Capital Punishment

Tikay10

For or against?

Death penalty, or some other form of physical penalty?

If a terrorist or serial killer goes round killing others in gruesome ways, should they be executed?

HENDRIK62

I nicked this from your other thread, I think it sums up my 'no' vote rather succinctly.

Plenty errors in the justice system over the years, mistaken encarceration is bad enough, but this punishment is irreversible.

Tikay10 said:

1953

Derek Bentley was executed by hanging at Wandsworth Prison for the murder of a policeman.

Bentley, who was illiterate & had a mental age of 11, was posthumously pardoned & eventually his conviction for murder was quashed. Not much comfort to Bentley by then, of course.

Enut

It's a big yes from me. I know there have been a handful of examples of convicted and executed people being later proven innocent (see above) but these are few and far between.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227

I found this with a quick internet search, 29 convicted and released murderers went on to kill again, in the UK, in only 10 years.

We all work on odds, I'd rather run the risk of being wrongly convicted and executed than the risk of being killed by a released murderer. If we executed murderers then in the last 10 years 29 innocent people would still be alive, with modern forensics etc I very much doubt that we would have executed one, let alone 29, innocent poeple.

Jac35

HENDRIK62 said:

I nicked this from your other thread, I think it sums up my 'no' vote rather succinctly.

Plenty errors in the justice system over the years, mistaken encarceration is bad enough, but this punishment is irreversible.

Tikay10 said:

1953

Derek Bentley was executed by hanging at Wandsworth Prison for the murder of a policeman.

Bentley, who was illiterate & had a mental age of 11, was posthumously pardoned & eventually his conviction for murder was quashed. Not much comfort to Bentley by then, of course.

The film of this tragedy was done very well

hhyftrftdr

Think the death penalty is abhorrent.

Enut

hhyftrftdr said:

Think the death penalty is abhorrent.

Absolutely agree. But I think its use for mass murderers/terrorists/war criminals is justified.

hhyftrftdr

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

Enut

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Essexphil

No-one would be "ok" about any needless loss of life. It is a valid point in isolation.

Suppose a terrorist has killed and is holed up with 30 hostages. It happens. More than once every 10 years. Fortunately, most terrorists can be persuaded to surrender, and the sort of shoot-outs loved by film are rare. Would they be so rare if the terrorist knew they faced the death penalty? I think I'd rather face a quick bullet than an electric chair (though neither sounds infinitely preferable).

Then there is the question of being better than murderers. I have never understood the logic of "You put people to death. Therefore we are going to kill you." It makes us no better than them.

Most murderers fill at least 2 of the following criteria:
1. Very poor background;
2. Abnormally low IQ
3. Drug addiction

If people are not poor/stupid/addicted, killing is very rare. I would much rather spend money trying to solve 1/2/3, while of course protecting the public. We could start by investing in education and skills training in prisons, rather than cooping them up 23 hours a day.

goldon

People change their opinion when crime directly affects them. You've got to have strong Faith to forgive someone that just murdered you loved one.

hhyftrftdr

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.

I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.

paige55

I am staying away from this thread because if I said what I really think there would be a massive back lash against me

hhyftrftdr

paige55 said:

I am staying away from this thread because if I said what I really think there would be a massive back lash against me

So do you prefer hanging or the firing squad?

VespaPX

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.

I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.

And Lee Rigbys killers?
Waste of tax payers money locking them up.

dragon1964

goldon said:

People change their opinion when crime directly affects them. You've got to have strong Faith to forgive someone that just murdered you loved one.

Revenge is completely different to justice.

hhyftrftdr

VespaPX said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.

I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.

And Lee Rigbys killers?
Waste of tax payers money locking them up.

Should be locked up indefinitely, along with all the other notorious killers we've had over the years (Jo Cox, Huntley, Bellfield etc)

IH8UButler

think the question we have to ask here is: there’s a gibbet; will you pull the lever?

https://youtu.be/zTXxjQpEYqM

Enut

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.

I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.

I apologise if the wording of my question offended you H. The simple fact is that released murders have killed far more innocent people than the number of wrongly convicted people who have been put to death.

Agreed sentencing them to a full 'life' sentence cuts down that risk but it does not eliminate it, prison guards, visitors, other inmates have all been murdered by convicted murderers. Innocent people have also been killed by escaped murderers.

hhyftrftdr

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.

I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.

I apologise if the wording of my question offended you H. The simple fact is that released murders have killed far more innocent people than the number of wrongly convicted people who have been put to death.

Agreed sentencing them to a full 'life' sentence cuts down that risk but it does not eliminate it, prison guards, visitors, other inmates have all been murdered by convicted murderers. Innocent people have also been killed by escaped murderers.

You didn't offend me, very very little does

So we execute all murderers then to ensure that can't happen? What about someone sent down for attempted murder? They tried to murder and failed, so we should execute them too yes?

Enut

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.

I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.

I apologise if the wording of my question offended you H. The simple fact is that released murders have killed far more innocent people than the number of wrongly convicted people who have been put to death.

Agreed sentencing them to a full 'life' sentence cuts down that risk but it does not eliminate it, prison guards, visitors, other inmates have all been murdered by convicted murderers. Innocent people have also been killed by escaped murderers.

You didn't offend me, very very little does

So we execute all murderers then to ensure that can't happen? What about someone sent down for attempted murder? They tried to murder and failed, so we should execute them too yes?

Previously asked and answered.

hhyftrftdr

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Enut said:

hhyftrftdr said:

Define 'mass murderer'?

3? 7? 15?

Too many shades of grey for my liking. Throw in the times they get it wrong, plus how archaic it is....I'm not a fan in the slightest.

I would say two, to be wrongly convicted of one murder must be hugely unlucky, to get wrongly convicted of two? Well the chances have to be as slim as a girl that the fashion industry regard as a role model.

To throw a question back to you Harry, are you OK with the thirty odd people murdered by released convicted murderers in the last ten years? Do you have a solution to that? Maybe a life term should mean life? Surely to sentence someone to 'life with a minimum term of 10 year' is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can throw any questions back at me, fill your boots. But I'm not gonna dignify that ''am I ok....'' question with a reply.

I would 100% be behind tougher prison sentences. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is whether we kill them or not, and I'm firmly in the 'or not' camp.

I apologise if the wording of my question offended you H. The simple fact is that released murders have killed far more innocent people than the number of wrongly convicted people who have been put to death.

Agreed sentencing them to a full 'life' sentence cuts down that risk but it does not eliminate it, prison guards, visitors, other inmates have all been murdered by convicted murderers. Innocent people have also been killed by escaped murderers.

You didn't offend me, very very little does

So we execute all murderers then to ensure that can't happen? What about someone sent down for attempted murder? They tried to murder and failed, so we should execute them too yes?

Previously asked and answered.

So kill 2 people and its execution.
Kill one and its life in prison?

What about 1 murder and 1 attempted murder?
1 murder and 1 manslaughter?