldn't cry if you killed them in self-defence.

That's totally different. Its called self defense.

[DemolitionRed]

I prefer to look at the issue another way.

Do you consider human life to be precious. Do you want to do everything possible in terms of health care etc, to both improve life expectancy and quality of life

or ....

do you not put a value on life like the murderous bastards that commit these crimes

The 2 do not reconcile, you do not fight bad with more bad

We can't as a nation promote excellent health care and respect for life on the one hand, and then kill those we do not deem worthy of life on the other.

:clap1:

[Tom4784]

Killing is the easy path and the easy path is rarely the right path.

It's easy to be bloodthirsty and fight fire with fire, it takes strength of character and a strong moral fibre to do what's right and capital punishment just isn't right.

[AnnieK]

Personally, I don't agree with capital punishment but what I do believe is prison should not be an easy time, 23 hour lock down, hard labour and no luxuries. Prison is not a deterrent any more and it should be

[Wizard.]

Yeah I've heard a lot too.

Where in Manchester are you?

Salford you?

[Wizard.]

Personally, I don't agree with capital punishment but what I do believe is prison should not be an easy time, 23 hour lock down, hard labour and no luxuries. Prison is not a deterrent any more and it should be

I agree but the UN and their human rights laws wouldn’t allow it.

[AnnieK]

Work in Swinton and from salford. Live south manchester now but will always be salfordian

[Wizard.]

Work in Swinton and from salford. Live south manchester now but will always be salfordian

Oh I go Swinton quite a lot. I’m from down south but have lived here nearly 3 years.

[joeysteele]

I prefer to look at the issue another way.

Do you consider human life to be precious. Do you want to do everything possible in terms of health care etc, to both improve life expectancy and quality of life

or ....

do you not put a value on life like the murderous bastards that commit these crimes

The 2 do not reconcile, you do not fight bad with more bad

We can't as a nation promote excellent health care and respect for life on the one hand, and then kill those we do not deem worthy of life on the other.

If I'd been thinking yes to this issue,which as I said earlier I'm not.

Your post would have helped sway me to think again and then vote no to it.

Really well presented bitontheslide.

[Kazanne]

Yes where it is proven beyond any doubt that the murder was premeditated .child killers most definitely.but I would much prefer LIFE in jail,but it rarely happens so I went for yes,IF murderers were given LIFE that would be better and make sure it's a hard life.

[Marsh.]

You can call it strength of character and moral fibre all you like if it makes you feel better, how boringly sanctimonious does that sound - others may call it self-indulgence and wallowing in one’s sense of self-righteousness.

Following the crowd and adopting the will of others so as to be seen as doing the right thing and fitting in is not strong it is weak.

A yes from me!

Fitting in? :joker:

Or simply, if we're punishing someone for committing murder it would be highly hypocritical and incongruous to then murder them and somehow convince yourself you're any better.

[Wizard.]

Fitting in? :joker:

Or simply, if we're punishing someone for committing murder it would be highly hypocritical and incongruous to then murder them and somehow convince yourself you're any better.

How is killing a murderer classed as “murder”? It’s called justice!

[Marsh.]

How is killing a murderer classed as “murder”? It’s called justice!

The murderer might have killed someone in retaliation for something they see as punishable, maybe even a murder they have also committed, and therefore call it "justice". Do you see how this works?

Murder is the premeditated killing of someone. How is it anything else?

[Brillopad]

Fitting in? :joker:

Or simply, if we're punishing someone for committing murder it would be highly hypocritical and incongruous to then murder them and somehow convince yourself you're any better.

It’s different and it’s better. Being born human doesn’t make someone human in a way that counts. Some so-called humans are just animals.

[Marsh.]

It’s different and it’s better. Being born human doesn’t make someone human in a way that counts. Some so-called humans are just animals.

In English?

[jet]

We must be better than those we judge in a court of law, I don't see murdering those we find guilty very just.

