Capital Punishment

[OnionTerror]

I've been reading a couple of articles regarding "Chop Chop" Square in Saudi, and the staunch use of capital punishment in Singapore...especially in regards to drug running and other serious crimes.. it also has some of the safest streets in the world (is this a coincidence?)... Would you be in favour of it returning to the UK? I know it can't be reintroduced at the moment, because the EU forbids it...but in the future?

I personally wouldn't support such a move...Not only I see the state killing its own citizens wrong, is it a deterrent?, and what about if the state killed someone who then later found them innocent?

[Guest tbatst2000]

what about if the state killed someone who then later found them innocent?

That's the, er, killer argument for me. If someone is locked up for a very long time and then found to be innocent, at least they can be let out and given enough money to allow them to have some fun afterwards. Once someone's dead though, there's nothing that can be done.

['Bart']

I wouldn't like to trust my life to the modern legal system.

[Tiger Woods?]

That's the, er, killer argument for me. If someone is locked up for a very long time and then found to be innocent, at least they can be let out and given enough money to allow them to have some fun afterwards. Once someone's dead though, there's nothing that can be done.

I voted no for this reason and the fact I don't trust the legal system and the police as far as I can kick them (and I was rubbish at football as a kid!)

However, I would make an exception for the summary execution of certain bankers and politicians.

[Frank Hovis]

I used to be all in favour of it.

I now think the police and courts are a shambles and, whilst I would like to see the death penalty brought back at some stage, there would need to be serious improvements in the jsutice system before I would trust them with that power.

So, currently, no.

I reject the "innocent man" argument though, you just need to have a far higher standard of proof required in order to pass the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment.

[profitofdoom]

I used to be all in favour of it.

I now think the police and courts are a shambles and, whilst I would like to see the death penalty brought back at some stage, there would need to be serious improvements in the jsutice system before I would trust them with that power.

So, currently, no.

I reject the "innocent man" argument though, you just need to have a far higher standard of proof required in order to pass the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment.

The level of proof needs to be 100%.If it is then I am not against in inprinciple.Fred West and Ian Brady are two potential candidates but my guess is that under my rules you might top half a dozen a year.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

On the innocent man argument, something like 8-10 murders a year are repeat murders, i.e. they are convicted by someone who has previously served a sentence for another murder. Therefore, if you imposed a mandatory death sentence for murder, that would be 8-10 innocent lives saved straight away. Even if you wrongly executed say, 4-5, you'd still make a net saving of innocent lives.

The real argument in favour for me, though, is that of permanent incapacitation of the offender, and on two scores. If you imprison someone for 'life that means life', a more liberal government can come along later, reverse that decision and let him or her out. This is in fact what's happened in Britain. When capital punishment was abolished in 1964, the government at the time categorically assured us that it would be replaced with a no arguing, no wriggle room, life that means life sentence. Fast forward to the present, and murderers typically serve around ten years. Secondly, if the victim's family believe that they would recover from the crime more easily with the knowledge that their relative's murderer is dead and can never harm them again, then IMO this should be given significant weight.

[ken_ichikawa]

I've been reading a couple of articles regarding "Chop Chop" Square in Saudi, and the staunch use of capital punishment in Singapore...especially in regards to drug running and other serious crimes.. it also has some of the safest streets in the world (is this a coincidence?)... Would you be in favour of it returning to the UK? I know it can't be reintroduced at the moment, because the EU forbids it...but in the future?

I personally wouldn't support such a move...Not only I see the state killing its own citizens wrong, is it a deterrent?, and what about if the state killed someone who then later found them innocent?

The EU reintroduced the death penalty with the Lisbon treaty or whatever they renamed it in 2009

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=5932

But no, namely because the legal system is crap in the UK.

And just because people are hanged or whatever does not mean that the streets are safer! You cannot apply such a causal relationship to the two.

Death penalty != safer streets.

Take for instance Hong Kong. No DP (unless you count suicide by cop) yet the crime rate is extremely low.

South Korea as well, SK has the DP, but has not used it since 1997. 2010 it was re-approved but still not used. Again they have super low crime rates again which barely register.

Mainland China executes thousands of people yearly, the USA does too, yet their streets aren't exactly safe.

You also violate Sun Tzu's don't give people no chance to escape. It happened in Taiwan about 15 years ago where a man knew he'd be executed if arrested. He had no options, he had an AR15 he decided to take as many cops and civilians with him since he was going to die anyway.

