Is the death penalty effective? [ENDS 27/03/2011]

[GirlNextDoor15]

First, Grig's question was whether the death penalty effective. From my opinion, I think Grig's question is not complete. Is the death penalty effective? The death penalty is effective/ineffective on who? The guilty ones or the innocent ones? Or is it on the citizens? That is why I think Grig's question is not complete. Therefore, I would love to elaborate about the impacts on different sides.
To me, death penalty is illogical and merciless to the guilty ones. This is because everybody will make mistakes. You cannot simply judge on the mistakes they made; be it huge or small. Although I understand doing crimes is not a small mistake, but one should give a chance to the guilty one to change his life. For example, crimes like robbing and killing innocent citizens might be due to the robbers not having a chance to change their lives as you know we are having economic turmoils. They might rob a bank because they could not afford paying their family living. You might say that it is hypocrite but one's suffering is another's happiness. Therefore, you cannot just sentence the guilty ones to a death penalty because you do not the whole story. All you can do is give them time in the prison to realize their mistakes and remind them of not repeating it again. Plus, if you accidentally sentence someone innocent but was known guilty to death, I'm sure you've heard of karma. Karma will get you back with or without your belief.
In the citizens' side, I would confidently say that death penalty is effective. This is because death penalty will at least tell them that this is what you get if you did this. Lastly, death penalty on certain crimes will raise awareness among citizens when the impact of death penalty takes place.

[Conservative,]

First, Grig's question was whether the death penalty effective. From my opinion, I think Grig's question is not complete. Is the death penalty effective? The death penalty is effective/ineffective on who? The guilty ones or the innocent ones? Or is it on the citizens? That is why I think Grig's question is not complete. Therefore, I would love to elaborate about the impacts on different sides.
To me, death penalty is illogical and merciless to the guilty ones. This is because everybody will make mistakes. You cannot simply judge on the mistakes they made; be it huge or small. Although I understand doing crimes is not a small mistake, but one should give a chance to the guilty one to change his life. For example, crimes like robbing and killing innocent citizens might be due to the robbers not having a chance to change their lives as you know we are having economic turmoils. They might rob a bank because they could not afford paying their family living. You might say that it is hypocrite but one's suffering is another's happiness. Therefore, you cannot just sentence the guilty ones to a death penalty because you do not the whole story. All you can do is give them time in the prison to realize their mistakes and remind them of not repeating it again. Plus, if you accidentally sentence someone innocent but was known guilty to death, I'm sure you've heard of karma. Karma will get you back with or without your belief.
In the citizens' side, I would confidently say that death penalty is effective. This is because death penalty will at least tell them that this is what you get if you did this. Lastly, death penalty on certain crimes will raise awareness among citizens when the impact of death penalty takes place.

1. You wouldn't get death penalty for robbing a bank.
2. What has the economic situation (which is actually recovering and therefore has no reason to be mentioned) got to do with murdering someone.
3. If I killed your relative, would you want me dead? Yeah, thought so.

[GommeInc]

1. You wouldn't get death penalty for robbing a bank.
2. What has the economic situation (which is actually recovering and therefore has no reason to be mentioned) got to do with murdering someone.
3. If I killed your relative, would you want me dead? Yeah, thought so.

Everyone and their grandmother wishes someone dead in a random outburst of anger, even in times where no-one has been murdered or injured e.g. during a robbery. Heck, loads of people in bursts of anger say "they should have their fingers cut off", or in rape circumstances, "their balls chopped off". Doesn't mean they should do It depends on the reason behind the actions, the individuals state of mind etc. One murder, although horrific, doesn't justify killing off someone, especially when it will be cheaper to lock them up and make them think of their actions. The death penalty is incredibly expensive, and a drain on resources :/

[Conservative,]

Everyone and their grandmother wishes someone dead in a random outburst of anger, even in times where no-one has been murdered or injured e.g. during a robbery. Heck, loads of people in bursts of anger say "they should have their fingers cut off", or in rape circumstances, "their balls chopped off". Doesn't mean they should do It depends on the reason behind the actions, the individuals state of mind etc. One murder, although horrific, doesn't justify killing off someone, especially when it will be cheaper to lock them up and make them think of their actions. The death penalty is incredibly expensive, and a drain on resources :/

okay, let me get this straight. You think 1 bullet, or 1 piece of rope and a bit of scaffolding, costs more than 7,300+ days in prison? If we spent (example) £20 a day on basic things for prisoners such as food, water, lighting etc. then that's £146,000. Probably more knowing prisons these days. Compared to what...1 bullet (firing squad)...maybe.. £100? Hmm...
And it's proven that pre-meditated killers, when released, are 80% more likely to re-offend than any other prisoner. Js.

I think it's a case by case thing and you can't judge "murder" because there are different types of murder - eg; Pre-meditated, vengeful, passionate. Etc. But the death penalty still is FAR cheaper, FAR better, and FAR more logical than locking people up, only to re-release them to re-offend.

