[Jords]

In ethics and philosophy we have been studying about capital punishment (death penalty), and whether or not it should return to those who commit serious crimes. Was just wondering what people off here thought about that suggestion?

My initial thought was, yes bring it back as punishment to those who have murdered, it would help reduce this sort of crime which imo is the worst, and they would have happen what they have done to somebody else.

But thinking about it, Im not sure if it really is a good idea. Main reason being if they gave somebody the death penalty because current evidence said they were guilty, but later were actually found to be innocent, there is no way you could reclaim their life, it would be too late and clearly outragous. But also the fact should people be allowed to redeem theirself? As there could be other factors which caused them to kill.

So I would say probably bring it back, but only use it against those who commit brutal murders or/and several, and have no illness that affect them mentally or good enough reasons (for example, happened when using self defence).

[Tom4784]

No way, capital punishment is murder with a nicer name. Sometimes a life in prison can be a much harsher punishment.

[InOne]

No, it should not. There is not a good argument to why it should be really.

[Jords]

Originally Posted by InOne

No, it should not. There is not a good argument to why it should be really.

To reduce the amount of murder crimes? People wont be inclined to do it as much if they know they could end up dead for it.

I dont really like the idea, but Im looking at it more openingly. But Dezzy has a good point that prison could be a lot harsher.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jords

To reduce the amount of murder crimes? People wont be inclined to do it as much if they know they could end up dead for it.

I dont really like the idea, but Im looking at it more openingly. But Dezzy has a good point that prison could be a lot harsher.

A good working example of the use of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder would be to look at the United States of America, Several states have the death penalty while other states dont. The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is consistently lower than in states with the death penalty. The South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the U. S., has the highest murder rate of the four regions. The obvious conclusion is then, it is no deterrent.

There is also an effect that doesnt gain much publicity, if someone was on the jury where the death penalty could be applied, most people would be more reluctant to convict knowing that once the person was dead, they couldnt later be made undead if further evidence came to light that proved their innocence, or simply called to question their conviction. Consequently you have the potential for real criminals to actually be found not guilty, in cases where the balance of evidence would have found them convicted if the punishment was a term of imprisonment.

There are also arguements against it on moral grounds, its retribution albeit state authorised.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Jords

To reduce the amount of murder crimes? People wont be inclined to do it as much if they know they could end up dead for it.

I dont really like the idea, but Im looking at it more openingly. But Dezzy has a good point that prison could be a lot harsher.

Look at how many are on death row in America. The penalty of death will not stop people killing. Will not save any money either. It's what the idiot mob of Britain want, and we are above that now.

[Jords]

Originally Posted by Shasown

A good working example of the use of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder would be to look at the United States of America, Several states have the death penalty while other states dont. The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is consistently lower than in states with the death penalty. The South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the U. S., has the highest murder rate of the four regions. The obvious conclusion is then, it is no deterrent.

There is also an effect that doesnt gain much publicity, if someone was on the jury where the death penalty could be applied, most people would be more reluctant to convict knowing that once the person was dead, they couldnt later be made undead if further evidence came to light that proved their innocence, or simply called to question their conviction. Consequently you have the potential for real criminals to actually be found not guilty, in cases where the balance of evidence would have found them convicted if the punishment was a term of imprisonment.

There are also arguements against it on moral grounds, its retribution albeit state authorised.

Thanks for a really good reply Shasown. That sorta brings my point of it might reducing murder crimes to nearly unexistant!
Knowing that then, I guess its not really a good idea at all if it doesnt help stop anything and just relates to more death and money being wasted. Although what happens in the US may differ in Britain, with it being a lot smaller and therefore people knowing they have more chance of being found if they were on the run.

Very true and I stated that point in the OP, it should only be used if they were definitely guilty of the crime. But the methods used are also very cruel and I dont like that about it either. If it was just a button and they died it would be more humane, but its not and its almost like torturing them which is horrible.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jords

Thanks for a really good reply Shasown. That sorta brings my point of it might reducing murder crimes to nearly unexistant!
Knowing that then, I guess its not really a good idea at all if it doesnt help stop anything and just relates to more death and money being wasted. Although what happens in the US may differ in Britain, with it being a lot smaller and therefore people knowing they have more chance of being found if they were on the run.

Very true and I stated that point in the OP, it should only be used if they were definitely guilty of the crime. But the methods used are also very cruel and I dont like that about it either. If it was just a button and they died it would be more humane, but its not and its almost like torturing them which is horrible.

There are a few methods of terminating life for legal reasons, lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad, or even decapitation, (not necessarily by the sword - the guillotine) some are more reliable than others, some are of course more painful but if done correctly most are fairly quick.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

A good working example of the use of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder would be to look at the United States of America, Several states have the death penalty while other states dont. The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is consistently lower than in states with the death penalty. The South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the U. S., has the highest murder rate of the four regions. The obvious conclusion is then, it is no deterrent.

