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

[-:Undertaker:-]

The question still stands, do you support abortion and euthanasia? if the response to that is yes, then the point you make about 'killing is wrong in a civilised country' doesn't stand up because you'd be supporting the killing, the killing of innocents as opposed to those who have been tried by a court of the land.

The United States does not in reality have capital punishment because it is hardly used hence is not really a deterrent, it remains in place (and barely used) due to the political pressues on keeping the punishment alive - but as I said, in reality the United States does not exercise the death penalty hence why it is not all that of a useful deterrent in the states.

The right to bear arms in the United States, i'm sorry but the right to bear arms is there in the consitution and cannot be broken and should not be broken. As Jesse Ventura put perfectly, that clause is there incase the people ever need to bring down the government when it gets out of control. The idea that 'America has high crime rates thus this shows the death penalty does not work' is nonsense, look into the numbers and you will find it is rarely used as a punishment.

Finally if somebody is going to carry out a murder, then they will carry out that murder - be it using a knife or a gun, just a gun is a superior weapon. In the end you end up having to arm the police (very dangerous, rather 1984-like) as we have done and you leave the innocent unarmed. The polls shows the death penalty still has around 50% of support amongst the British people and when it was abolished it was just brought in even though the people did not vote for it - lets have a referendum on the topic (under a Swiss-system of direct democracy) and let the British people decide.

i personally don't agree with the death sentence, just because i see it as morally wrong and have similar views to what gomme does on the situation.

So you are against abortion and euthanasia, yes?

[benjamin]

I meant to society. Obviously it kills the guilty offender, but to society and in general, it doesn't harm anyone other than that guilty criminal.

yeah but, it does do harm when someone gets wrongfully convicted - which i'm pretty sure would happen from time to time.

The question still stands, do you support abortion and euthanasia? if the response to that is yes, then the point you make about 'killing is wrong in a civilised country' doesn't stand up because you'd be supporting the killing, the killing of innocents as opposed to those who have been tried by a court of the land.

The United States does not in reality have capital punishment because it is hardly used hence is not really a deterrent, it remains in place (and barely used) due to the political pressues on keeping the punishment alive - but as I said, in reality the United States does not exercise the death penalty hence why it is not all that of a useful deterrent in the states.

The right to bear arms in the United States, i'm sorry but the right to bear arms is there in the consitution and cannot be broken and should not be broken. As Jesse Ventura put perfectly, that clause is there incase the people ever need to bring down the government when it gets out of control. The idea that 'America has high crime rates thus this shows the death penalty does not work' is nonsense, look into the numbers and you will find it is rarely used as a punishment.

Finally if somebody is going to carry out a murder, then they will carry out that murder - be it using a knife or a gun, just a gun is a superior weapon. In the end you end up having to arm the police (very dangerous, rather 1984-like) as we have done and you leave the innocent unarmed. The polls shows the death penalty still has around 50% of support amongst the British people and when it was abolished it was just brought in even though the people did not vote for it - lets have a referendum on the topic (under a Swiss-system of direct democracy) and let the British people decide.



So you are against abortion and euthanasia, yes?

i am against abortion, yeah. euthanasia i see as slightly different and not as 'killing' someone, more like assisted suicide. but even with that i still have mixed feelings and can't quite make my mind up or have a set in stone opinion about it.

and what's your ultimate view on it? you haven't said much other than talking about the death penalty in the usa and the links with euthanasia and abortion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

yeah but, it does do harm when someone gets wrongfully convicted - which i'm pretty sure would happen from time to time.

In that case we would never go to war incase of killing innocents, along with closing all prisons incase we send people to prison on false evidence.

i am against abortion, yeah. euthanasia i see as slightly different and not as 'killing' someone, more like assisted suicide. but even with that i still have mixed feelings and can't quite make my mind up or have a set in stone opinion about it.

and what's your ultimate view on it? you haven't said much other than talking about the death penalty in the usa and the links with euthanasia and abortion.

Well your views are consistent then from a moral standpoint so well done for that, just I asked because it is usually the case that rabid opponents of the death penalty are the typical pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia supporters who cannot see the hypocrisy in their views, yet still claim to care about life/morality. My personal view is pro-death penalty, pro-choice/abortion and pro-euthanasia.

I am an ardent supporter of the death penalty as I want a strong justice system which delievers justice aswell as working as a deterrent. Abortion on the other hand, I do not personally agree with it but I accept the fact that others may do and should have that choice at their disposal.

The death penalty is by far the most just, as it is down to a court and a jury and punishes those guilty of the most disgusting crimes against others. Abortion on the other hand only serves to punish the innocent who have not committed a crime against others.

[GommeInc]

The question still stands, do you support abortion and euthanasia? if the response to that is yes, then the point you make about 'killing is wrong in a civilised country' doesn't stand up because you'd be supporting the killing, the killing of innocents as opposed to those who have been tried by a court of the land.

