[Stu]

Originally posted by bananarama

The victims also have a rigt to live but are not given that chance. We spend a fortune keeping cold blooded killers in jail for years while at the same time refuse expensive drugs for some of the sick in many cases sentencing them to a premature death. With finite recources which is more important. Cold blooded killers or sick people....

I agree with the concerns that others have that the inoccent could get the death penalty by mistake. that is my only reservation about bringing it back. Deadly crimes have become so brutal. so random and so cold blooded that it is clear the goody goody approach is not working.

Victims die but what better are we if we bring back the death penalty? Its only going to add more to the list of dead people.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Noel
I think that no matter how bad or sick or unforgivable your crime is, you don't deserve to die. We have no rights to decide if anyone dies or not. You can lock them up, but I feel that killing them is not fair.

If you spent money locking them up you then deny financial recources that could be spent saving the lives of sick people. Ok to have a blank cheque for murderers but not for the sick who need banned drugs....That's not fair either...

So when it comes to fairness and where money is spent who is more important a cold blooded killer or a desperate patient...

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Stu

Victims die but what better are we if we bring back the death penalty? Its only going to add more to the list of dead people.

Ever since the death penality deterent was done away with victims have soared. The death penalty would save lives that are worthy of being saved. The goody goody aproach simply makes other people victims of potential murderers who have no real deterent to stop them from killing....

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Stu

Victims die but what better are we if we bring back the death penalty? Its only going to add more to the list of dead people.

Ever since the death penality deterent was done away with victims have soared. The death penalty would save lives that are worthy of being saved. The goody goody approach simply makes other people victims of potential murderers who have no real deterent to stop them from killing....

[Tom4784]

I'm against the death penalty, Who are we to send someone to their death? What gives us that right?

[Stu]

Originally posted by bananarama

Ever since the death penality deterent was done away with victims have soared. The death penalty would save lives that are worthy of being saved. The goody goody approach simply makes other people victims of potential murderers who have no real deterent to stop them from killing....

That just highlights the fact that we need better law enforcement then.

Death is not the answer.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Dezzy
I'm against the death penalty, Who are we to send someone to their death? What gives us that right?

If your country was attacked you would soon find a reason to kill......Well we are under attack by cold blooded morons who literally get away with murder.....

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Stu

That just highlights the fact that we need better law enforcement then.

Death is not the answer.

Exactly how do we get better law enforcements.???? Spend more money. Would you pay more taxes. Would others!!! With all the forensic technology we have we still cannot stop the increase in violent murders...

[Tom4784]

Well that's a motive is it not? Not the right. the death penalty isn't a punishment it's murder and murdering people like that wouldn't make us any better then the people we are fighting.

[Stu]

Originally posted by bananarama

If your country was attacked you would soon find a reason to kill......Well we are under attack by cold blooded morons who literally get away with murder.....

As far as terrorism , the death penalty is about as usefull as a sack of apricots. If they dont send themselves into buildings to kill themselves , they will reslish the thought of being made martyrs of by being executed.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Stu

As far as terrorism , the death penalty is about as usefull as a sack of apricots. If they dont send themselves into buildings to kill themselves , they will reslish the thought of being made martyrs of by being executed.

Who cares what thoughts they relish. pointless sentiment. We wast finite financial recources on killers and that has got to be wrong...The law abiding living are more important

[Stu]

Originally posted by bananarama

Who cares what thoughts they relish. pointless sentiment. We wast finite financial recources on killers and that has got to be wrong...The law abiding living are more important

Who cares? Its supposed to be punishment , and what punishment is it to hang somebody who wants to die?!.

[Ruth]

Exactly Stu - what deterrent is it when you are giving people an opportunity to feel like heroes?

I am against the death penalty - its not that I dont think that some of these people deserve to die - for example if Ian Huntley killed himself, I wouldn't shed any tears. It's just that I don't think that we have the right to decide when and how somebody shoud die. And yes, I know what people will say - murderers don't have the right to makethat choice either...so by using the death penalty, aren't we just as bad?

I know this much - if I was responsible for putting someone to death, I sure wouldn't feel good about myself.

And regarding the financial point - do people realise that in the USA, it costs more to have a trial where the defendant could be sentenced to death, than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life?

[cepb]

Some people see the death penalty as an easy way out. Over-crowding prisons is a problem, but wouldn't a life of captivity be far worse than a painless death? Although most life sentences aren't for life, some murderers get as little as 7 years.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Stu

Who cares? Its supposed to be punishment , and what punishment is it to hang somebody who wants to die?!.

We are going round and round in circles here. If we cannot agree then we cannot agree....Not all murderers are suicidal lunatics. Not all murders are done by terrorists. concentrating on the above is drifting off topic of crimes resulting in murder. Political crimes are a different kettle of fish.

If ones country was attacked other than by suicidal terrorists those that say killing is wrong would soon sing a different song....Wars never get won by arguing it is wrong to kill or execute.....It is them or us. Give life to them and you lose your own..... The logic is no different in peace time. Give life and financial resources to keep killers alive and you deny financial resources to keep sick people alive.

