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

[Conservative,]

May I say, the only reason we got rid of it in the first place was a poor decision by a poor jury.

Derrick Bentley was the last man hung in Britain - for something he didn't do. Fair enough it shows the flaws, but it was an AWFUL decision given the evidence.

He was accused of breaking & entering, and assissting in a murder if a policeman. However, at the time of the murder - he had already surrendered and was being arrested. He shouted "let him have it Chris" - most logic would point to him meaning "let him have the gun" (remember - he had mental difficulties) but the jury decided he meant "shoot him".

This DOES show flaws - however, these flaws are easily ironed out. If they have an obvious mental difficulty - they need to be imprisoned for life and treated. If there is any doubt (like there was with the "let him have it") it should not be carried forward.

However, someone like, for example, the Lockerbie bomber or Boxing day (or was it Xmas, cant remember) bomber should be killed - there is evidence for the jury to be sure beyond all doubt they did it, and it is a crime worthy far more than a spell in prison.

Your final idea is interesting, maybe they should.

But anyway, there are not more legal costs if you have a good judge and jury in the first place. It's all the same - surely the judge should be 100% when sentencing anyone?

[GommeInc]

But anyway, there are not more legal costs if you have a good judge and jury in the first place. It's all the same - surely the judge should be 100% when sentencing anyone?

You get an array of different outcomes - suspended sentence, chucked in prison until further notice, x amount of years until you can argue your case again etc. It keeps whoever committed the crime off the street, something often overlooked by many as they assume they're still allowed to walk free until the evidence is 100% (which takes years with some crimes).

I've never really looked into the Lockerbie Bomber, embarassingly, but I got the general jist when he was released. As far as I see it, he killed hundreds of people but to be let free at his age isn't going to cause much trouble, especially when he was in there for too long and I do not remember that many protests about his release - many people didn't seem to know about it from what I remember, but I do need to research into it.

[Inseriousity.]

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

lolol we could put a few Dementors on the gates and call it Azkaban. okay geeky harry potter fan here I agree with you, the petty crime is imo a more realistic crime that we should be focusing our efforts on

[-:Undertaker:-]

You assume that morals are black and white. Using death as a subject, eating meat is morally wrong as death is always considered bad, but I eat meat and am against capital punishment because there is no clear need for it. How am I clutching at straws? If anything, I've proven that Capital Punishment isn't effective, as is the debate question. Capital Punishment is useless, the US and many other countries who still have it do not appear to be countries thriving with moral stability, with the US having high crime rates than the UK, and not because of the size of the population. Abortions and capital punishment are very different, and I am fairly certain those against capital punishment are not immediately pro-abortion - that's a very black and white view. A criminal on death row, for example, is more sentient and aware of its surroundings than a foetus. So it's not clutching at straws, it's pointing out an entirely different argument (different debating styles).

The difference being that we do not eat humans, if we did kill other humans for meat then we would go to prison for it and it would be treated as murder. What an utterly ridiculous example, with that logic a farmer killing a chicken is just as bad as Ian Huntley killing Jessica and Holly. I would like to clarify and get this established before this example goes on for much longer; I am talking about the justice system which applies to human beings, yes? animals do not come into the equation.

You have not proven capital punishment is not effective, first you said that 'oh look, the U.S. has it and it still has high crime rates' and now i've stated the truth (which is that the United States barely uses it) you've backtracked and come into line with that fact by saying now that its true, we dont really use it. So again, how can you dismiss it as 'not working' when we do not use it? As for feelings on death row, so? a punishment is not supposed to feel nice, a punishment is supposed to be just that, punishing.

The very fact the prisons and justice system is not working coupled with the fact we do not have the death penalty should send alarm bells ringing.

Not very effective then, is it? Why do they not just kill them off? If it was at all useful, they would be using it left right and centre. Again, it doesn't appear to be useful.

Its not effective because it is not used therefore is not seen as a deterrent, which is what I keep repeating.

"Shame they don't use it for the right reasons then."

Indeed, but it is there for a reason and should remain there. It does not make supporters of the consitution 'gun crazy fools' which is the picture people such as yourself all too often try to paint.

I said they're all numpties because they do not agree with my opinion, when? I said it probably wouldn't work as you'd get people who understand the subject vs. those who are angry. I'd rather have someone argue their point clearly, than to say "they done killed ma cousin, they all gonna pay" when they do not know any statistics revolving around crime, how the legal system works and how each case varies and is up for interpretation. Sae argument revolves around general elections, you get people voting for who they have always agreed with, when another party possibly better suits them. Surveys and votes are never accurately showing what a person thinks, when what they are being asked is never followed by useful information.