Murdering someone that's murdered someone else is stupid, backwards and below us. Why should we lower ourselves to support or commit the same acts we condemn people for in the first place?

Would you feel the same if they murdered the person you love most? Their life over for good, and your life probably ruined, and the person that killed them would get about 12 years, three good meals a day, counselling, learning new skills, sky TV, games and other distractions and then get out to carry on with their life which could last for many more years while your loved one lies rotting.
I think life should MEAN life, if CP isn't carried out.

[Marsh.]

Would you feel the same if they murdered the person you love most? Their life over for good, and your life probably ruined, and the person that killed them would get about 12 years, three good meals a day, counselling, learning new skills, sky TV, games and other distractions and then get out to carry on with their life which could last for many more years while your loved one lies rotting.
I think life should MEAN life, if CP isn't carried out.

Well that's neither here nor there.

There's a reason a jury isn't made up of people emotionally invested in the crime that was committed.

[_baileys_]

i am all for severe punishments prisons are too soft - there is no 'fear' of prison to criminals it is more of a holiday - i would bring back hard labour and dark ages style cells too PC & human rights should go out the window when you commit horrendous crimes

[jet]

Well that's neither here nor there.

There's a reason a jury isn't made up of people emotionally invested in the crime that was committed.

Oh I didn't realise this thread was only limited to the jury's perspective. :rolleyes:

[Marsh.]

Oh I didn't realise this thread was only limited to the jury's perspective. :rolleyes:

:unsure:

We're discussing capital punishment so how someone is found guilty of a crime in a court of law comes into the discussion. Obviously.

An emotional reaction to the loss of a loved one has bugger all to do with it. We'd all love to grab hold of whoever has hurt a loved one and punish them severely, but is that frame of mind really the one we should be in when making such huge decisions about whether to end a hell of a lot of lives?

Serious question, if all you have for me is rolled eyes don't bother.

[Tom4784]

Would you feel the same if they murdered the person you love most? Their life over for good, and your life probably ruined, and the person that killed them would get about 12 years, three good meals a day, counselling, learning new skills, sky TV, games and other distractions and then get out to carry on with their life which could last for many more years while your loved one lies rotting.
I think life should MEAN life, if CP isn't carried out.

You've tried this argument with me before, it didn't work then and it won't work now. You don't know my life and I don't need to cheapen my life experiences just to prove a point.

Like Marsh said, Juries aren't comprised of people with an emotional connection to a crime and this is a topic about the law so emotion should not come into it.

[jet]

You've tried this argument with me before, it didn't work then and it won't work now. You don't know my life and I don't need to cheapen my life experiences just to prove a point.

Like Marsh said, Juries aren't comprised of people with an emotional connection to a crime and this is a topic about the law so emotion should not come into it.

Emotion shouldn't come into a topic about capital punishment?!!!
It isn't a topic just about the law, it's a topic about how we FEEL about the bringing back of CP. I seen nothing in the opening post that said the thread had to be viewed only from a point of view of the law.
Deflection is your speciality though, as always.

[Marsh.]

Emotion shouldn't come into a topic about capital punishment?!!!
It isn't a topic just about the law, it's a topic about how we FEEL about the bringing back of CP. I seen nothing in the opening post that said the thread had to be viewed only from a point of view of the law.
Deflection is your speciality though, as always.

It's not deflection.

Asking him how he'd feel about a loved one being murdered is completely irrelevant and isn't something that should come into the decision making process when it comes to capital punishment. That's just obvious.

[jet]

It's not deflection.

Asking him how he'd feel about a loved one being murdered is completely irrelevant and isn't something that should come into the decision making process when it comes to capital punishment. That's just obvious.

More deflection of a perfectly legitimate question, as nowhere in the initial post did it say it had to be viewed from the perspective of the law only. Perhaps you can explain to me why you think it did?

I have the answer to my original question anyway, deflection always gives people away.

