Should Capital Punishment be reintroduced back into the UK for Murder & Terrorism?

[Jim10767]

Yes, at the end of the day certain people don;t deserve to be alive, if they kill people for the hell of it then why don't we kill them, therefore no more killings from them, 1 kill = 1 kill whereas 0 Kills = 1 Murder Rampage 50 deaths. You may say different but at the end of the day we need a safe place for the younger generation where they won't get blown up.

[FlyingJesus]

What

[Empired]

What

People don't deserve to be alive didn't you hear him?? I absolutely agree I think everyone on the planet should be considered guilty until proven innocent and killed immediately.

:/

[M4ttTf]

I understand where he is coming from. I don't think he meant it in an evil manner as such, but I get what he means by certain people shouldn't be given that right to live. Whether it is murderers or child torturers, paedophiles and sicko's who sexually abuse little children. Surely that shouldn't just be considered as 'oh okay I'll lock him up'. Especially due to the amount of pain and suffering they have caused someone. Even more so if children are involved. It's been said before. Prison isn't always successful. In fact it may give repeat offenders more time to think about what to do next etc.

[FlyingJesus]

Execution isn't always successful, and it's also irreparable and irreversible

[M4ttTf]

Surely child abuse, rape, domestic violence, murder etc isn't something to be taken lightly. Personally for some of those examples, I do believe execution is the only way forward. I hope I don't look like someone who wants people killed now because I'm really not. My point is that some crimes are so horrific (Take the James Bulger crime for example..) that the criminals performing the acts shouldn't be given time to "rehabilitate" - just give them what they deserve and show them how it felt for the people they mistreated, abused and made suffer.

[Empired]

Surely child abuse, rape, domestic violence, murder etc isn't something to be taken lightly. Personally for some of those examples, I do believe execution is the only way forward. I hope I don't look like someone who wants people killed now because I'm really not. My point is that some crimes are so horrific (Take the James Bulger crime for example..) that the criminals performing the acts shouldn't be given time to "rehabilitate" - just give them what they deserve and show them how it felt for the people they mistreated, abused and made suffer.

Ok except I would consider that to be revenge rather than justice. That's people acting on their first emotions (anger/disgust/whatever) instead of thinking it through. I really do think everybody deserves to be treated with kindness, and just because somebody else did something bad doesn't mean they lose that right.

I do remember seeing once ages and ages ago (maybe it was even a fictional film lol I just don't remember) this thing where a mother whose son had been murdered said execution was wrong because all that does it mean that another woman is losing her son. Saying that, I do think prison sentences need to be harsher and life should mean life instead of just 30 years or whatever.

[FlyingJesus]

It's not about taking the crimes lightly, it's about how if you get the wrong person and execute them there's no way to bring them back plus they'll almost never get their name cleared since judges close the case after sentencing, and a dead person can't appeal

[Lucy]

It's not about taking the crimes lightly, it's about how if you get the wrong person and execute them there's no way to bring them back plus they'll almost never get their name cleared since judges close the case after sentencing, and a dead person can't appeal

I have to ask how any times does an appeal or something need to be rejected before its actually accepted that the person at fault is guilty? It seems the attitude is that a person is never guilty because they will constantly appeal.

[FlyingJesus]

Rejecting an appeal isn't proof of guilt, it's just proof that the courts don't want to reopen the case. Accepting the appeal and then still finding the person guilty after new evidence (which is what most murder appeals are based on) and a fresh jury is a far stronger conviction which can then be used as a real basis for rejecting future appeals. In either case, killing the first person you find who fits the bill only ensures that that person is dead and can't defend themselves at any point no matter what new evidence comes to light