[FlyingJesus]

You begun the America debate, I just followed suit. They still have it, but rarely use it, despite a huge back log of inmates on death row - although it's probably because the lethal injection is now being considered inhumane with a case a few years ago proving an inmate suffered considerable amounts of pain.

I brought up America to show how daft your argument was, as I didn't think anyone would genuinely call America a barbaric place yet you suggested it by saying that places with the death penalty in effect are places where people are scared to live and have terrible quality of life. Either your original statement needs revising or your perception of life in America compared to many other countries does.
Not particularly on the main topic here but about the injection and such, apparently the most quick and painless form of execution is through the use of a precision guillotine, but I can't imagine people being particularly happy about that coming back

You've picked out a flaw with capital punishment and how murder cases vary. How can you determine a premeditated attack? How can you determine an accidental murder/manslaughter? Too much debate makes it difficult to find an appropriate punishment.

Do you then suggest that we treat all crime the same, to save on the hardships of working out what someone's done and why? Courts already have to do these things as sentencing isn't the same for all killing, there are plenty of ways of working out if a murder is premeditated and the courts have been using such methods for centuries without people saying "this is too hard, let's just give up and lock him away until he says sorry"

What are your views on it anyway, you seem to not have mentioned them

I'm not out on the streets picketing for the death penalty to come back but I wouldn't be opposed to it either if it was decided upon - but this isn't a debate about ethics and opinions, it's one of pragmatics and (as per the title) effectiveness

[Inseriousity.]

Obviously people will commit crime regardless, but the majority of people will be scared of the consequences and will therefore not commit crime.

The majority of people already are scared of the consequences. That's why the vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens, despite the scaremongering that ALL papers do who seems to think we're all going to be murdered in our beds/blown up by terrorists/robbed by yobs etc. No-one actually wants to go to jail. The only people I can see who'd want to go in jail are the homeless as it'd give them a roof over their head.

Whether a crime is premeditated or not, the death penalty won't be a deterrent. In fact, all premeditated crimes would be trying to avoid getting caught and therefore the death penalty wouldn't deter them and opportunist crimes are so caught up in the moment to worry about the consequences.

I don't agree with the death penalty because I'm of the opinion that they should rot in jail for the rest of their lives rather than having the easy route out.

[Conservative,]

The majority of people already are scared of the consequences. That's why the vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens, despite the scaremongering that ALL papers do who seems to think we're all going to be murdered in our beds/blown up by terrorists/robbed by yobs etc. No-one actually wants to go to jail. The only people I can see who'd want to go in jail are the homeless as it'd give them a roof over their head.

Whether a crime is premeditated or not, the death penalty won't be a deterrent. In fact, all premeditated crimes would be trying to avoid getting caught and therefore the death penalty wouldn't deter them and opportunist crimes are so caught up in the moment to worry about the consequences.

I don't agree with the death penalty because I'm of the opinion that they should rot in jail for the rest of their lives rather than having the easy route out.

If that was the case, there would be no need for the death penalty, unfortunately our crappy, easy-going justice system frees those on "life sentences" after 15 or 20 years. It's ludicrous. If we want to punish them, we have to either make sure they serve their full sentence, or heighten the punishment.

[GommeInc]

okay, let me get this straight. You think 1 bullet, or 1 piece of rope and a bit of scaffolding, costs more than 7,300+ days in prison? If we spent (example) £20 a day on basic things for prisoners such as food, water, lighting etc. then that's £146,000. Probably more knowing prisons these days. Compared to what...1 bullet (firing squad)...maybe.. £100? Hmm...
And it's proven that pre-meditated killers, when released, are 80% more likely to re-offend than any other prisoner. Js.

I think it's a case by case thing and you can't judge "murder" because there are different types of murder - eg; Pre-meditated, vengeful, passionate. Etc. But the death penalty still is FAR cheaper, FAR better, and FAR more logical than locking people up, only to re-release them to re-offend.

So we've discovered you know nothing of the legal system and the cost behind each case :rolleyes: A rope may cost a fiver from B&Q, but you've completely overlooked the cost of each execution beyond that of the tools used e.g. hiring people to perform, different departments, changing the legal system, court costs, prison cost, the time it takes to come to the verdict of the case, the validity of evidence and the cost involved and the necessity of punishment...

Giving someone the death penalty takes years of research into the evidence to find out they are 100% guilty of the crime. These years include a great deal of cost for forensics, years in prison(s), court cases, court investigations, police investigations, medical professionals looking at the accused(s) and the victim(s), monetary and psychological cost for the relatives of the accused and the victims, establishing the execution venues, medical experts needed for the aftermath of the execution, hiring people to execute the accused and then you get the joys of working out death certificates for the bodies and the cost to change the legal system to accomodate executions, which we've already discovered is a non-problem.