[Tom4784]

Emotion shouldn't come into a topic about capital punishment?!!!
It isn't a topic just about the law, it's a topic about how we FEEL about the bringing back of CP. I seen nothing in the opening post that said the thread had to be viewed only from a point of view of the law.
Deflection is your speciality though, as always.

When we're talking about the court process and issues of Law then yes, I don't think emotion should come into it since our court system is dependant on logic and evidence and it's not logical to murder a murderer and think it's just or okay to commit an act you have condemned someone else for doing.

Death is death, it's nothingness, people don't suffer in death. They don't feel anything. I'd rather people face up to what they've done in prison and be made to live with the consequences of their choices.

As for the bolded line, I don't see the relevance, I think you are just trying to downplay my argument without actually arguing against anything I've said. I never said that the topic could only be discussed from a logical angle, just that I believe it shouldn't be. You have confused my opinion for me trying to state a fact and I forgive you for that.

Your last line is just a cheap shot that doesn't really make sense considering your entire argument against me is a deflection on my original post in favour of what is essentially emotional manipulation in which you are trying to force me to change my views based on a flawed emotional aspect instead of doing me the decency of arguing against what I've said from a logical perspective.

If you are going to insult me then there's nothing more to say, if you wish to continue this discussion like adults then go ahead.

[Marsh.]

More deflection of a perfectly legitimate question, as nowhere in the initial post did it say it had to be viewed from the perspective of the law only. Perhaps you can explain to me why you think it did?

I have the answer to my original question anyway, deflection always gives people away.

:joker:

What's the OP got to do with it? He was discussing whether he believes capital punishment should be brought back and said he doesn't.

Whether or not he'd feel differently should a close loved one be murdered is completely irrelevant as that's not a state of mind anyone can make such a big decision rationally.

[Vicky.]

I would say life in prison is worse punishment than the death penatly tbh.

If I was given the choice, I would chose death. Without second thought.

[Tom4784]

I would say life in prison is worse punishment than the death penatly tbh.

If I was given the choice, I would chose death. Without second thought.

I find that people who think that prison is some sort of Hi-de-Hi holiday camp either have no experiences of prison, whether it's being sent to one, visiting one or knowing someone personally that's never been to one.

I've never been to prison but I know plenty that have and none of them think it's a holiday.

[jet]

I asked a simple question: would you feel the same if someone you loved was the one that was murdered? It's something that intrigues me when people say they are so against CP. No need for all the faffing about, deflection and manipulation talk, just give a straight answer or ignore if you wish...

[Marsh.]

I asked a simple question: would you feel the same if someone you loved was the one that was murdered? It's something that intrigues me when people say they are so against CP. No need for all the faffing about, deflection and manipulation talk, just give a straight answer or ignore if you wish...

But even if they passionately wanted death to the person who murdered their loved one, it's neither here nor there because Dezzy also said he believes there's no room for emotion in a court of law so therefore his stance would remain.

Now you can process that and understand it or continue to ignore it if you wish.

[jet]

But even if they passionately wanted death to the person who murdered their loved one, it's neither here nor there because Dezzy also said he believes there's no room for emotion in a court of law so therefore his stance would remain.

Now you can process that and understand it or continue to ignore it if you wish.

You keep referring to a court of law, WHY? I'm referring to a persons own feelings, how many times do I have to say it.
So they can passionately want death for revenge for their loved one, but not for someone else's loved one? They only want CP when it is personal to them?

[Marsh.]

You keep referring to a court of law, WHY? I'm referring to a persons own feelings, how many times do I have to say it.
So they can passionately want death for revenge for their loved one, but not for someone else's loved one? They only want CP when it is personal to them?

Capital punishment involves the court of law. If you're asking people whether or not they agree with passing a LAW then there's nothing else you're going to discuss.

Re-read, his feelings on CP stress he feels emotion should have no input into deciding, therefore clearly... obviously to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension knows he feels should a loved one of his be murdered, his emotions wouldn't produce a rational decision on the subject matter.