Why does anger make an opinion less worthwhile? I am angry concerning the way our civil liberties are trashed, I am angry concerning the fact that our sovereignty is being destroyed everyday and that our people are paying for a bloated government that is utterly hopeless - that does not make my opinions any less worthwhile.

All I see from that response is, 'I do not think I would like the outcome so stuff their opinions'. This is proven by the fact you've tried to paint (again) supporters of the death penalty as simple minded rednecks, shown by your 'example'.

Again, not all crimes are premeditated. Spur of the moment actions. It's likely there are more manslaughter cases where you just want to punish someone happening than planning a murder - afterall, you are going to get in trouble and not thinking of the consequences clearly shows there are cogs loose in the system.

And thats why we have courts with a jury which decide on a case by case basis.

The money to reinstate the death sentence could go towards changing the current prison system. It is such a non-problem that bringing it back for a small statistic seems utterly pointless. Murders are on the way down, theft is on the way up. Bringing it back will not deter people. It's basic (criminal) psychology, if you want to kill someone you would probably go do it if you were so angry and lacked any rational thought when undertaking your actions.

It'll change the system we have now? good, bring it back as soon as possible then please because we are fed up of criminals rights coming first over the rights of ordinary people. See now, the problem with you (and most others who have studied subjects such as psychology and sociology) is that you do not view crime as an action taken by somebody with sound mind who has to suffer the consquences of his actions - you view it as a sort of 'disease' which is influenced by backgrounds, race and so forth. The ultimate idea that people are not responsible for their actions.

Interesting enough, those who are not of sound mind and genuinely are not in control of themselves - left liberal opinions such as yours said many years ago that we should allow these people out (thus closing down the asylums) to 'integrate' with the community, this has been a disaster and now we have people who are genuinely not in sound mind being sent to prison when they belong in an asylum not also forgetting the damage that has already been inflicted on others by this time.



Rehabilitation and 'being nice' do not work as shown by our present system, you commit the crime and you suffer the consquences. I'd also add, your point on the Lockerbie bomber (leaving aside whether he did it or not) you said that because people were not protesting, its alright then to release him? You obviously do not believe in punishment just as the likes of Ken Clarke do not, most likely because you yourself have never really faced crime like many of the poorest in our country face day in, day out.

Unrepentant serial killers and soft MPs

THE conviction of Steve Wright once again raises the obvious need for a death penalty for unrepentant murderers.

Most sensible people can see this without difficulty.

But the politicians' trade union stands against it, and you will notice that MPs of all parties claim that this is unthinkable, impossible in the modern world – as if the modern world were somehow kinder than the recent past, which is the reverse of the truth.

The political class dislike the death penalty because it makes them directly responsible for protecting the gentle.

They make the most pitiful excuses for being against it, which don't stand up to a moment's examination.

Absurdly, they claim to be worried about the deaths of innocent people, as if every murder victim was not innocent.

They want the power, and the plump privileges of office, but they shy away from the hard duties of government.

Well, in that case, they must be removed to make way for people who are ready to defend civilisation, even at the cost of a few sleepless nights.

So we've established you do not believe in punishment and thats our clear disagreement which I think is absurd but which you think is rational.

[GommeInc]

The difference being that we do not eat humans, if we did kill other humans for meat then we would go to prison for it and it would be treated as murder. What an utterly ridiculous example, with that logic a farmer killing a chicken is just as bad as Ian Huntley killing Jessica and Holly. I would like to clarify and get this established before this example goes on for much longer; I am talking about the justice system which applies to human beings, yes? animals do not come into the equation.

You brought up the pointless discussion. Both are different, we are agreed (even though you somehow didn't know there was a difference :S)

You have not proven capital punishment is not effective, first you said that 'oh look, the U.S. has it and it still has high crime rates' and now i've stated the truth (which is that the United States barely uses it) you've backtracked and come into line with that fact by saying now that its true, we dont really use it. So again, how can you dismiss it as 'not working' when we do not use it? As for feelings on death row, so? a punishment is not supposed to feel nice, a punishment is supposed to be just that, punishing.

