Prisoners to get the vote as spineless Cameron kowtows to Europe's demands

[immense]

No, of course not. That's probably what they want. Restricting their freedom for tens of years is a much more severe punishment.

[MrPinkPanther]

I hate to sound like a "soppy liberal" but an eye for an eye makes literally no sense. Almost all severe crime is committed in a moment of passion, it is that set of particular events that leads to the Murder or other serious crime, had one thing changed then the whole outcome could be completely different. Now this of course doesn't justify the crime in any way but it certainly means that the offender is not beyond repentance. In my opinion the systematic murder of people on death row is many times worse than a crime of passion which very often is unintentional when things calm down. One of the core problems regarding the death penalty is where is the boundary for executing someone? There is a huge difference between putting someone in prison for 20 years and outright killing them. Surely you can't agree with execution for all murderers because it is of course very subjective and is an entirely different crime depending on the circumstances. What happens if 15 years down the line you find out they weren't guilty after all as so often happens? Even if we only get it wrong in 1% of cases thats still an abomination against mankind, putting perfectly innocent and decent people to death for crimes they played no part in.

The thing is guys, whilst the death penalty might sound good in theory, in practice it doesn't work. It doesn't deter crime because most severe crime is carried out in moments of passion and actually countries with the death penalty tend to have higher severe crime rates over all. Perhaps because it's impossible for the state to lecture people on morality whilst it's putting it's own citizens to death?

[Conservative,]

Well, I believe if you kill someone, in a moment of passion or not, you do not deserve to live.

I agree that you'd have to be 110% sure they were guilty but there a legal processes you can go through ect. To make sure. And people say remember 50/60/70 years ago people killed for something they didn't do well attitudes were different hen. They believed that I there was a crime someone should be punished, even if there was insufficient evidence (Derek bently).

Now we are different,and if they cannot be completely proved then they shouldn't be killed...but rapists, murderers and terrorists should be put on death row if found guilty without doubt from the jury.

Back on topic, thinking about it I'm not bothered as long as we don't have the bnp immolate because of them.

I hate to sound like a "soppy liberal" but an eye for an eye makes literally no sense. Almost all severe crime is committed in a moment of passion, it is that set of particular events that leads to the Murder or other serious crime, had one thing changed then the whole outcome could be completely different. Now this of course doesn't justify the crime in any way but it certainly means that the offender is not beyond repentance. In my opinion the systematic murder of people on death row is many times worse than a crime of passion which very often is unintentional when things calm down. One of the core problems regarding the death penalty is where is the boundary for executing someone? There is a huge difference between putting someone in prison for 20 years and outright killing them. Surely you can't agree with execution for all murderers because it is of course very subjective and is an entirely different crime depending on the circumstances. What happens if 15 years down the line you find out they weren't guilty after all as so often happens? Even if we only get it wrong in 1% of cases thats still an abomination against mankind, putting perfectly innocent and decent people to death for crimes they played no part in.

The thing is guys, whilst the death penalty might sound good in theory, in practice it doesn't work. It doesn't deter crime because most severe crime is carried out in moments of passion and actually countries with the death penalty tend to have higher severe crime rates over all. Perhaps because it's impossible for the state to lecture people on morality whilst it's putting it's own citizens to death?

[Chippiewill]

The death sentence has never been a solution and often murderers murder due to a psychological disorder of which said murderer has no control over, by no means does it make them innocent or mean that they shouldn't be punished. But it is not fair and nobody has the right to kill another person.

[MrPinkPanther]

Well, I believe if you kill someone, in a moment of passion or not, you do not deserve to live.

So if someones attacked and they hit the attacker round the head with a steel pole then do they deserved to be killed? My point is you can never truly asses the situation or state that they were in and very often they will be physiologically and mentally unstable so yes they may not be fit to enter society but it doesn't mean they should be put to death.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I hope all of anti-death penalty crowd on here are also against Abortion and Euthanasia, because killing is wrong right?

If not, then stop making excuses for criminals - if you commit a crime then you face the consquences.

[MrPinkPanther]

I hope all of anti-death penalty crowd on here are also against Abortion and Euthanasia, because killing is wrong right?

No because I'm not against it based on a religious standpoint, rather a standpoint based on the fact that its impossible to determine the circumstances that someone was in. The difference between Aborition, Euthanasia and the Death penalty is massive and you know it, in abortion you are killing a POTENTIAL human being usually because you are unable to bring it up and it will have a poor quality life and in Euthanasia the person is killing themselves because they are having a poor quality life. I'm not whole heartedly in favour of Euthanasia anyway but lets not go into that.

If not, then stop making excuses for criminals - if you commit a crime then you face the consquences.

Please answer my question. So if someones attacked and they hit the attacker round the head with a steel pole then do they deserved to be killed?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No because I'm not against it based on a religious standpoint, rather a standpoint based on the fact that its impossible to determine the circumstances that someone was in. The difference between Aborition, Euthanasia and the Death penalty is massive and you know it, in abortion you are killing a POTENTIAL human being usually because you are unable to bring it up and it will have a poor quality life and in Euthanasia the person is killing themselves because they are having a poor quality life. I'm not whole heartedly in favour of Euthanasia anyway but lets not go into that.

The circumstances? we have a court system which decides who is guilty and who is innocent that looks at the circumstances of each case.

In terms of abortion, i'm afraid like it or not - that baby is alive. It is a person. I am for abortion, I am for euthanasia - but i'm also for the death penalty. If anything, Abortion ranks as the worst as it takes away pure innocent life. Euthanasia ranks second as it also takes away innocent life. The Dealth penalty meanwhile takes away the life of somebody who has been tried by a court and a jury, and found guilty for their crimes.

Please answer my question. So if someones attacked and they hit the attacker round the head with a steel pole then do they deserved to be killed?

No as that was provoked (self-defence), that is manslaughter and not murder.

[Eoin247]

No as that was provoked (self-defence), that is manslaughter and not murder.

This is true, although i think mrpinkpanther meant that the killer might be wrongly accused of murder as a result.

[MrPinkPanther]

This is true, although i think mrpinkpanther meant that the killer might be wrongly accused of murder as a result.

That is exactly my point . The border between Manslaughter and Murder is very thin and often it is impossible to determine because many Murderers will claim they acted in self defence and many people who genuinely did act in self defence are told by their lawyers to plead guilty to Murder if they don't have sufficient evidence to defend their claims. At the moment this results in differing prison times, in your system this would be the difference between life and death.