[Tom4784]

Capital punishment involves the court of law. If you're asking people whether or not they agree with passing a LAW then there's nothing else you're going to discuss.

Re-read, his feelings on CP stress he feels emotion should have no input into deciding, therefore clearly... obviously to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension knows he feels should a loved one of his be murdered, his emotions wouldn't produce a rational decision on the subject matter.

Exactly. Spot on.

[Tom4784]

I asked a simple question: would you feel the same if someone you loved was the one that was murdered? It's something that intrigues me when people say they are so against CP. No need for all the faffing about, deflection and manipulation talk, just give a straight answer or ignore if you wish...

It's a question that has no relevance because I've already said I don't want to cheapen my personal experiences for the sake of an argument and I thought you would have respected that like a decent person would.

[jet]

Capital punishment involves the court of law. If you're asking people whether or not they agree with passing a LAW then there's nothing else you're going to discuss.

Re-read, his feelings on CP stress he feels emotion should have no input into deciding, therefore clearly... obviously to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension knows he feels should a loved one of his be murdered, his emotions wouldn't produce a rational decision on the subject matter.

So what would his decision be, rational or otherwise, as you are his spokesperson?

[Tom4784]

So what would his decision be, rational or otherwise, as you are his spokesperson?

He is someone who has simply read and understood what I have said.

[jet]

It's a question that has no relevance because I've already said I don't want to cheapen my personal experiences for the sake of an argument and I thought you would have respected that like a decent person would.

I missed that, so okay, I do respect that. Consider the subject closed.

[Marsh.]

So what would his decision be, rational or otherwise, as you are his spokesperson?

Oh I'm sorry. Did I stumble into yours and Dezzy's private messaging inbox?

Here was me thinking you were posting on a public forum I was entitled to respond to. Silly me.

[Northern Monkey]

No,Too much to go wrong.
I am in favour of terrorists being shot on site though and life actually meaning life in prison.
That way,If someone is found to be wrongfully convicted it is reversible.

[Kizzy]

I actually feel it would be a massive backwards step, and a bit of a cop out too if I'm honest many killers try kill themselves when they're caught to escape the punishment of prison, this seems like playing into their hands and giving them what they want.

[arista]

I used to think no, but in certain cases I agree with it. You might know about that family who died in a fire, the mum and the children recently and it's near where I live. A few people have been arrested, and basically the guy not only set fire to the house with innocent children in it but also got his mates to set fire to all escape routes - they knew what they were doing.

Now I'm not saying lets hung, drawn and quarter them in public like medieval times, but privately, and in this case and in similar cases, make sure it's painful.


You missed the word "Private" in your title

Should A New Private Capital Punishment be Brought In.

Yes it should.

[AnnieK]

I find that people who think that prison is some sort of Hi-de-Hi holiday camp either have no experiences of prison, whether it's being sent to one, visiting one or knowing someone personally that's never been to one.

I've never been to prison but I know plenty that have and none of them think it's a holiday.

You can't presume to know what people know or don't tbh and you are normally the first to call people out on that. I don't think prison is a hi de hi holiday camp but o don't think its tough enough to act as a deterrent and yes I know people who have been in prison who say its an easy life. I also know plenty of prisoner officers who will confirm that too.

[AnnieK]

No,Too much to go wrong.
I am in favour of terrorists being shot on site though and life actually meaning life in prison.
That way,If someone is found to be wrongfully convicted it is reversible.

I don't agree with that terrorists being put to death as it immortalises them as martyrs who dies for the cause and they become idolised by people....let them rot in jail

[arista]

I actually feel it would be a massive backwards step, and a bit of a cop out too if I'm honest many killers try kill themselves when they're caught to escape the punishment of prison, this seems like playing into their hands and giving them what they want.

Never get a Parliament Vote through
if its Hanging.

Due to justice problems
of course.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I actually feel it would be a massive backwards step, and a bit of a cop out too if I'm honest many killers try kill themselves when they're caught to escape the punishment of prison, this seems like playing into their hands and giving them what they want.

