Is it justifiable to execute criminals?

[RedStratocas]

Yes we can, Switzerland holds referendums on various issues all the time which means its people get what they want, not the MPs/government. You only disagree with the idea of holding a referendum on these type of issues because you know what the result would be.

On two wrongs, two wrongs do make a right.

Somebody hits you, you hit them back.
A country attacks you, you attack them back.
A murderer takes a life, he loses his life.

someone rapes you, you... well nvm.

this may sound ignorant, but i think a referendum would be a mistake since many voters are simplistic and often arrogant about these sorts of issues and don't think through the repercussions. im not even making the argument that it's morally wrong to kill a criminal, im saying it's illogical based on the justice system. on paper and in simple terms, the death penalty makes sense. someone kills someone else, they get killed. but the logistics of it, the absolute FACT that there are a pretty staggering amount of innocent people put to death that we know of, along with the inconsistencies of the court, make the death penalty a mere facade of justice.

and based on your logic of "someone kills you, we kill them" of criminal justice, what would you do about indirect crimes? say a drug trafficker? a drunk driver?

[-:Undertaker:-]

someone rapes you, you... well nvm.

this may sound ignorant, but i think a referendum would be a mistake since many voters are simplistic and often arrogant about these sorts of issues and don't think through the repercussions. im not even making the argument that it's morally wrong to kill a criminal, im saying it's illogical based on the justice system. on paper and in simple terms, the death penalty makes sense. someone kills someone else, they get killed. but the logistics of it, the absolute FACT that there are a pretty staggering amount of innocent people put to death that we know of, along with the inconsistencies of the court, make the death penalty a mere facade of justice.

and based on your logic of "someone kills you, we kill them" of criminal justice, what would you do about indirect crimes? say a drug trafficker? a drunk driver?

People do think these through, people form opinions throughout life and think deeply about them so to claim the British people are too stupid to understand is ignorant. As I said, it would be only used in cases where the DNA evidence and other factors can prove without a doubt that they committed the murder. On the logic part, the state is not a criminal. However I believe the state should be able to use the death penalty for the highest crimes such as drug dealing, murder and rape ands the defendant have a trial in a court of justice. The only reason you and others on this forum don't support having a referendum on issues such as these is because you know that the likelyhood is that it would pass.

[Tash.]

People do think these through, people form opinions throughout life and think deeply about them so to claim the British people are too stupid to understand is ignorant. As I said, it would be only used in cases where the DNA evidence and other factors can prove without a doubt that they committed the murder. On the logic part, the state is not a criminal. However I believe the state should be able to use the death penalty for the highest crimes such as drug dealing, murder and rape ands the defendant have a trial in a court of justice. The only reason you and others on this forum don't support having a referendum on issues such as these is because you know that the likelyhood is that it would pass.

Perhaps yes, but we also see that if it was passed it'd be for the wrong reasons. That's what you don't seem to understand whenever someone posts to debate with you. I don't understand how, considering that you live here, you cannot see that a large part of the British society have opinions that are not formed in the correct way. Yes they may have an opinion on the matters you wish to put to a referendum, but they are not all informed ones. This is ok if you want to talk about whether a community centre is built in a local area etc... but really, when you're talking about the death penalty, the difference between perhaps an innocent person being found guilty and sentenced to death (which you cannot take back no matter what you say) or being put in prison (when at least you can attempt to compensate them for your misjudgements). This is not ignorance of the intelligence of the British public, it's actually based on the fact that being around people day to day means you begin to realise you are surrounded by people who would not make an informed decision on these matters. All some people will see is whether or not a killer like Ian Huntley or Myra Hindley should be killed and they will vote yes. They don't quite realise that it's not always as easy to judge whether a person is guilty and no case is simple, there are always mitigating factors. Referendums are foolish and a waste of money. I don't know why i'd be saying this if I didn't believe it, because my voice isn't heard either so i'm not gaining anything from not having a referendum.

[Ardemax]

Answer me this; if you knew something was morally right but the public wanted something else, what would you do?

