Is it justifiable to execute criminals?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am not a politician and I don't ever plan on being one so it's not a politicians view point you just got there is it? And yes that could be argued to be the case. However, the election of a political party is not the difference between literal life and death so it's arguably not as important is it? You always take things too far, this debate has nothing to do with democracy versus dictatorship and the two cannot be compared.

Oh of course it has, the majority view is such things as leave the European Union, bring back the death penalty, stop overseas aid which runs into the billions while we are in serious debt - is it any wonder why people aren't at all interested in politics anymore when they are just blindly ignored?

You put your view before the majority view; exactly why many on the left side on this forum refuse to accept that this country should, for democracy, have referendums which reflect true public opinion over many issues. Of course, you'd never support a referendum on the issue, and neither would the main political parties because they all know what the answer would be.

Thats not democracy to me, thats an insult to it.

[Tash.]

Oh of course it has, the majority view is such things as leave the European Union, bring back the death penalty, stop overseas aid which runs into the billions while we are in serious debt - is it any wonder why people aren't at all interested in politics anymore when they are just blindly ignored?

You put your view before the majority view; exactly why many on the left side on this forum refuse to accept that this country should, for democracy, have referendums which reflect true public opinion over many issues. Of course, you'd never support a referendum on the issue, and neither would the main political parties because they all know what the answer would be.

Thats not democracy to me, thats an insult to it.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that although you and I may be interested in those things, and perhaps a few people you know, alot of people aren't. Therefore if they were asked to vote on such things they would be doing so blindly. Alot of people do not know the advantages/disadvantages of staying/leaving the EU, similarly they don't see the potential downsides (such as mistakes in identifying the true perpertrator of the crime) to capital punishment. As this is the case I am happy for others who's job it is to know these things to keep making such decisions. There will be a time when you realise that certain decisions just cannot be made by majority, and therefore referendums on every single matter just won't work.

As for putting my opinion above the majority, no I do not. My opinion matters for as little as yours, i'm merely putting it across. My opinion is that yes there should be referendums on some issues, but having one on every single matter just won't work. As i've said above, there are issues which are highly technical and where certain things must be weighed up and despite what you think the general public do not have the knowledge to do that. Have you never heard of the saying "A person is smart, people are stupid?" because I think in this situation it is very apt. People as a collective are often easily influenced by the stronger or louder opinion amongst them, (in this case it could perhaps be the media or a particular political figure) it's simple psychology.

You intensely despise the labour government which is currently in power, yet you seem to be glossing over the fact that the general public voted these people in, now considering you would consider this to be a bad decision, what makes you think they could make a better decision (given the chance) on the EU, capital punishment or overseas aid?

[-:Undertaker:-]

The thing you don't seem to understand is that although you and I may be interested in those things, and perhaps a few people you know, alot of people aren't. Therefore if they were asked to vote on such things they would be doing so blindly. Alot of people do not know the advantages/disadvantages of staying/leaving the EU, similarly they don't see the potential downsides (such as mistakes in identifying the true perpertrator of the crime) to capital punishment. As this is the case I am happy for others who's job it is to know these things to keep making such decisions. There will be a time when you realise that certain decisions just cannot be made by majority, and therefore referendums on every single matter just won't work.

Do not say people are too stupid to make the decisions, people have their own opinions and their own reasons, they do not 'blindly' vote as you say so - you only say this because the majority view is the opposite of yourself and the left.

The time I say the people do not have the brain power to make their own decisions is when I find democracy dead, its just pure arrogance how you can say this and to be quite honest, you'd fit in perfectly well at Brussels or Westminister where what the people want doesn't matter.

As for putting my opinion above the majority, no I do not. My opinion matters for as little as yours, i'm merely putting it across. My opinion is that yes there should be referendums on some issues, but having one on every single matter just won't work. As i've said above, there are issues which are highly technical and where certain things must be weighed up and despite what you think the general public do not have the knowledge to do that. Have you never heard of the saying "A person is smart, people are stupid?" because I think in this situation it is very apt. People as a collective are often easily influenced by the stronger or louder opinion amongst them, (in this case it could perhaps be the media or a particular political figure) it's simple psychology.

So what do you propose? - just cancel elections and the rest of it because people are too easily influenced by the media/others, and just leave the Labour Party/European Union incharge?

This sort of rhetoric was the stuff that came out of the former Soviet Union.

You intensely despise the labour government which is currently in power, yet you seem to be glossing over the fact that the general public voted these people in, now considering you would consider this to be a bad decision, what makes you think they could make a better decision (given the chance) on the EU, capital punishment or overseas aid?