No they dont

[Crimson Dynamo]

I find that people who think that prison is some sort of Hi-de-Hi holiday camp either have no experiences of prison, whether it's being sent to one, visiting one or knowing someone personally that's never been to one.

I've never been to prison but I know plenty that have and none of them think it's a holiday.

You know plenty of people who have been in prison?

really?

[Kazanne]

Why is killing a child rapist in the middle east with the parents watching backward

is letting him live for 30 years watching sky, wanking over children and his rapes and playing a ps4 progress??

i dont think so

:worship::worship:

[Kazanne]

For those people who think it's terribly wrong to kill someone who has inflicted fear and pain onto kids and people,and a lifetime of unhappiness for their families, but it's ok to do the very same to some animals so you can eat them, that sounds logical.

[smudgie]

Death penalty or not, the choice to murder someone is up to you, so be aware of the consequences.

[Crimson Dynamo]

For those people who think it's terribly wrong to kill someone who has inflicted fear and pain onto kids and people,and a lifetime of unhappiness for their families, but it's ok to do the very same to some animals so you can eat them, that sounds logical.

or kill an animal because no one wants to look after it

[Kazanne]

or kill an animal because no one wants to look after it

Yes,and that LT.:wavey:

[DemolitionRed]

You keep referring to a court of law, WHY? I'm referring to a persons own feelings, how many times do I have to say it.
So they can passionately want death for revenge for their loved one, but not for someone else's loved one? They only want CP when it is personal to them?

You can't run law on an emotional level. It seems to me that the people who shout the loudest about Islamic law, want to incorporate an Islamic law style system over here. In certain Islamic countries, rape and murder are treated on an emotional level. The family are asked if they want the culprit to receive the death sentence.

[thesheriff443]

Its illegal to kill a murderer but legal to kill an unborn child with an abortion..

Us humans are a strange animal.

[Wizard.]

You can't presume to know what people know or don't tbh and you are normally the first to call people out on that. I don't think prison is a hi de hi holiday camp but o don't think its tough enough to act as a deterrent and yes I know people who have been in prison who say its an easy life. I also know plenty of prisoner officers who will confirm that too.

Yeah I have heard people from prison who go in and see it as free gym membership and come out looking like Dwayne Johnson although this is for more minor criminals who don't warrant the death penalty.

[Wizard.]

Its illegal to kill a murderer but legal to kill an unborn child with an abortion..

Us humans are a strange animal.

I agree with abortion, I think that's a different matter, but for example humans shoot and hunt harmless animals as a 'fun' activity yet evil people can't be given the death penalty? Also it's about choice, America has the death penalty, and although hardly uses it, it's still a good option for extreme cases. How is it okay to 'shoot and kill' certain criminals on the scene but the justice system doesn't allow a death sentence?

[Tom4784]

You can't presume to know what people know or don't tbh and you are normally the first to call people out on that. I don't think prison is a hi de hi holiday camp but o don't think its tough enough to act as a deterrent and yes I know people who have been in prison who say its an easy life. I also know plenty of prisoner officers who will confirm that too.

It's an observation and it's not the same as what happened earlier so I don't really see the relevance of the comparison here.

You know plenty of people who have been in prison?

really?

I do, I live in a rough area.

[Tom4784]

Its illegal to kill a murderer but legal to kill an unborn child with an abortion..

Us humans are a strange animal.

Yes, it's legal to abort a bunch of cells, I don't know why you are comparing a foetus to a human being, it's a very flawed comparison.

[jet]

You can't run law on an emotional level. It seems to me that the people who shout the loudest about Islamic law, want to incorporate an Islamic law style system over here. In certain Islamic countries, rape and murder are treated on an emotional level. The family are asked if they want the culprit to receive the death sentence.

I have never discussed Islamic law on here so not sure why you responded to my post implying I shout loudly about it.