[RedStratocas]

People do think these through, people form opinions throughout life and think deeply about them so to claim the British people are too stupid to understand is ignorant. As I said, it would be only used in cases where the DNA evidence and other factors can prove without a doubt that they committed the murder. On the logic part, the state is not a criminal. However I believe the state should be able to use the death penalty for the highest crimes such as drug dealing, murder and rape ands the defendant have a trial in a court of justice. The only reason you and others on this forum don't support having a referendum on issues such as these is because you know that the likelyhood is that it would pass.

i disagree. i dont know about the british, but from what i see, people get all wound up and form passionate opinions about subjects like the death penalty, abortion, and gay marriage without well being well-informed. for example, if it were up to the general public in a vote in the u.s., civil rights probably wouldn't have passed until the late 70's, maybe even later. i dont live in the uk lol so i dont really care if there is a referendum or not, i live in the united states, where people from texas gladly execute the mentally handicapped.

i understand your point about executing in cases where the defendant's guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there has to be a consistency in the evidence that is considered a "smoking gun," if you will.

[CrazyColaist]

if only they have perfect proof. and not from what was said.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Perhaps yes, but we also see that if it was passed it'd be for the wrong reasons. That's what you don't seem to understand whenever someone posts to debate with you. I don't understand how, considering that you live here, you cannot see that a large part of the British society have opinions that are not formed in the correct way. Yes they may have an opinion on the matters you wish to put to a referendum, but they are not all informed ones. This is ok if you want to talk about whether a community centre is built in a local area etc... but really, when you're talking about the death penalty, the difference between perhaps an innocent person being found guilty and sentenced to death (which you cannot take back no matter what you say) or being put in prison (when at least you can attempt to compensate them for your misjudgements). This is not ignorance of the intelligence of the British public, it's actually based on the fact that being around people day to day means you begin to realise you are surrounded by people who would not make an informed decision on these matters. All some people will see is whether or not a killer like Ian Huntley or Myra Hindley should be killed and they will vote yes. They don't quite realise that it's not always as easy to judge whether a person is guilty and no case is simple, there are always mitigating factors. Referendums are foolish and a waste of money. I don't know why i'd be saying this if I didn't believe it, because my voice isn't heard either so i'm not gaining anything from not having a referendum.

i disagree. i dont know about the british, but from what i see, people get all wound up and form passionate opinions about subjects like the death penalty, abortion, and gay marriage without well being well-informed. for example, if it were up to the general public in a vote in the u.s., civil rights probably wouldn't have passed until the late 70's, maybe even later. i dont live in the uk lol so i dont really care if there is a referendum or not, i live in the united states, where people from texas gladly execute the mentally handicapped.

i understand your point about executing in cases where the defendant's guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there has to be a consistency in the evidence that is considered a "smoking gun," if you will.

Wrong, you are both only refusing to support the idea of a referendum because you know what the outcome would be, you cannot deny or state that other peoples opinions are worth less aka 'un-informed' just because they do not match your own.

Tash you say referendums are a waste of money yet support the Labour Party, I think that just says all we need to know. Its only a waste of money to you because its giving the people of this country the right to drop your left-wing/Labour policies and choose for themselves how they want their country to be run, not how the leftist elite want it to be run. The only reason someone can be afraid of the outcome of a referendum is if they know they will lose, hence why we do not have the opperunity given to us to have referendums, and hence why the UK and all of Europe has been denied a referendum on the most soverignty-infringing document we have ever had placed on this country and Europe.

[Ardemax]

Answer please.

If you knew something was morally right but the public wanted something else, what would you do?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Answer please.

If you knew something was morally right but the public wanted something else, what would you do?

I'd accept what the majority of the public wished for, thats democracy.

[Ardemax]

I'd accept what the majority of the public wished for, thats democracy.

Let's base this on real events, shall we?

You're high up in the Nazi cabinet and Hitler tells you to exterminate thousands of Jews in a death camp.

The public agree with this.

What would you do?