Completely different kettle of fish entirely, so you're kinda clutching at straws with this debate In my eyes, abortion is only justified if the child will have a poor quality of life (severely disabled, illnesses) or the mother's life and wellbeing is at risk - plus you get the "when does a fetus become sentient" argument. They tend to be done privately too, rather than shouted across the airwaves - the US have their executions private, but you still ehar about them Having an abortion willy nilly sets a horrific precedent when a perfectly healthy baby could be born, it's down to the bad potential parent, rather than the potential baby Euthanasia is a tricky subject, and again completely different to state murder when euthanasia usually falls down to the individual's decision, it's not being forced onto them by the state for example. You can easily do it anyway, you just go to Sweden/Switzerland (one of the two) and I think new legislation has made it so a partner will not be in trouble for assisting it. I can see why some doctors are against it, while others are for it.

The United States does not in reality have capital punishment because it is hardly used hence is not really a deterrent, it remains in place (and barely used) due to the political pressues on keeping the punishment alive - but as I said, in reality the United States does not exercise the death penalty hence why it is not all that of a useful deterrent in the states.

It's used enough. 46 in 2010 and 8 already in 2011. Also, you've kind of backed up why the death penalty is useless, it still exists and is used.

The right to bear arms in the United States, i'm sorry but the right to bear arms is there in the consitution and cannot be broken and should not be broken. As Jesse Ventura put perfectly, that clause is there incase the people ever need to bring down the government when it gets out of control. The idea that 'America has high crime rates thus this shows the death penalty does not work' is nonsense, look into the numbers and you will find it is rarely used as a punishment.

It's a shame it isn't used for the right reason, huh? The Government is unlikely to get out of control, and if it did would it really solve anything?

Finally if somebody is going to carry out a murder, then they will carry out that murder - be it using a knife or a gun, just a gun is a superior weapon. In the end you end up having to arm the police (very dangerous, rather 1984-like) as we have done and you leave the innocent unarmed. The polls shows the death penalty still has around 50% of support amongst the British people and when it was abolished it was just brought in even though the people did not vote for it - lets have a referendum on the topic (under a Swiss-system of direct democracy) and let the British people decide.

I've never seen a statistic about who wants the Death Penalty, and if there was it would be a difficult subject seeing as the reason for the death penalty is justice, and justice in any sense is never desired to be taken softly. So you'll get angry people voting yes without looking at any details. Unfortunately, asking people to vote on someone is impossible when you get people wanting something but never really understanding why. It's a shame we can't single out smart people, or force people to research a survey It's why the General Elections went down the pot.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Completely different kettle of fish entirely, so you're kinda clutching at straws with this debate In my eyes, abortion is only justified if the child will have a poor quality of life (severely disabled, illnesses) or the mother's life and wellbeing is at risk - plus you get the "when does a fetus become sentient" argument. They tend to be done privately too, rather than shouted across the airwaves - the US have their executions private, but you still ehar about them Having an abortion willy nilly sets a horrific precedent when a perfectly healthy baby could be born, it's down to the bad potential parent, rather than the potential baby Euthanasia is a tricky subject, and again completely different to state murder when euthanasia usually falls down to the individual's decision, it's not being forced onto them by the state for example. You can easily do it anyway, you just go to Sweden/Switzerland (one of the two) and I think new legislation has made it so a partner will not be in trouble for assisting it. I can see why some doctors are against it, while others are for it.

I'm not clutching at straws, rather i've shown you to be doing so. The fact that often when this debate rages, those who are against the death penalty always without fail come out and comment on the morality of 'killing another human being' - when all too often, the anti-death penalty side itself is the side which pushed and pushed for abortion made easier, and made legal in the first place.

Now you said abortion was justified is the baby is to be poor/have an illness/disability - so with that logic, somebody can be killed without actually doing something themselves which is wrong, something which is out of their control but somebody who knowingly takes the life of another human being without a trial is somehow worth more than the unborn child?

As for the foetus/baby debate, it is simply ridiculous. To borrow a phrase, clutching at straws.

It's used enough. 46 in 2010 and 8 already in 2011. Also, you've kind of backed up why the death penalty is useless, it still exists and is used.

46/15,000+ is supposed to deter people? If the death penalty were to be properly used you would have to apply it to most cases and it would then be a deterrent. I would also add, many are sentenced to death but never reach the table, chair or chamber because they are simply allowed to die of old age to avoid the death penalty.

It is not used as it is, therefore to dismiss it as 'not working' is nonsense.

It's a shame it isn't used for the right reason, huh? The Government is unlikely to get out of control, and if it did would it really solve anything?

Oh it would, the people could then rise up against the government (look at Libya the way the army defected allowed the opposition to arm itself up in order to match the forces of Gaddafi) - the founders of the United States put it in there for a reason, that is the reason. If the sitution never arises then it never arises, if it does - then the citizens will be ready.

I've never seen a statistic about who wants the Death Penalty, and if there was it would be a difficult subject seeing as the reason for the death penalty is justice, and justice in any sense is never desired to be taken softly. So you'll get angry people voting yes without looking at any details. Unfortunately, asking people to vote on someone is impossible when you get people wanting something but never really understanding why. It's a shame we can't single out smart people, or force people to research a survey It's why the General Elections went down the pot.

However to deny people/dismiss their opinions on whether you agree with them is wrong. The polls are reachable via the internet, search via Google - lets have a debate on this topic in public, and let the people decide.

