Log in

View Full Version : Should Britain bring back the death sentence?



Holofoil
29-06-2008, 12:30 AM
EDIT: Maybe this needs to be in the debates section. I only posted it here because there's a lot in the news about CP recently.

Should Britain bring back the death sentence?

In 1969, Capital Punishment in Britain was totally abolished. Since then, punishments have arguably become more lenient over the years. Is Britain too soft on its criminals?

Reasons For Capital Punishment

Prison: There are three purposes for prison. First, prison separates criminals for the safety of the general population. Second, prison is a form of punishment. Third and finally, the punishment of prison is expected to rehabilitate prisoners; so that when prisoners are released from prison, these ex-convicts are less likely to repeat their crimes and risk another prison sentence. The logic for capital punishment is that prisons are for rehabilitating convicts who will eventually leave prison, and therefore prison is not for people who would never be released from prisons alive.

Cost of Prison: Typically, the cost of imprisoning someone for life is much more expensive than executing that same person. However with the expensive costs of appeals in courts of law, it is arguable if capital punishment is truly cost effective when compared with the cost of life imprisonment.

Safety: Criminals who receive the death penalty are typically violent individuals. Therefore for the safety of the prison’s guards, other prisoners, and the general public (in case a death row inmate escapes prison), then logic dictates that safety is a reason for capital punishment.

Deters Crime: There is no scientific proof that nations with capital punishment have a lower rate of crime, therefore the risk of the death penalty does not seem to deter crime.

Extreme Punishment: The logic is that the more severe the crime, then the more severe the punishment is necessary. But what is the most severe punishment: lifetime in prison or execution? I am not sure that anyone alive is qualified to answer this question.

Appropriate Punishment: It is commonly believed that the punishment of a crime should equal the crime, if possible. This is also known as "an eye for eye" justice. Therefore using this logic, the appropriate punishment for murder is death.

Vengeance: Some crimes are so horrific that some people think that revenge or retribution is the only option. This reasoning is not based on logic; but rather, it is based on emotions. Therefore, this reason should not be deemed a valid justification

Reasons Against Capital Punishment

Prison: It is often believe that prison is a viable alternative to executing a person. However as mentioned above, even imprisonment for life with no chance of parole still has issues.

Not Humane: Killing a person is not humane, even if the criminal is not humane. What is humane is subjective to a person’s upbringing, education, beliefs, and religion. Therefore different people interpret what is humane differently. For instance, some people consider putting a pet asleep is humane if the animal is in great pain, but doing the same thing for a person is often not considered humane. Other people would not kill an animal even for food. In some cultures, mercy killings are honorable.

Fairness: The life of the criminal can not compensate for the crime committed. Basically, two wrongs do not make a right.

Pain of Death: Executing a person can be quick and painless, or executing a person can be slow and painful. The method, and therefore the pain, of capital punishment is also subjective to society’s norms. Some cultures prefer suffering, others do not.

Violates Human Rights: Some groups of people deem death a violation of the person’s right to live. Other groups of people disagree that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment. There is no clear definition of what human rights are, so there will always be disagreements with whether it violates human rights.

Wrongly Convicted: Some people executed were proven too late to be wrongly convicted of a crime that they did not commit.

Playing God: Some people believe that all deaths should be natural. Other people believe murder is a part of nature.

Salvation: Felons have less time and likelihood of finding spiritual salvation if they are executed. The obvious question for this reasoning is salvation a valid concern for the state?

Forgiveness: Criminals have less time and likelihood to seek forgiveness for their crimes if they are executed. Again, is forgiveness a valid concern for the government?

Amends: Executing someone decreases the time and likelihood for the criminal to repair any damage from the crime. Should the state be concerned over this too?

Family Hardship: If is often said that the family members of the executed needlessly suffer too, yet the crime itself has victims and family members too.

Spiffing
29-06-2008, 02:47 PM
i think it should only be used for people like that guy who killed his wife and kids etc.

Hazza
30-06-2008, 03:01 PM
i think it should only be used for people like that guy who killed his wife and kids etc.
I agree. Its hard because people might be killed for something they didn't do.

lew!
30-06-2008, 03:05 PM
if guy A killed guy B then guy A should be executed
or if its something like kidnapping and the murdur or w.e then torture then executed
if its something less then it should be just prison

N-Dubz
30-06-2008, 03:10 PM
Yes, seems to me people arn't scared of going to prision in the UK if the death sentence came back I reckon things would change.. ;)

Dan2nd
30-06-2008, 03:33 PM
No, I think any country that claims to be civilised should totally get rid of the death penalty. The last person killed using the death penalty in the UK was later found to be innocent this is why I think it is wrong to many mistakes will be made...

Virgin Mary
30-06-2008, 04:06 PM
Where is the logic in killing someone for killing someone else?

PaintYourTarget
30-06-2008, 04:11 PM
No, for the one reason that they may be innocent.
And, should you execute the executioner?

-Xiangu-
30-06-2008, 04:17 PM
Yes they should be executed but only for murder crimes.

