Yes or no?
My opinion is yes. Although I think a long and safe process of checks and re-checks should be held. But really we should be getting rid of;
Drug dealers
Murderers
Rapists
Terrorists
It will free up our prisons too :)
Printable View
Yes or no?
My opinion is yes. Although I think a long and safe process of checks and re-checks should be held. But really we should be getting rid of;
Drug dealers
Murderers
Rapists
Terrorists
It will free up our prisons too :)
Yes, the morality argument that will most likely be brought up I will nip in the bud right now; if you are against killing and murder (the death penalty) then you must also accept that abortion and euthanasia should also be against the law as they also kill, just that they kill the innocent rather than the guilty. If you cannot accept this and these are not your views ie. you are against the death penalty but for euthanasia/abortion then you do not have an argument of morality, in which case I would then ask; why do you support the murder of innocents and not the murder of the guilty?
I support all three - my views are consistent on this issue.
In theory, it's a good idea. But if someone's accused falsely, and killed?
That's why there would need to be several re-trials ect. The last man killed via death penalty in Britain was falsely accused. But the system has changed since then and he would have never been killed under today's laws. He would probably have been charged with breaking and entering at most.Quote:
Originally Posted by -fire-girl-
With modern-day forensics, I would have to agree that the ratio of false accusations have dropped dramatically, but if you look at the USA, there are still people killed by the death penalty, and afterwards, with the development of new technology, are found to be innocent. The thing with any crime is, you can never 100% prove that one person committed it - there's always a small margin for error.Quote:
Originally Posted by R0BB13G
Capital punishment should have been brung back along time ago now.
It should only be used when there is enough evidence though, such as DNA tests etc.
Murderers, rapists, terrorists? Yes. Drug dealers? No. I'd say you'd have to be completely certain that the person was responsible before executing them.
Drug dealers do worse than rapists. That's my view anyway...they're both awful but would you rather have your life messed up by a drug dealer (who is often a criminal through other means such as assault ect.), making you spend money on drugs, and ruining your life OR...be raped, ok it's nasty, you have a permanent scar in your mind but after a while (and I don't mean this saying rape is not as bad as drugs..it is in some ways worse) it does eventually seem like a distant memory. I know a rape victim. She said once she had got over with it, the guy got caught and she saw him put behind bars, she got on with her life as if nothing ever happened. Whereas I know people who take drugs and they don't want to..but they have to because they can't stop - it's too dangerous, and they blame the dealer who first persuaded them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmoured
To be honest it might decrease crime levels in the UK as I feel it is quite a big deterrent. It seems to work OK, in some states in America.
Personally I think Britain is way too lenient on criminals, whereas in some countries it would not be tolerated full stop, the gangs and certain individuals know they will get away with it all together or get off lightely. I don't think that capital punishment maybe the answer, maybe strict deportation for petty criminals, foreign of course. (which would obviously require radical immigration updates) and much harsher prison sentences. But Britain won't do that, it costs money to keep people in jail!.......
We have it here. It all depends really, if you call yourself a Christian and you believe in God then how is it right to kill people at all? Conflicting beliefs make the decision hard to make.