There is also an effect that doesnt gain much publicity, if someone was on the jury where the death penalty could be applied, most people would be more reluctant to convict knowing that once the person was dead, they couldnt later be made undead if further evidence came to light that proved their innocence, or simply called to question their conviction. Consequently you have the potential for real criminals to actually be found not guilty, in cases where the balance of evidence would have found them convicted if the punishment was a term of imprisonment.

There are also arguements against it on moral grounds, its retribution albeit state authorised.

You make very good points and really, in the UK the death penatly would never work. It does not stop people from murdering, raping, commting all sorts of crimes. You get 'mob britain' thinking that that is the answer, when really it is not. Look at how many people got outraged at the Peter 'Baby P' case, they don't think how he would have turned out at all. Imagine if he'd have lived and been the same as Barker anyway??? We known that the mass of the British public is stupid, they will sap anything in. Even if rehab is not the way, we can look for the early warning signs in paedophiles and that, some might say it's all bull**** but they are thinking of the ONE child. Right, they all mourn over Maddie right, but Shannon Matthews, yeah it was a fake, but she was fed anti-depressants and all sorts. Nobody thinks of the psychological damage done to her, they just see it as a solved case. The media is fickle and it higlights unsolvable cases when they really should be concentrating on the kids that might have a chance.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

You make very good points and really, in the UK the death penatly would never work. It does not stop people from murdering, raping, commting all sorts of crimes. You get 'mob britain' thinking that that is the answer, when really it is not. Look at how many people got outraged at the Peter 'Baby P' case, they don't think how he would have turned out at all. Imagine if he'd have lived and been the same as Barker anyway??? We known that the mass of the British public is stupid, they will sap anything in. Even if rehab is not the way, we can look for the early warning signs in paedophiles and that, some might say it's all bull**** but they are thinking of the ONE child. Right, they all mourn over Maddie right, but Shannon Matthews, yeah it was a fake, but she was fed anti-depressants and all sorts. Nobody thinks of the psychological damage done to her, they just see it as a solved case. The media is fickle and it higlights unsolvable cases when they really should be concentrating on the kids that might have a chance.

Some valid points there, but just wait till people read todays NOTW, according to their headlines Venables may not be tried for the alleged offences he has had his licence removed for. Wait for the howling of the mob there. If they bother to read the story, no decision has yet been made, some advisors are pushing for it to be dealt with by the parole board, a bit naughty really coz it then automatically assumes he has committed the new offences. In which case he can appeal to Europe again. poor old Jack Straw.

Good old Labour, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Some valid points there, but just wait till people read todays NOTW, according to their headlines Venables may not be tried for the alleged offences he has had his licence removed for. Wait for the howling of the mob there. If they bother to read the story, no decision has yet been made, some advisors are pushing for it to be dealt with by the parole board, a bit naughty really coz it then automatically assumes he has committed the new offences. In which case he can appeal to Europe again. poor old Jack Straw.

Good old Labour, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.

I guess you can only go on people really and what they buy and buy into. Even if the headline is false they still love stuff like 'Paedo found and jalied for 5 years'. It satisfies their simple minds until the next Maddie or Baby P comes along.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

I guess you can only go on people really and what they buy and buy into. Even if the headline is false they still love stuff like 'Paedo found and jalied for 5 years'. It satisfies their simple minds until the next Maddie or Baby P comes along.

Yep I also like the way people hark back to the good old days, in reality it has always happened, just nowadays, with 24 hour news, instant communications and people being more aware of the support available and then receiving that support, its more common for people to open up and talk about it. Plus it gets a wider audience.

The thing to remember though newspaper editors need to fill papers, news program producers need to fill the time slots they have for the programs, consequently when no fresh news is happening they will rework the same information just phrasing it a different way and make the story bigger.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yep I also like the way people hark back to the good old days, in reality it has always happened, just nowadays, with 24 hour news, instant communications and people being more aware of the support available and then receiving that support, its more common for people to open up and talk about it. Plus it gets a wider audience.

The thing to remember though newspaper editors need to fill papers, news program producers need to fill the time slots they have for the programs, consequently when no fresh news is happening they will rework the same information just phrasing it a different way and make the story bigger.

Yep I mean, if you look back on it, it was worse. You'd never get another serial killer these days. They'd be caught pretty quick. We've been hardened to such acts with The Yorkshire Ripper and The Moors Murders, we know what it's all about. It shocks me that people get outraged at such acts these days, as if this is the only one that has ever happened.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

Yep I mean, if you look back on it, it was worse. You'd never get another serial killer these days. They'd be caught pretty quick. We've been hardened to such acts with The Yorkshire Ripper and The Moors Murders, we know what it's all about. It shocks me that people get outraged at such acts these days, as if this is the only one that has ever happened.

Nah you still get serial killers, Harold Shipman, convicted of 15 murders in 2000, but there is still still debate over his true total, some reckon it could at least double the number he was actually convicted of.

Then there is Peter Tobin sentenced in 2007 for 3 murders, police actually believe his total is in excess of 20. He apparently lay claim to over 40 victims.