Yip Kai Foon in HK pre 1993 knew he'd be hanged if caught. So he used to shoot his way out of bank robberies. He'd arm his team with Ak47s, my dad has a funny story about the HK police special forces retreating after being subject to a hail of gunfire.

[Riedquat]

On the innocent man argument, something like 8-10 murders a year are repeat murders, i.e. they are convicted by someone who has previously served a sentence for another murder. Therefore, if you imposed a mandatory death sentence for murder, that would be 8-10 innocent lives saved straight away. Even if you wrongly executed say, 4-5, you'd still make a net saving of innocent lives.

Great comfort to the victims that have been murdered by the state, and that is what a wrongful conviction would be. They shouldn't be out of jail if they will murder again. Anyway, how many of these repeat murderers do all their murdering before they're caught at all?

The real argument in favour for me, though, is that of permanent incapacitation of the offender, and on two scores. If you imprison someone for 'life that means life', a more liberal government can come along later, reverse that decision and let him or her out. This is in fact what's happened in Britain. When capital punishment was abolished in 1964, the government at the time categorically assured us that it would be replaced with a no arguing, no wriggle room, life that means life sentence. Fast forward to the present, and murderers typically serve around ten years. Secondly, if the victim's family believe that they would recover from the crime more easily with the knowledge that their relative's murderer is dead and can never harm them again, then IMO this should be given significant weight.

A very bad line of reasoning. The reverse could be just as true - a government could come along and be more authoritarian, and with capital punishment already there might want to use it for less serious crimes. And quite frankly the victim's family's feelings would just get in the way of justice (hell, I'd probably want someone dead if they burgled me).

[Injin]

Should we murder people to reduce the amount of murder?

Hmmm let me think......

[ken_ichikawa]

Should we murder people to reduce the amount of murder?

Hmmm let me think......

But but when the state does something it's not murder!

Much like when they send you an extortion tax council tax bill. On the threat of somebody to come round and break your legs. It is 100% A-OK (in their eyes)

[RichB]

Problem with it is that once you commit a captial act, then you may as well keep committing them to avoid being caught or convicted.

Same with heavy sentences for lesser crimes.

[Injin]

I'm not voting for the death penalty becuase its a cop out, you can inflict more mental torture putting someone in prison than you would by expiring their life, how ever I am all for getting the belt, or slipper with some kids who think its a game to say sorry serve a minor penalty for punishment and then carry on as before.

Some lessons humans wont learn until they stop considereding themselves better than animals becuase not every has the same intellect or morals so will say anything under oath to get out of trouble.

Hitting kids is the number one cause of homicide.

[OnionTerror]

The EU reintroduced the death penalty with the Lisbon treaty or whatever they renamed it in 2009

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=5932

But no, namely because the legal system is crap in the UK.

And just because people are hanged or whatever does not mean that the streets are safer! You cannot apply such a causal relationship to the two.

Death penalty != safer streets.

Take for instance Hong Kong. No DP (unless you count suicide by cop) yet the crime rate is extremely low.

South Korea as well, SK has the DP, but has not used it since 1997. 2010 it was re-approved but still not used. Again they have super low crime rates again which barely register.

Mainland China executes thousands of people yearly, the USA does too, yet their streets aren't exactly safe.

You also violate Sun Tzu's don't give people no chance to escape. It happened in Taiwan about 15 years ago where a man knew he'd be executed if arrested. He had no options, he had an AR15 he decided to take as many cops and civilians with him since he was going to die anyway.

Yip Kai Foon in HK pre 1993 knew he'd be hanged if caught. So he used to shoot his way out of bank robberies. He'd arm his team with Ak47s, my dad has a funny story about the HK police special forces retreating after being subject to a hail of gunfire.

So, say this were true - that the Lisbon Treaty stated that it member states could in theory execute people....surely this goes against the convention of human rights, where everyone has a right to life...In certain situations, would this then be suspended?

[ken_ichikawa]

So, say this were true - that the Lisbon Treaty stated that it member states could in theory execute people....surely this goes against the convention of human rights, where everyone has a right to life...In certain situations, would this then be suspended?

There are no such things as rights tbh. They are like special offers which get withdrawn if too many people take them up

The majority of what we consider to be rights are actually priviledges which are designed to placate the population and trick them into thinking we live in free consentual societies. Fiat currencies are the prime example of living in totalitarian violence and gun based societies.