[AnnieK]

It's an observation and it's not the same as what happened earlier so I don't really see the relevance of the comparison here.



I do, I live in a rough area.

Don't quite understand this Dezzy, you said you know people who have been in prison who said its not a holiday camp, I said I know people who have and said its not hard. How is that comparison not relevant? Its a counter argument to yours so if my argument is not relevant then surely that negates yours? Not trying to be arsey here but not sure I understand what you mean

[Tom4784]

Don't quite understand this Dezzy, you said you know people who have been in prison who said its not a holiday camp, I said I know people who have and said its not hard. How is that comparison not relevant? Its a counter argument to yours so if my argument is not relevant then surely that negates yours? Not trying to be arsey here but not sure I understand what you mean

I'm talking about you essentially saying I'm a hypocrite, not that your experiences contradict mine. I didn't even mention your experiences.

[AnnieK]

I'm talking about you essentially saying I'm a hypocrite, not that your experiences contradict mine. I didn't even mention your experiences.

I didn't mean YOU were a hypocrite but if someone else had made a blanket statement as you did about you would be calling out people for making assumptions about people's personal experience that you know nothing about. I personally said that I think prisons are too soft and in your statement you said that people who think prisons are like a hi-de-hi camp have no experience of the prison system or what happens therein. I was just saying I took exception to that, as I DO have experience and STILL think they are too soft. That is all. I'm not about to get into a tit for tat argument as that really isn't my intention but reading that just riled me

[Kizzy]

No they dont

How do you know?.... Do you know how many killers have offed themselves in modern history or on suicide watch?

[Crimson Dynamo]

How do you know?.... Do you know how many killers have offed themselves in modern history or on suicide watch?

so how do you know why they did that then?

[Marsh.]

For those people who think it's terribly wrong to kill someone who has inflicted fear and pain onto kids and people,and a lifetime of unhappiness for their families, but it's ok to do the very same to some animals so you can eat them, that sounds logical.
Almost as logical as you making that completely ridiculous and unrelated comparison to begin with.

For those who think it's terribly just to kill people found guilty in a courtroom. Is this bloodthirst worth the innocent people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death?

How can we justify calling murder morally wrong in our society whilst simultaneously calling for people to be killed like a baying mob?

[Crimson Dynamo]

It would be good to get a hangman back in business (and creating jobs) and the death could be streamed live to the families first and then on sky after 9pm. Jeremy Vine would be a good host but it would have to run advert free I think.

[Marsh.]

It would be good to get a hangman back in business (and creating jobs) and the death could be streamed live to the families first and then on sky after 9pm. Jeremy Vine would be a good host but it would have to run advert free I think.
Jeremy vine should be hanged first. Just to test the apparatus is functioning correctly of course.

Maybe a guest presenter each week who gives it a go?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Jeremy vine should be hanged first. Just to test the apparatus is functioning correctly of course.

Maybe a guest presenter each week who gives it a go?

I know you are thinking rylan

[Marsh.]

I know you are thinking rylan
:flutter:

[user104658]

Maybe a guest presenter each week who gives it a go?

https://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2017/12/15/ryhang.jpg

[Marsh.]

https://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2017/12/15/ryhang.jpg
:joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Sponsored by Strepsils?

[Tom4784]

I didn't mean YOU were a hypocrite but if someone else had made a blanket statement as you did about you would be calling out people for making assumptions about people's personal experience that you know nothing about. I personally said that I think prisons are too soft and in your statement you said that people who think prisons are like a hi-de-hi camp have no experience of the prison system or what happens therein. I was just saying I took exception to that, as I DO have experience and STILL think they are too soft. That is all. I'm not about to get into a tit for tat argument as that really isn't my intention but reading that just riled me

It's not a blanket statement though, it never was.

I'm just commenting on my own experiences, opinions and accounts of people I've known that have actually experienced prison first hand. Throughout life, I've found more often than not, the people who are quick to say the prison is too easy have typically never been near a prison in their lives. If your experiences are different then good for you but you aren't going to change my mind and I don't really care for the sense of your outrage given that it's because you read more into it than I had written.

