Bring back capital punishment!

As i said, the saying ' an eye for an eye, will and up with whole world blind' fits. I think if we had a tougher prison system with less luxuries and more punishment, then that would be better. After all once your dead your dead (ok life after death debates aside) So to suffer for a crime in a dingy cell in my opinion is better. Who knows where we go after death, could be paradise for all we know.

IMO it;s a bit like the parents who bite their child back when they bite. It sends out the message, It's ok for me to hurt you , but you must not do it, it's wrong.

ETA I also agree with the 'coat holding' I for one could not take another life, be it in anger or for 'justice'
 
HarrietLong said:
Obviously capital punishment would have to be properly enforced. You couldn't go killing people here there and everywhere haha. However, people bring up time and time again people that have been wrongly accused and murdered in the US. However, people seem to forget that our justice system is so much better. For one, DNA sample are far more widely used over in the UK, reducing the risk of false accusation.

I totally condone capital punishment - might actually act as a deterrent.
Click to expand...

No, it has been proven time and time again that Capital punishment does not act as a deterrent. You only need to see the crime figures in the US states that support this to see that is the case.

I researched this area for a debate and broadly speaking, it would appear you can put criminals into 3 categories - 1. Those who think they are above the law and can do what they want (think mafia or Kray brothers - CP didn't stop them. 2 Those who are mentally unstable and aren't responsible for their actions. 3. Crime of passion - so you don't think of the consequences at the time - although France recognises a crime of passion as a defense, UK doesn't. I can't think of any other categories and under those bandings - CP would not have prevented it.

and if you think its alright for there to be the odd slip up - just think how you would feel if it was someone in your family - or even yourself.

We need to look at making prisons tougher without losing sight that prisons are supposed to help redeem their inmates. Granted, the likes of Ian Huntley will struggle to be "redeemed" but his sentence is made worse (deservedly) as he is in permanent danger form other inmates. Long may he suffer in jail.
 
I didn't say slip ups were ok!? I said it would be unlikely we would have slip ups in the UK due to DNA etc etc.

If you take that approach then nothing will act as a deterrant - so why do we bother even having prisons, according to you it is a waste of time as it makes no difference as to whether commit crimes.
 
having prison sentences and having capital punishment are two separate arguments. Of course people have to go to prison if they commit certain crimes. Miscarriages of justice do happen in the UK and there is not always DNA evidence to use. One poor guy was in prison for 30 years for something he didn't do, he would have been dead by now, just for having a learning disability and not knowing what he was admitting to. If anyone thinks "it is only one so ok" again, I would say, imagine that 1 person sitting waiting on death row being your dad.
 
HarrietLong said:
I didn't say slip ups were ok!? I said it would be unlikely we would have slip ups in the UK due to DNA etc etc.

If you take that approach then nothing will act as a deterrant - so why do we bother even having prisons, according to you it is a waste of time as it makes no difference as to whether commit crimes.
Click to expand...

Unlikely is not good enough - unlikely still leaves room for error and still makes the death penalty too much of a risk - one innocent person executed is one too many no matter how many guilty people are executed.

I agree with Luci07 that the death penalty does not act as a deterrant - I have also studied the death penalty and its affects on modern America - it is statistically proven that states with the death penalty have more murders and serious crimes punishable by death, than states without the death penalty. This only means that the argument for the death penalty, that its a deterrant, does not hold up to scrutiny. It doesnt mean we do away with the whole justice system - just the death penalty part.
 
I am a bit of a fence-sitter when it comes to the question of capital punishment. I certainly wouldn't leave the country or lose any sleep if were brought back but I wouldn't be campaigning for it either.
I suppose, in theory, I should support it as I know that if someone were to break into my house and threaten me or my family I would shoot to kill - I would have absolutely no qualms about it. I know this is a completely different argument but I'm sure you get my point!
 
I have stumbled on this thread.

It cannot be right for society to commit the same crime as the criminal, and capital punishment, in a civilised society, is just that, a crime.

I have never actually come to terms with the death of Jamie Bolger; the enormity of the crime being compounded by the fact that it was committed by children.

Society is responsible for crimes such as these, and as we're all members of that society, so we all carry a degree of the same implied responsibility.

Over the last 50 years, or so, the gap between right and wrong seems, to me anyway, to be widening. Whilst the world is most certainly becoming a better place, from the perspective of good, so the evil aspects appear to be finding fresh levels of degradation.

I don't have any clear answers, except that society must apply its defective brakes, and take every step to resist further levels of depravity, in the name of justice.

Right, rant over! Horses are so much simpler, and more giving too.

Alec.
 
Re the idea of castration for sex offenders, this does not work! The theory of offending with regard to sex offenders is not about the sex act itself, but a means of humiliating, demeaning and having power over the victim. If the (male ) offender is unable to use the appropriate part of his own body, then it is likely that implements will be used. Also the idea of castration suggests that all sex offenders are male, this is NOT the case, there are a number of female abusers (often the mother, in the case of interfamilial abuse) castration is not an option for these offenders :)
 
yorksG said:
Re the idea of castration for sex offenders, this does not work! The theory of offending with regard to sex offenders is not about the sex act itself, but a means of humiliating, demeaning and having power over the victim. If the (male ) offender is unable to use the appropriate part of his own body, then it is likely that implements will be used. Also the idea of castration suggests that all sex offenders are male, this is NOT the case, there are a number of female abusers (often the mother, in the case of interfamilial abuse) castration is not an option for these offenders :)
Click to expand...

Oh really..OK then I`d quite happily "demean" the likes of Whiting..bugger the "chemical castration" it`d be me and my trusty little old rusty pen knife. The threat of losing,in the literal sense,their testicles would put the fear of God in most men. Oh ..and no anaesthetic !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top