The amazing thing is you proved it wasn't effective by providing such a fact. It is ineffective, a waste of money and has been deemed useless in the US with so many debates about it that it's pretty much gone quiet. So you proved it was ineffective yourself Also, I did prove it has high crimes rates, you just proved the fact it wasn't used often. Now that we've established crime srates are not dropping and that it's rarely used, we can conclude it is ineffective.

The very fact the prisons and justice system is not working coupled with the fact we do not have the death penalty should send alarm bells ringing.

It's a non-problem in the UK. We do not need it, we need an improved justice and prison system - capital punishment is like bring nukes to a war where the only weapon is a slap with a hand. Again, murder and other crimes that would possibly result in execution are decreasing.

Its not effective because it is not used therefore is not seen as a deterrent, which is what I keep repeating.

Debate over then, you also agree it's not effective.

Indeed, but it is there for a reason and should remain there. It does not make supporters of the consitution 'gun crazy fools' which is the picture people such as yourself all too often try to paint.

I repeat, it's a shame it's not used for the correct purpose. Whether or not it should remain there to protect citizens from a Government unlikely to attack its own citizens is irrelevant. It's the actiosn it having now, not in the unseen future.

Why does anger make an opinion less worthwhile? I am angry concerning the way our civil liberties are trashed, I am angry concerning the fact that our sovereignty is being destroyed everyday and that our people are paying for a bloated government that is utterly hopeless - that does not make my opinions any less worthwhile.

All I see from that response is, 'I do not think I would like the outcome so stuff their opinions'. This is proven by the fact you've tried to paint (again) supporters of the death penalty as simple minded rednecks, shown by your 'example'.

Never said anything, so do not put words into a debate that have no place. We've already established that Capital punishment is ineffective. They are quite possibly simple minded, they'll be voting for something that doesn't need to exist because they're not going to look into their facts. Again, look at the General Election. Crimes that would result in execution are dropping in favour of theft and robbery. It isn't needed, and won't be needed.

It'll change the system we have now? good, bring it back as soon as possible then please because we are fed up of criminals rights coming first over the rights of ordinary people. See now, the problem with you (and most others who have studied subjects such as psychology and sociology) is that you do not view crime as an action taken by somebody with sound mind who has to suffer the consquences of his actions - you view it as a sort of 'disease' which is influenced by backgrounds, race and so forth. The ultimate idea that people are not responsible for their actions.

Words are being chucked into the argument again, I never said anything like this so won't walk into a pointless argument. We established it's ineffective with you agreeing it is.

The rest was also stuff that was never said but you like planting information and putting words into people moves to justify yourself. So I have simply deleted it.

Capital Punishment is ineffective, it seems to be a total agreement between you, myself and a few others. There is proof it won't be used and will be unnecessary in modern day society

An argument is also invalid when someone plants false information and starts putting words into someones mouth, and as you've started doing that I've decided the argument is now over, as it's incredibly frustrating when someone who begins to show signs of losing an argument (and actually agrees that it is ineffective) begins this behaviour.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No hang on, we are just going around in circles here. Firstly you said that it was ineffective by giving the example of the United States and its high crime rates - I then pointed out that the U.S. barely uses the death penalty and therefore it can't be dismissed on the basis that 'it doesn't work' because in reality the example of the United States does not prove that even though you tried using it earlier on.

So again, without the death penalty being used at all/to a proper extent - why is the death penalty 'not effective'? I also see the typical 'modern day society' which is nothing more than a typical trendy soundbyte used to dismiss an argument.

The rest was also stuff that was never said but you like planting information and putting words into people moves to justify yourself. So I have simply deleted it.

I haven't planted anything, your stance on the death penalty and on the Lockerbie bomber shows clearly to me that you do not believe in punishment.

Never said anything, so do not put words into a debate that have no place. We've already established that Capital punishment is ineffective. They are quite possibly simple minded, they'll be voting for something that doesn't need to exist because they're not going to look into their facts. Again, look at the General Election. Crimes that would result in execution are dropping in favour of theft and robbery. It isn't needed, and won't be needed.

No we have not established that capital punishment is ineffective.

I repeat, it's a shame it's not used for the correct purpose. Whether or not it should remain there to protect citizens from a Government unlikely to attack its own citizens is irrelevant. It's the actiosn it having now, not in the unseen future.

A tiny few use guns to commit murder, that does not mean that it should be abolished on that merit. Ever since the abolition of the death penalty in this country for example, we've seen a massive increase with the use of guns and firearms as people no longer fear the consquences and it also shows that criminals will and can get hold of firearms regardless of whether they are legal or not.