If you have a problem with my statement then surely you should take issue with your own since they are not different.

[AnnieK]

It's not a blanket statement though, it never was.

I'm just commenting on my own experiences, opinions and accounts of people I've known that have actually experienced prison first hand. Throughout life, I've found more often than not, the people who are quick to say the prison is too easy have typically never been near a prison in their lives. If your experiences are different then good for you but you aren't going to change my mind and I don't really care for the sense of your outrage given that it's because you read more into it than I had written.

If you have a problem with my statement then surely you should take issue with your own since they are not different.

Oh Dezzy, now I see why people get exasperated with you. The difference between the two statements was I was saying I feel its too easy whilst you were saying that people who think its too easy have no experience. Opinion versus blanket statement. I really don't care that much about it and had no sense of outrage as you put it but wanted to get it across that people who think it is too easy CAN and DO have experiences other than yours.

[user104658]

Sponsored by Strepsils?

Nah... http://www.bristolrope.co.uk

[Crimson Dynamo]

That film about our last hangman with Tim Spall was very good

The hangman's knot or hangman's noose (also known as a collar during the Elizabethan era) is a knot most often associated with its use in hanging a person. For a hanging, the knot of the rope is typically placed under or just behind the left ear, although the most effective position is just ahead of the ear, beneath the angle of the left lower jaw. The pull on the knot at the end of the drop levers the jaw and head violently up and to the right, which combines with the jerk of the rope becoming taut to wrench the upper neck vertebrae apart. This produces very rapid death, whereas the traditional position beneath the ear was intended to result in the mass of the knot crushing closed (occluding) the neck arteries, causing cessation of brain circulation. The knot is non-jamming but tends to resist attempts to loosen it.

source wiki

[Tom4784]

Oh Dezzy, now I see why people get exasperated with you. The difference between the two statements was I was saying I feel its too easy whilst you were saying that people who think its too easy have no experience. Opinion versus blanket statement. I really don't care that much about it and had no sense of outrage as you put it but wanted to get it across that people who think it is too easy CAN and DO have experiences other than yours.

Wow, any need to get personal like that?

As for the bolded bit, When have I ever said that what I felt was anything but my own opinion based on my own experiences? In my own opinion and experiences, it's often the case that people who think prison is easy and want it made harder for inmates often have no experience of what prison is like, is your experiences different? Good for you but it doesn't invalidate my opinion any more than mine invalidates yours. Our experiences are our own and you need to accept that other people have opinions and experiences different to your own.

You went on the attack here, not me. Remember that.

[Kizzy]

so how do you know why they did that then?

Google is your friend.

[Chero]

I think it's much better to have them rot in prison. Unfortunately, in the US, we still have the death penalty, and every year, there are people who have been on death row who they find out were innocent. If our process wasn't so slow, we'd have killed a lot more innocent people already. Also, in the US, in some states, people who are mentally retarded or juveniles have been given the death penalty.

I feel that it is much better for someone who has committed an awful crime to spend their life in prison. That way they have the rest of their life to think about what they did. I'll admit, I was glad when Charles Manson died the other day. And I totally oppose paroling any of his cohorts. I'm glad that one woman has changed her life around in prison, but the people she killed are still dead, so I feel she should stay in prison, as long as they're still dead. :D I mean, just because I don't like capital punishment, doesn't mean I want any of these killers running around town.

[Jamie89]

Never, I find it barbaric tbh. Plus you might be certain that somebody is guilty of a crime when they are actually innocent. For all the emotional arguments along the lines of "how would you feel if a loved one was the victim of a horrendous crime", you could also say "how would you feel if you or a loved one was wrongly sentenced to the death penalty". Regardless, as others have already discussed, I don't think decisions like this should be based on raw emotion.