Oh, and the made up fact of 80% is incorrect. It's 67% for one statistic, but overall 39% of criminals reoffend during the first year of freedom.

If that was the case, there would be no need for the death penalty, unfortunately our crappy, easy-going justice system frees those on "life sentences" after 15 or 20 years. It's ludicrous. If we want to punish them, we have to either make sure they serve their full sentence, or heighten the punishment.

That's what I'm for too, make it hell on earth rather than give them the easy way out with the death sentence. That way you'd at least see crimes like theft and buglaries having similar punishments (for less time, naturally - give them a taster of what they're in for when it comes to serious crimes).

I'm not out on the streets picketing for the death penalty to come back but I wouldn't be opposed to it either if it was decided upon - but this isn't a debate about ethics and opinions, it's one of pragmatics and (as per the title) effectiveness

And do you believe it is effective? Granted, there appears to be evidence of it becoming less effective in countries that already have it. Your example of the US sort of proved that, seeing as it's rarely used yet crimes that sometimes result in the death penalty haven't fallen. The US have a different prison system though, which we can't really adopt here since anti-slavery is a big thing here

[Conservative,]

So we've discovered you know nothing of the legal system and the cost behind each case :rolleyes: A rope may cost a fiver from B&Q, but you've completely overlooked the cost of each execution beyond that of the tools used e.g. hiring people to perform, different departments, changing the legal system, court costs, prison cost, the time it takes to come to the verdict of the case, the validity of evidence and the cost involved and the necessity of punishment...

Giving someone the death penalty takes years of research into the evidence to find out they are 100% guilty of the crime. These years include a great deal of cost for forensics, years in prison(s), court cases, court investigations, police investigations, medical professionals looking at the accused(s) and the victim(s), monetary and psychological cost for the relatives of the accused and the victims, establishing the execution venues, medical experts needed for the aftermath of the execution, hiring people to execute the accused and then you get the joys of working out death certificates for the bodies and the cost to change the legal system to accomodate executions, which we've already discovered is a non-problem.

Oh, and the made up fact of 80% is incorrect. It's 67% for one statistic, but overall 39% of criminals reoffend during the first year of freedom.


That's what I'm for too, make it hell on earth rather than give them the easy way out with the death sentence. That way you'd at least see crimes like theft and buglaries having similar punishments (for less time, naturally - give them a taster of what they're in for when it comes to serious crimes).


And do you believe it is effective? Granted, there appears to be evidence of it becoming less effective in countries that already have it. Your example of the US sort of proved that, seeing as it's rarely used yet crimes that sometimes result in the death penalty haven't fallen. The US have a different prison system though, which we can't really adopt here since anti-slavery is a big thing here

Okay, fair enough the legal costs etc. But then all that happens in murder inquiries anyway...? The only big change which would cost a lot is the change of the legal system. Which will be covered within a few years if we cleared our prisons of the scum that are murderers.

We are both agreed on the fact the legal system needs to be tougher, yes? As I said - if the "life" sentences WERE "LIFE" - ie; you're never leaving, then there is no need for Capital punishment. However, this is not the case and therefore we need Capital punishment to strike fear into serious criminals - even stupid criminals won't risk their life.

[GommeInc]

Okay, fair enough the legal costs etc. But then all that happens in murder inquiries anyway...? The only big change which would cost a lot is the change of the legal system. Which will be covered within a few years if we cleared our prisons of the scum that are murderers.

We are both agreed on the fact the legal system needs to be tougher, yes? As I said - if the "life" sentences WERE "LIFE" - ie; you're never leaving, then there is no need for Capital punishment. However, this is not the case and therefore we need Capital punishment to strike fear into serious criminals - even stupid criminals won't risk their life.

Not entirely, with an execution you have more legal costs because more effort has to go into deciding the evidence found is 100% accurate and that the accused is completely guilty - read my post for all the details And the cost to change a system which only needs tweaking, not re-writing, is a waste of money, when it is a non-problem. Again, murders are on the down, theft and "petty" crime is on the up. Re-offending has only recently rised, by a tiny amount, and that's mostly for petty crime or crime that would not result in the death penalty. Violent crime incl. murder, manslaughter and GBH only has a tiny percentage of re-offended which I think was 39%, and 39% of a tiny number of murderers isn't a lot.

We do not need capital punishment as an excuse for the Government to strike fear into the populace - guilty or not guilty of any crime - when there is such a low number of people committing crimes that would result in the death penalty, if it existed. If anything, we should be dealing with the ever rising "petty" crimes, such as theft and serious (but not serious enough for execution) crimes such as knife crime - although the latter I think was falling in numbers, and was being committed by minors in city areas. We should be pushing for a better prison system, rather than capital punishment, because the prison system is for all sorts of people who have committed a variety of crimes. Heck, build a prison out in the middle of the North Sea for all the serial killers, and make the living standards inside horrific, that would learn them