Both excede the Ripper and the Moors Murderers. Then there was Fred and Rosemary West, they were stopped in the late 80's with a total of at least 12.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Nah you still get serial killers, Harold Shipman, convicted of 15 murders in 2000, but there is still still debate over his true total, some reckon it could at least double the number he was actually convicted of.

Then there is Peter Tobin sentenced in 2007 for 3 murders, police actually believe his total is in excess of 20. He apparently lay claim to over 40 victims.

Both excede the Ripper and the Moors Murderers. Then there was Fred and Rosemary West, they were stopped in the late 80's with a total of at least 12.

It always makes me wonder why Psychopathy pretty common yet serial killers are so rare. Cos really, they are quite rare, the extreme violence they commit. Plus the compulsions and everything else. You read 'Without Conscience'???

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

It always makes me wonder why Psychopathy pretty common yet serial killers are so rare. Cos really, they are quite rare, the extreme violence they commit. Plus the compulsions and everything else. You read 'Without Conscience'???

Nope dont think I have, any good?

I reckon it is something to do with control, there are forensic psychologists who think Shipman would never have been caught without forging the will, and it was only that, that drew attention to him, almost like he wanted to be caught because he had gone too far, maybe. And in arranging that he was controlling the end of his spree. Even his own suicide, showed elements of his need to control things.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Nope dont think I have, any good?

I reckon it is something to do with control, there are forensic psychologists who think Shipman would never have been caught without forging the will, and it was only that, that drew attention to him, almost like he wanted to be caught because he had gone too far, maybe. And in arranging that he was controlling the end of his spree. Even his own suicide, showed elements of his need to control things.

Worth a read man, really. Psychopaths are natually sadists, they do appear everywhere. And unfortunately, some will be harder to spot than others.

[Harry!]

Yes it should if you have killed somebody you should be killed. Capital Punishment should only be used for murder though.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Recylopse

Yes it should if you have killed somebody you should be killed. Capital Punishment should only be used for murder though.

Bollocks Harry

[Harry!]

Originally Posted by InOne

Bollocks Harry

Eye for a eye. A life for a life Joe.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by InOne

Worth a read man, really. Psychopaths are natually sadists, they do appear everywhere. And unfortunately, some will be harder to spot than others.

Depending on the definition you define by. Some psychopaths are sadists, however some wont be sadist, as they show an almost clinical disinterest in the suffering of their victims. Saying that its only a small percentage of the population who would be classed as psychopathic.

[bananarama]

Of course it should be brought back.......Deterent or not is irrelevent...Justice needs to be done to cold blooded killers..........Keeping them in prison for decades starves us of cash that could be spent giving sick people drugs that have been banned because of cost..........How many more people do we want murderers to be resposible for killing be it indirectly.......


I too fear the possibility of inoccent persons being executed but in view of the mass murders and mass cost to the criminal system of keeping killers locked up it is imperitive we break away from this mamby pamby society and bring justice to cold blooded murderers.......

They should also bring capital punishment to drug dealers.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Depending on the definition you define by. Some psychopaths are sadists, however some wont be sadist, as they show an almost clinical disinterest in the suffering of their victims. Saying that its only a small percentage of the population who would be classed as psychopathic.

1/10 I think, but you never really know of course.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Recylopse

Yes it should if you have killed somebody you should be killed. Capital Punishment should only be used for murder though.

Why? That's just a statement with a nice ring to it. Kill the killer. But why, though? Just throw his ass in solitary and let him suffer in silence for the rest of his life. Why demand even more bloodshed? Who does it benefit? I don't think capital punishment is healthy for us as a society. It's voyeurism for a lot of people. Following a trial and waiting for somebody to be put to death will be newspaper and television entertainment for thousands to chew over and cheer on over dinner. I don't want my hypothetical kids to grow up in a country where we kill people. I don't care what that person has done.

I'm not even going to argue this on a financial level. Money has no place in a debate like this. It's ironic that Bananarama wants to kill drug dealers who cost us so much money by being in jail, when the real monetary problem is the ill fated war on drugs that has them there in the first place. A war which depletes government resources and makes organised crime gangs rich.

Joy.

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by Judas Iscariot

Why? That's just a statement with a nice ring to it. Kill the killer. But why, though? Just throw his ass in solitary and let him suffer in silence for the rest of his life. Why demand even more bloodshed? Who does it benefit? I don't think capital punishment is healthy for us as a society. It's voyeurism for a lot of people. Following a trial and waiting for somebody to be put to death will be newspaper and television entertainment for thousands to chew over and cheer on over dinner.

I'm not even going to argue this on a financial level. Money has no place in a debate like this. It's ironic that Bananarama wants to kill drug dealers who cost us so much money by being in jail, when the real monetary problem is the ill fated war on drugs that has them there in the first place. A war which depletes government resources and makes organised crime gangs rich.

Joy.

Money has a place when deciding the sick have to die while we give a blank cheque for murderers to stay alive.......The finacial side should not be debted you say..Some love to run away from the truth by burying their heads conveniently in the sand because they have no rational argument to offer.....