Browney
30-06-2008, 06:07 PM
Two wrongs do not equal a right.

e5
30-06-2008, 06:09 PM
I didn't even bother reading what you put there because no one deserves to die. People can get killed for crimes they didn't commit and all in all, it's a cowards way out of they truly commit a crime.

Think of it if it was you. You wouldn't want die, not like this either, especially if you didn't commit any crimes.

Technologic
30-06-2008, 06:10 PM
People should be made to suffer, execution is the easiest way out!

alexxxxx
30-06-2008, 06:17 PM
no no no. It's proven not to be a deterrent. So no.

Zehro
30-06-2008, 08:05 PM
No, but there should be longer jail sentences.

Life should mean life.

Technologic
30-06-2008, 09:10 PM
E5 brought up another point

What is a person is proven to be innocent after they have been executed?

Holofoil
30-06-2008, 09:38 PM
We always hear about people in jail trying to kill themselves. Surely this indicates that prison is a better punishment since death is what they actually want?

Janeisntpleased
04-07-2008, 03:15 AM
an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind ;)

Alkaz
04-07-2008, 03:28 AM
When there is hardcore evidence that one person has killed another I think that it should be brought back but when someone is innocent and is given the scentence wrongly because of a bent copper or what ever then no, i.e. derek bently, was one of the last people to be hung in britain, was also wrongly acussed and found guilty of.

I think two wrongs dont make a right is pants. If you cant do the time dont do the crime. In this instanc ethe time is the end of your life.

Blinger1
04-07-2008, 03:30 AM
That is like the same guy in Australia, he was innocent i believe :P

Stepheen
06-07-2008, 09:11 PM
Bring it back, kill him:
http://www.mugshots.com/IMAGES/Mugshot__Ian-Huntley.jpg
slowly and painfully as possible.
Then get rid of it agains

GommeInc
06-07-2008, 09:13 PM
Can't they just build cheap, gloomy prisons which don't cost alot, but are secure enough to hold prisoners? I would rather murderers and people who stab people for no reason should suffer in prisons, that only have a crappy bed and a toilet. Not luxuries like current prisons.

Stepheen
06-07-2008, 09:19 PM
Can't they just build cheap, gloomy prisons which don't cost alot, but are secure enough to hold prisoners? I would rather murderers and people who stab people for no reason should suffer in prisons, that only have a crappy bed and a toilet. Not luxuries like current prisons.
that's what i think they should do. like a 1.5meter x 1.5meter concrete walls, no windows whatso ever and they should be shocked with electric every so often. and they should have to lie in there own leavings and the only time they get to see anyone is when someone pushes a plate of out of date mash through the door. Uhhh they get me so angry for what they've done and maybe if they do start treating prisonners like crap maybe criminals will think again.

BlueTango
06-07-2008, 09:21 PM
Funny how they have money to build a big super-casino but can't 'afford' or 'find space' for more prisons

I say no to the death penalty... Its an easy way out - dieing for your the crime you've committed. Besides, you might be innocent of what you've been setenced for.

Going to prison makes you learn for your mistakes..

ToxicPaddy
07-07-2008, 01:06 AM
Britain should NOT have a death penalty. No human has the right to take away another human life, no matter what they done. Its also an easy opt out for people who done awful things. I think their whole life in prison is good though.

ideabox
07-07-2008, 11:22 AM
A perfectly rational society would either put these people to some use or be put to death.

Virgin Mary
07-07-2008, 02:23 PM
A perfectly rational society would either put these people to some use or be put to death.
I don't see why they don't use them to test drugs and cosmetics on instead of animals.

Janet Snakehole
07-07-2008, 02:26 PM
Personally, I think they should. Too many people get away with things these days and its clearly not fair.

ideabox
07-07-2008, 02:30 PM
I don't see why they don't use them to test drugs and cosmetics on instead of animals.
Maybe, but only in the situation when they'll never be released from prison or as an alternative towards the death penalty. Leave the choice up to the condemned man.

Virgin Mary
07-07-2008, 02:39 PM
I doubt they gave what/whom they committed the crime against a choice. Why kill a perfectly good human when you can try and find the cure for cancer using them?

ideabox
07-07-2008, 02:41 PM
I doubt they gave what/whom they committed the crime against a choice. Why kill a perfectly good human when you can try and find the cure for cancer using them?

Saves the money and the hassle of keeping them. :D

Ajthedragon
07-07-2008, 04:38 PM
Prisoners dont suffer if they have the death penalty... they wont even exist to suffer, its better to let them live there lives as misery, thats the biggest punishment.

Krusty
08-07-2008, 09:30 PM
naaaaaaaaa not death
i think torture...
make them suffer

:Liam
08-07-2008, 09:38 PM
The Death Sentence is the easy way out.

They should just extend life sentences and make conditions worse.

Joshuae
09-07-2008, 01:35 PM
Bring back corporal punishment, or whatever.

Make them go outside, mine pointless rocks etc.
Make them work in prison, not offer them hotel services.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!