The same applies for our membership of the EU, i'm confident we [those who wish to withdraw] are correct - therefore I take no issue with debating it.

[FlyingJesus]

So when planning they calculate how many years they will be in prison? It is still the last thing going through their minds Criminal Psychology suggests that the planning process completely misses out the punishment, as the only thing they care about is seeking revenge or killing someone for the sake of it.

Well yeah in most cases people don't plan on getting caught, but potential outcomes do have an effect on everything we do - if that wasn't the case we'd always do exactly as we pleased no matter what may happen afterwards. If action A could result in death and action B is only likely to be as harmful as a bruise, which would you do?

Depends on your prospective. America is quite barbaric when you look at any statistics about gun crime, capital punishment and any other crimes. To be fair, allowing "the right to bare arms" in that country is bound to cause trouble anyway. The constant fear analogy revolves around the idea that if the state considered legal murder appropriate then the country itself must be a relatively unpleasant one. I'd hate to live in a country where murder becomes justified, even if it is to punish (albeit, a small number of) wrong doers.

Oh, so you really WERE suggesting that people in America are constantly terrified...

I don't think there's any justifiable reason to bring back capital punishment when the majority of prisoners are involved in quite small crimes

I don't think anyone's suggesting that petty criminals should be executed, and also the number of murderers in the prison system is not small enough to be dismissed as such a minority as to not be a bother to anyone if you're suggesting that freeing up that space wouldn't be of any significance

[GommeInc]

I'm not clutching at straws, rather i've shown you to be doing so. The fact that often when this debate rages, those who are against the death penalty always without fail come out and comment on the morality of 'killing another human being' - when all too often, the anti-death penalty side itself is the side which pushed and pushed for abortion made easier, and made legal in the first place.

Now you said abortion was justified is the baby is to be poor/have an illness/disability - so with that logic, somebody can be killed without actually doing something themselves which is wrong, something which is out of their control but somebody who knowingly takes the life of another human being without a trial is somehow worth more than the unborn child?

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).

46/15,000+ is supposed to deter people? If the death penalty were to be properly used you would have to apply it to most cases and it would then be a deterrent. I would also add, many are sentenced to death but never reach the table, chair or chamber because they are simply allowed to die of old age to avoid the death penalty.

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.

Oh it would, the people could then rise up against the government (look at Libya the way the army defected allowed the opposition to arm itself up in order to match the forces of Gaddafi) - the founders of the United States put it in there for a reason, that is the reason. If the sitution never arises then it never arises, if it does - then the citizens will be ready.

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

However to deny people/dismiss their opinions on whether you agree with them is wrong. The polls are reachable via the internet, search via Google - lets have a debate on this topic in public, and let the people decide.

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.

Well yeah in most cases people don't plan on getting caught, but potential outcomes do have an effect on everything we do - if that wasn't the case we'd always do exactly as we pleased no matter what may happen afterwards. If action A could result in death and action B is only likely to be as harmful as a bruise, which would you do?

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.

Oh, so you really WERE suggesting that people in America are constantly terrified...

... No? The US have a completely different system than a country like Iraq, Pakistan and Iran.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that petty criminals should be executed, and also the number of murderers in the prison system is not small enough to be dismissed as such a minority as to not be a bother to anyone if you're suggesting that freeing up that space wouldn't be of any significance

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.

[FlyingJesus]

Aside from the fact that being off your rocker shouldn't really be an excuse (does being MORE dangerous to people mean you should go free? :S) it's already been mentioned that manslaughter and "hot blood" murder cases aren't judged exactly the same as premeditated lethal attacks. Also you never before said anything about Iraq, Pakistan and Iran, just went on about America being a barbaric place where people are scared to live - you are aware that parts of America still have the death penalty, yes?

[GommeInc]

Aside from the fact that being off your rocker shouldn't really be an excuse (does being MORE dangerous to people mean you should go free? :S) it's already been mentioned that manslaughter and "hot blood" murder cases aren't judged exactly the same as premeditated lethal attacks. Also you never before said anything about Iraq, Pakistan and Iran, just went on about America being a barbaric place where people are scared to live - you are aware that parts of America still have the death penalty, yes?

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.

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. If they (the courts) play this "we have to find a reason to kill them" game, you find money burning away in the corner with all the time being spent to find evidence, when having them rot in prison is a lot cheaper because there a lot less resources involved - especially when the court and prison system is the only one in use. When you bring in executions, you find different sectors coming in, particularly the medical sector who have to administer the injection and check they are dead. It's a costly process. It just doesn't seem effective or useful in modern day society :/

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

[Conservative,]

yeah but, it does do harm when someone gets wrongfully convicted - which i'm pretty sure would happen from time to time.


i am against abortion, yeah. euthanasia i see as slightly different and not as 'killing' someone, more like assisted suicide. but even with that i still have mixed feelings and can't quite make my mind up or have a set in stone opinion about it.

and what's your ultimate view on it? you haven't said much other than talking about the death penalty in the usa and the links with euthanasia and abortion.

If you have appeals, hearings and extra trials, and rules saying the judge must be 100% sure - then no, it won't.