Same question when it comes to finite financial resources what is more important. Cold blooded killer or the sick......I know what i would choose.

I cannot make you agree all i can do is point out that killers are being put before victims. Wasting money that could be diverted but instead keeping killers in jail is in effect causing sick people to be denied treatments and as a result killing people. Which you say you are against.....Don't kill the killers but fine and dandy to indirectly kill the sick...

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by bananarama

Ever since the death penality deterent was done away with victims have soared. The death penalty would save lives that are worthy of being saved. The goody goody aproach simply makes other people victims of potential murderers who have no real deterent to stop them from killing....

The states in the United States with the highest murder rates, which contribute to the highest murder rates in the world also happen to have the death penalty.

It is no deterrent, because either it is a spur of the moment killing with no thought to the consequences or the killer believes he/she will not be caught

[bananarama]

Originally posted by spacebandit

The states in the United States with the highest murder rates, which contribute to the highest murder rates in the world also happen to have the death penalty.

It is no deterrent, because either it is a spur of the moment killing with no thought to the consequences or the killer believes he/she will not be caught

United States different country different culture. Comparison completely at odds.....What is best for UK culture is what matters......

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Dezzy
Well that's a motive is it not? Not the right. the death penalty isn't a punishment it's murder and murdering people like that wouldn't make us any better then the people we are fighting.

This sort of reasoning is behind the reason why crimes will get worse by the year and more and more out of control.

Sometimes you have to step back to see how doing nothing different destroys the future and how having done something different in the past gave us todays nightmare scenerio....

[the_stillness]

Originally posted by sarahtheangel
ok first off i no alot will find this offensive so i will say sorry now !!! with all the child murders and sickos in britian would you agree with forenic evidence we have today it should be brought back yes or no .

No need to be sorry sarahtheangel. I do have feelings about this subject.

I have read this topic all the way through and I can certainly say that Britain bringing back the death penalty shouldn't happen. As the risks of killing an innocent person are just too real and possible. I remember reading an article in an old newspaper about a woman being hung and later on there was some new evidence which proved her innocence. Too little, Too late for her.

Some people think that criminals that commit terrible crimes should serve a prison sentance for 15 to 20 years and then afterwards be rehabilitated when released?

IMO, if a criminal is caught red handed commiting a terrible crime, [which should demand the ultimate punishment of death], then build a massive prison to house all these criminals and make that prison the most uncomfortable environment ever. Similar to prisons from the early 1900's with standards from those old times, without all those modern day prison mod-cons. Prisons are too confortable and have tv and treats galore. Basically for the worst kind of criminals who are 100% guilty, they should live in a prison so bad, it is like living in hell. I have made up a name for the prison. GRIZWOLDIA, don't laugh! These would be for the worst criminals of the lot, which would be executed if they lived in a country which does have Capital Punishment.

[Tom4784]

Originally posted by Stu
Short Answer : No.

Theirs really no need anyway. Keep em' in prison , and they may rehabilitate - it does happen people.

Originally posted by Stu
Victims die but what better are we if we bring back the death penalty? Its only going to add more to the list of dead people.

Originally posted by Stu
As far as terrorism , the death penalty is about as usefull as a sack of apricots. If they dont send themselves into buildings to kill themselves , they will reslish the thought of being made martyrs of by being executed.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything Stu has said in this thread.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by bananarama

United States different country different culture. Comparison completely at odds.....What is best for UK culture is what matters......

Country doesn't matter in this argument, as for culture - ask the police dealing with knife and gun crime against and by teenagers where they think the "culture" is being imported from.

In any case the main point of my argument which you glossed over and has nothing to do with country :

It is no deterrent, because either it is a spur of the moment killing with no thought to the consequences or the killer believes he/she will not be caught

[Ruth]

Originally posted by bananarama

United States different country different culture. Comparison completely at odds.....What is best for UK culture is what matters......

We have assimilated so much of American culture in Britain now. It seems that you are just saying it makes no difference because it suits your argument. The fact is that the states in the US which have the death penalty are the most violent ones. If the death penalty was a genuine deterrent, they would not be the most violent would they?

Also, I agree wtih spacebandit - how many murderers actually believe that they are going to be caught? Hardly any I should imagine, so what deterrent is any punishment to them?

[spitfire]

Originally posted by spacebanditIt is no deterrent, because either it is a spur of the moment killing with no thought to the consequences or the killer believes he/she will not be caught

Maybe true,maybe not but it stops re-offending and it saves the taxman money which could be spent else where.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by spitfire

Maybe true,maybe not but it stops re-offending and it saves the taxman money which could be spent else where.

I disagree, as I cannot see how a quick and painless death is more of a punishment than years behind bars until death.

[Moses455]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
I say no for a few reasons. Mistakes happen. Look at country's that do have the death penalty. Do they have less murders? And as for the re-offending issue, if the crime was serious enough to consider taking their life would they ever be released?

Your last point is where the flaw lies. Many who have committed serious, heinous crimes ARE released after a few years. Life rarely means life nowadays.