[Withano]

For those people who think it's terribly wrong to kill someone who has inflicted fear and pain onto kids and people,and a lifetime of unhappiness for their families, but it's ok to do the very same to some animals so you can eat them, that sounds logical.

Did you just compare children to poultry?

[Withano]

Ugh I just wrote a long post and then my ipad crashed.

No, it shouldn't be brought back.

Justifying reasons why a person should be murdered is exactly what murderers do. I find it strange to see so many people here doing this. Nobody has the right to take away a human life, not even the government.

[thesheriff443]

If someone is capable of killing another human being and even cutting them up intolittle bits or burning them, I don't think they are going to find prison a horrible place.

[thesheriff443]

Repeat offenders, they did not find prison that bad!, because they come out and re offend.

[DemolitionRed]

Repeat offenders, they did not find prison that bad!, because they come out and re offend.

There is a huge amount of mental illness in our prisons, especially with repeat offenders.

But here's a question: If someone commits murder and is deemed to have a mental illness, do the people who believe in the death sentence think those people should be put down too?

[thesheriff443]

There is a huge amount of mental illness in our prisons, especially with repeat offenders.

But here's a question: If someone commits murder and is deemed to have a mental illness, do the people who believe in the death sentence think those people should be put down too?

People claim to have mental illness to avoid prison or the death penalty, by being put into a secure hospital.

Are those people with mental illness who kill and are deemed to unstable to be ever let out, should these people be killed, in my opinion yes.

Child killers need to be put to death.

[user104658]

Repeat offenders, they did not find prison that bad!, because they come out and re offend.

The vast (VAST) majority of crime is either drug related, for financial gain, or a combination of the two. In the case of the former, people simply come of out of prison and go straight back to drugs, often because it's their entire life, and so re-offending at some point is inevitable. When it's crime for financial gain, often the people involved don't know how else to support themselves - and have even less chance of doing so once they have a criminal conviction - so as soon as they get out they go straight back to crime to financially support themselves.

It's not really about it "not being that bad"... some people simply don't know any other way to live, so reoffending is inevitable.

[Livia]

No to capital punishment, yes to a life sentence meaning a whole life, and with the option of handing down that sentence without the option of parole.

[Niamh.]

No to capital punishment, yes to a life sentence meaning a whole life, and with the option of handing down that sentence without the option of parole.

I agree with this.

[DemolitionRed]

No to capital punishment, yes to a life sentence meaning a whole life, and with the option of handing down that sentence without the option of parole.

I'm all for this. People like Brady and Hindley got a proper life sentence and that's how it should be for premeditated murder.

[joeysteele]

No to capital punishment, yes to a life sentence meaning a whole life, and with the option of handing down that sentence without the option of parole.

Absolutely right.

[Cherie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39493841

A British man will have a chance to win his freedom after more than 30 years in a Florida jail.
A US appeals court on Tuesday granted a new hearing for Kris Maharaj, 78, who has been jailed for more than 30 years for a 1986 double murder in Miami.
The ruling means that Maharaj's lawyers will be able to present new evidence which they say proves the two men were killed by members of a drug cartel.
His lawyer claims a Colombian hit man killed Derrick and Duane Moo Young.
Maharaj's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith from human-rights organisation Reprieve, applauded the decision, saying "it is a great day for Kris, and I hope now we will finally get him the justice he has long been denied".
But a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office, Ed Griffith, told BBC News: "We stand by the outcome of the very lengthy and fair evidentiary hearing that Maharaj received in the state court, where the judge found these witnesses and/or claims to not be credible or have any merit."


This guy was interviewed this morning he lived across the hall from where the murders happened... he claims the police protected the real killer as he was working for a drug cartel, and corrupt policemen were involved

[jet]

No to capital punishment, yes to a life sentence meaning a whole life, and with the option of handing down that sentence without the option of parole.

I totally agree. If life meant life, then I'd say no to capital punishment for those whose guilt is proven beyond doubt.

[Eddie.]

We are in 2017 ffs! Why would it be brought back?!