The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

http://www.russianbooks.org/crime/pi...ng-quebecW.jpg

A friend recently asked me whether or not I supported bringing back the Death Penalty to Britain for crimes such as murder, which I replied with an absolute yes. He asked me this because he tells me that recently in the Czech Republic (he is Czech) there has been a huge public debate over bringing back the death penalty in the small European country over a recent murder and/or abuse of young children. It got me thinking how the last poll I read on the topic stated that 50% of the British public would support bringing back the death penalty for crimes such as murder, murder of Police or the abuse of children.

But is this right? Opponents of the death penalty in the 1960s and still today argue that the death penalty is oppressive of a state to deploy such brute force, and that mistakes in any human system do occur and thus therefore render the death penalty wrong based on the statistical reality that you risk sending an innocent person to the gallows. Others in more recent years would argue that murderers should be treated with compassion and eventually 'rehabilitated' back into society.

The proposal to bring back the death penalty remains popular today, and would surely stand a chance of being reinstated via a popular referendum..... so what do you think? If you came to the ballot box in such a referendum, would you vote to bring back the death penalty or not?

Quote:

---

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

---

The debate is open to you.

idk

I'm all for the death penalty, but then there's complications with proving innocence/guilty. I'd imagine there's hundreds of people falsely convinced every year of crimes they haven't committed, and introduction of the death penalty would end their life instead of seeing them lose 25 years.

I can see the pros for it but I'm still against it.

Firstly as you've both said, I'd be sickened to think of the number of people executed each year who are innocent. And also I think it's wrong for one human (or a group of us) to be given the right to decide whether someone is allowed to live or die. Not because you'd be "playing God" but because no one should ever have that much power.

Saying that, it would hopefully bring down crime by quite a bit. Because suddenly instead of you having to do 20+ years in a *fairly* comfortable prison, you'd be dead. Might make a small amount of criminals think twice before doing the crime.

Ahh idk. Still probably say no to capital punishment.

I honestly think there's nothing wrong with the death penalty. If they've committed some of the most terrible crimes, such as murder, they deserve death or the same in return to them. I do think that if they have committed murder out of evilness, the victim's family should maybe decide whether or not they should be killed or rot in jail. Seems like a fair choice to me.

I'm in favour of the death penalty so long as there is absolute certainty. The unfortunate reality is there often isn't. There's a disturbing number in the US sentenced to death who are later acquitted (4%).

John Oliver summarises my thoughts clearly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kye2oX-b39E

Nope, completely against the death penalty. Don't believe the state should have the legal right to kill its own citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

Nope, completely against the death penalty. Don't believe the state should have the legal right to kill its own citizens.

---

So you'd abolish armed secret service, armed guards at Buckingham Palace, MI5 and armed Police units in times of civil strife?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So you'd abolish armed secret service, armed guards at Buckingham Palace, MI5 and armed Police units in times of civil strife?

---

No because they don't execute their own citizens as far as i'm aware?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

No because they don't execute their own citizens as far as i'm aware?

---

They have the legal right to execute subjects of this realm: without trial by jury, the right of appeal and freedom of the press.

Unlike the death penalty. Bring it back in cases of absolute proof, ie the murder of April Jones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

They have the legal right to execute subjects of this realm: without trial by jury, the right of appeal and freedom of the press.

Unlike the death penalty. Bring it back in cases of absolute proof, ie the murder of April Jones.

---

You're comparing apples and oranges mate. I do agree with the use of state force to prevent threats from harming innocent people, I don't agree that the state should have the right to execute prisoners. I'm shocked that you're being so dense.

That comparison made me laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

That comparison made me laugh.

---

Typical danlogic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

You're comparing apples and oranges mate. I do agree with the use of state force to prevent threats from harming innocent people, I don't agree that the state should have the right to execute prisoners. I'm shocked that you're being so dense.

---

So you do agree with the state execution.

The difference between you and me is that I prefer it done with a trial by jury, a free press and appeals in a court of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So you do agree with the state execution.

The difference between you and me is that I prefer it done with a trial by jury, a free press and appeals in a court of law.

---

Nope, do you not understand what an execution is? Killing someone that's on a shooting rampage isn't an execution. Don't be so foolish, admit you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So you do agree with the state execution.

The difference between you and me is that I prefer it done with a trial by jury, a free press and appeals in a court of law.

---

There's a MASSIVE difference between state execution and being killed by armed police/whatever you want to call them.

If you don't realise then you're even stupider than I thought you were.

The last person who ran into the grounds of Buckingham Palace wasn't shot at or killed. He was caught. The comparison doesn't make sense in this context :/

I'm against it as it costs far too much and finding absolute proof is difficult. Furthermore, we are such a boring, quiet country that bringing it back for a very small number of criminals seems almost pointless just to change the legal system when better laws should be passed through Parliament. Also, this is Britain. We barely know what's going on right in front of us so asking a Brit to prove someone guilty seems a bit risky seeing as we let paedophiles run rampant for decades and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.

If there is hard proof (E.g. video proof of the killer shooting/stabbing/whatevering the target) then yes, shoot the *******.