Debate over then, you also agree it's not effective.

Because it is not used, use it and it will become effective as people will fear it as a punishment.

The amazing thing is you proved it wasn't effective by providing such a fact. It is ineffective, a waste of money and has been deemed useless in the US with so many debates about it that it's pretty much gone quiet. So you proved it was ineffective yourself Also, I did prove it has high crimes rates, you just proved the fact it wasn't used often. Now that we've established crime srates are not dropping and that it's rarely used, we can conclude it is ineffective.

Do you not understand the fact that because it is not exercised as a punishment often, that people henceforth do not fear it - use it often and it does become a real fear for those committing crime as they will then face a real chance of being sent to the hangmans noose.

Criminals/potential criminals will not fear something when there is nothing to fear.

You brought up the pointless discussion. Both are different, we are agreed (even though you somehow didn't know there was a difference :S)

I never brought animals into it, I brought abortion into it which you attempted to back up your conflicting stance between abortion and the death penalty by bringing the fact we eat animals into it when animals i'm afraid are not on the same moral lines as human beings.

So again, how can you support the killing of the innocent (without a jury) but are against the execution of the guilty (with a jury)?

[karter]

Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being

Yes , Death Penalty is much effective , In A Strict Country like China , Crime rates are going down.
Why? Because the criminals fear consequence of their actions.
If there is no Death Sentence , You Indirectly 'encourage' people to commit crimes
Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to go through an event such as murder.

[ChickenFaces]

Well it depends.

You can completely eradicate a potential problem, or you can attempt to rehabilitate it.

The death penalty is cut and dry. You kill them, they're done. The problem with this is, there have been a lot of innocent lives that have been taken because of stupid mistakes made by the court system. There isn't any clear way to know that someone did a crime that is punishable by death.
Leaving a person in jail of course is a long process. You don't know if a person will be able to change by the time they get out, or if they're in jail for life what they will do during that time.

There's too much gray matter in between the two extremes, although I believe that the death penalty should be removed from my country.

[Fiendly]

Having the death penalty is the easy way out..
It's like having a person going on a killing massacre and finding out all they get is a simple and humain death.

20 people killed and the killer loses their life.

I'd rather them be tortured than having them killed.

[DannLea]

I used to be all for the death penalty.. until I really took a look at it.

Look at the sentences that are laid out to people today. The jury gets to decide whether the offender is right or wrong, and then the offender gets to die. Great fun for everybody. But think about it.. 5 minutes after the serum is injected, the lawyer runs in with evidence proving the sentence wrong. OOPS!

I don't know about places like the UK and US, but Canada definitely screws up. A lot.

I know, bagging on my own country, shame on me, but really, look at it. I guarantee that if you look into it deep enough, someone, sometime was sentenced to whatever given punishment, and then everyone realizes "We screwed up!". I mean, spending 25 years in prison and getting millions of dollars to reimburse the time they lost because of the wrong sentence is shameful enough (Living life known as an offender, living in everyones shadow, etc), but what if they got the death penalty? Think about the families of the offender (Who is now technically the victim.. Not of any given person, but of the system), what do they do? Get a call telling them "Yeah, by the way. We were wrong! Whoops! Here's 20 million to cover it up!"? That's wretched. I know if I was in this situation, no amount of money would cover the stain on my heart from an unlawful punishment. Death is forever, there's no getting them back when it's too late.

On the other hand, I do understand where the people who currently support the death penalty's point of view as well, but I just don't agree with it. Sure, you can argue "What if they know 100% that is was them?", but how can anyone know 100%? Video cameras have sometimes projected an image looking like one person, when in reality it's a whole other person altogether. People have had "their eyes play tricks on them", so on and so forth. And don't get me wrong, if someone murdered my father, I'd wanna go give 'em something to remember, too, but isn't it much more satisfying knowing that instead of dying and just being done, they're going to live the rest of their days in an old smelly concrete building under lock and key, most likely surviving a few beatings along the way? Sounds cruel, but that's what jail is. That's what jail is for. The reality is mistakes happen. We're human, no one's perfect. We make error in judgement, we make error in our views, we make errors every single day in every aspect of our life. Killing someone to realize it was an "Opps" moment is much worse than sending them to jail where they can get out and see the people they love again if the sentence is wrong.

I hope I've given you something to think about, I realize this is my view, and some reject it, but like I said, I understand your views as well, I just don't support them. Mistakes happen..

What if they happened to you?

That's my three cents. Keep the change .