[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by InOne

Bollocks Harry

Lol. You took the words right out of my mouth sweetheart.

[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.....

[Stu]

Originally Posted by bananarama

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.....

I have offered plenty of arguments. You conveniently choose to target me on the one I did not wish to argue. Spare me your tedious patronization and join my campaign to shut down all cinemas, concerts and other staged entertainment events. People are dying sick. This is no time to laugh at Ricky Gervais.

In America plenty of capital punishment cases actually cost a whole lot more, considering the lenghty appeal process and various other legislative nuances.

Oops.

[Captain.Remy]

Yeah burn the gingers on public places like we used to. That was fun. Good values are gone I'm afraid.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Captain.Remy

Yeah burn the gingers on public places like we used to. That was fun. Good values are gone I'm afraid.

I'll gladly sacrifice myself in exchange for Thierry Henry baby.

[Captain.Remy]

Originally Posted by setanta

I'll gladly sacrifice myself in exchange for Thierry Henry baby.

What an offensive joke that was

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Captain.Remy

What an offensive joke that was

Who said I was joking? hee hee.

[Stu]

Also, give this a read. I'm sure you will find it terribly insightful :

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[InOne]

Still no good argument for capital punishment!!!! And even if anyone tries Stu destroys you anyway LOL

[Jayson]

No. There'd always be a chance that the person you're about to kill for whatever crime it is, is actually innocent. The risk of killing innocent people who have been falsely convicted for crimes they didn't commit would deter me from ever supporting capital punishment.

If you look at the article on Timothy Evans on Wikipedia you'll see why capital punishment is a generally bad idea. That man was executed for killing his daughter, when he was actually innocent. It took 16 years until they realised that he hadn't done it and was given a posthumous pardon, but that's not good enough. They killed an innocent man.

That's why capital punishment should never come back.

[setanta]

Had a very interesting conversation over Xmas with my American cousin who is a prosecuting attorney over there and it just highlighted to me how the society you're raised in does mould alot of your principles and ethics on certain things. I mean, Capital Punishment is widely accepted over there whereas we for the most part abhor it. Would we feel any differently if we grew up in a culture that embraces it?