The Labour Party got voted in, as much as I dislike it and feel that they would lose their grip if the electoral system was overhauled to a much fairer system, they won I accept that. The right decision ultimatley came from that election, not a decision I agree with or support but a decision which is right.

This needs to be applied to the European Union (especially as Labour were voted in with a pledge for a referendum on any EU reformal, which they later went back on) and other important issues such as the death penalty. Until this happens, the country will continue to be ruled by people with the minority view (such as yourself) and dissatisfaction will continue to grow.

[Gibs960]

In my opinion, I think it's wrong. Exactly what you've said also, if you get the suspect wrong, the questions will be asked.

I don't think two wrongs make a right, so I'm going to start the debate by saying it's in-humaine and is wrong, therefore shouldn't come in place in the UK.

This comment is a load of bull, would you shoot Hitler, I think the answer is yes, if it was going to save millions, would you kill a suicide bomber if it was going to save hundreds, yes. And,

if you get the suspect wrong, the questions will be asked.

We have something now called, DNA Identifacation, I think to hell with Jail, put 'em against a wall and shoot 'em, if they've kill someone, give them the treatment they deserve, maybe it makes me as bad as them, to save someone I'd do it, it's either let an innocent man/woman get murdered or kill an sick and evil man/woman to save an innocent person, which one? I'd decide in the blink of an eye. And even more so if it involved someone I cared about.

[[Jay]]

I think death is less of a punishment, its kind of an easy way out.
Life in jail would be much worse. Also I agree with the innocent killings, sometimes you can never be 100% certain.

[Ardemax]

This comment is a load of bull, would you shoot Hitler, I think the answer is yes, if it was going to save millions, would you kill a suicide bomber if it was going to save hundreds, yes. And, We have something now called, DNA Identifacation, I think to hell with Jail, put 'em against a wall and shoot 'em, if they've kill someone, give them the treatment they deserve, maybe it makes me as bad as them, to save someone I'd do it, it's either let an innocent man/woman get murdered or kill an sick and evil man/woman to save an innocent person, which one? I'd decide in the blink of an eye. And even more so if it involved someone I cared about.

Would I shoot Hitler? Yes I would, I haven't said I wouldn't. And we're on about executing criminals here, not shooting every mad-man you see.

How would you know a suicide bomber was going to kill hundreds? You don't.

I'm Christian so my beliefs are very much with not judging on other people.

And there can still be uncertainties and mix-ups and sometimes police do get it wrong, so don't tell me it's 100% correct.

Ok answer me this, your dad killed someone, would you rather see him shot or put behind bars?

[Gibs960]

Probably Shot... I'm not for murder, I'd prefer to see a murderer die than an innocent person be murdered.

[Inspiration]

Probably Shot... I'm not for murder, I'd prefer to see a murderer die than an innocent person be murdered.

So your saying you would want a family member to be shot?
Yes although he did murder in the first place GOD teaches us to forgive.
As an earlier post said two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Wouldn't you rather someone suffering in jail rather than an easy way out AKA death?

[RedStratocas]

this is kinda a confusing question. if you are 100% positive that the person did the crime, say murder, then i would really have no problem with whatever method you used to kill him.

unfortunately this is rarely to ever the case. there are more cons to the death penalty than there are pros. people don't realize how many innocent people are put to death. i think if even ONE innocent person is executed, it doesnt justify executing 1000 serial killers. but there's been far more than just one. not to mention our court system is clogged with appeals from people on death row, causing us to spend more money on trials than it would to just keep these people alive in jail. also, the crimes that warrant the death penalty are so inconsistent that it's absurd. there have been people who have been put to death who have killed one person, but then there's people who have killed an entire family and were released before the end of their lives.

[Ardemax]

this is kinda a confusing question. if you are 100% positive that the person did the crime, say murder, then i would really have no problem with whatever method you used to kill him.

unfortunately this is rarely to ever the case. there are more cons to the death penalty than there are pros. people don't realize how many innocent people are put to death. i think if even ONE innocent person is executed, it doesnt justify executing 1000 serial killers. but there's been far more than just one. not to mention our court system is clogged with appeals from people on death row, causing us to spend more money on trials than it would to just keep these people alive in jail. also, the crimes that warrant the death penalty are so inconsistent that it's absurd. there have been people who have been put to death who have killed one person, but then there's people who have killed an entire family and were released before the end of their lives.

this ^

Probably Shot... I'm not for murder, I'd prefer to see a murderer die than an innocent person be murdered.

you don't understand that innocent people are put to death because they've got the wrong person