The reason why they are priviledges and are not rights is that rights are inalienable and can never be withdrawn. All of our so called rights can and are being withdrawn at an alarming rate. Some recent examples are trial by Jury, Habeas corpus.

It was blantant a few years ago when the home office had an section 44 or 45 anti terrorism thing. It stated your rights can be withdrawn for a temporary period to ensure your safety and the safety of the public.

If your rights can be withdrawn they are not rights. Therefore your right to life is merely a priviledge. Of course it makes no sense to destroy your chattles too often doesit?

[Injin]

There are no such things as rights tbh. They are like special offers which get withdrawn if too many people take them up

The majority of what we consider to be rights are actually priviledges which are designed to placate the population and trick them into thinking we live in free consentual societies. Fiat currencies are the prime example of living in totalitarian violence and gun based societies.

The reason why they are priviledges and are not rights is that rights are inalienable and can never be withdrawn. All of our so called rights can and are being withdrawn at an alarming rate. Some recent examples are trial by Jury, Habeas corpus.

It was blantant a few years ago when the home office had an section 44 or 45 anti terrorism thing. It stated your rights can be withdrawn for a temporary period to ensure your safety and the safety of the public.

If your rights can be withdrawn they are not rights. Therefore your right to life is merely a priviledge. Of course it makes no sense to destroy your chattles too often doesit?

They have done a very good number on the idea of rights, for sure.

Originally rights were those things you could do by default (say what you liked, move anywhere you wanted, ignore people you didn't like etc) and the enlightenment thinkers got the state to recognise most of them.

There is an interesting causal relationship that many of the statists fall for, whereby not attacking someone actually grants them the ability.

[Reck B]

I was thinking about this the other day when John Sweeney was sent to prison for murdering 2 of his girlfriends. (he's possibly murdered 5 others)

The judge said he will die in prison. Providing this actually happens and he spends the rest of his life in prison, I wondered what the point of this is as It's effectively a death sentence, applied to the end of a very long life sentence.

What does it cost to imprison someone? £40k per year? Sweeney is 54, assuming he lives until 80, thats over a million pounds spent on one sick person who has killed 2 and maybe 5 more.

Prison is for punishment, protection of society and re-habilitation. Sweeney behind bars poses no further threat to society. i would doubt rehabilitation would work on a man so inherently bad (and ultimately pointless if he will not be released anyway) So that leaves punishment. I guess not upgrading the games consoles to PS3 might irk him somewhat but come on! chop his ******ing head off and stop fannying around.

[Ruffneck]

Bring it back i say , stop all those wasters costing money to the taxpayers in the prison system.

[SHERWICK]

On the innocent man argument, something like 8-10 murders a year are repeat murders, i.e. they are convicted by someone who has previously served a sentence for another murder. Therefore, if you imposed a mandatory death sentence for murder, that would be 8-10 innocent lives saved straight away. Even if you wrongly executed say, 4-5, you'd still make a net saving of innocent lives.

The real argument in favour for me, though, is that of permanent incapacitation of the offender, and on two scores. If you imprison someone for 'life that means life', a more liberal government can come along later, reverse that decision and let him or her out. This is in fact what's happened in Britain. When capital punishment was abolished in 1964, the government at the time categorically assured us that it would be replaced with a no arguing, no wriggle room, life that means life sentence. Fast forward to the present, and murderers typically serve around ten years. Secondly, if the victim's family believe that they would recover from the crime more easily with the knowledge that their relative's murderer is dead and can never harm them again, then IMO this should be given significant weight.

So, basically, the best way to prevent innocent people from being murdered is to murder innocent people?

[Reck B]

So, basically, the best way to prevent innocent people from being murdered is to murder innocent people?

Thats what posthumous pardons are for, d'uh.

[OnionTerror]

Bring it back i say , stop all those wasters costing money to the taxpayers in the prison system.

Here's a fact-sheet from the Death Penalty Information Center (sic)...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

(this is US law mind)..

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

Richard C. Dieter, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, in a Feb. 7, 2007 testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and Related Issues," stated:

"In the course of my work, I believe I have reviewed every state and federal study of the costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years. One element is common to all of these studies: They all concluded that the cost of the death penalty amounts to a net expense to the state and the taxpayers. Or to put it differently, the death penalty system is clearly more expensive than a system handling similar cases with a lesser punishment. ...the most expensive system is one that combines the costliest parts of both punishments: lengthy and complicated death penalty trials followed by incarceration for life...

Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so:

• More pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered.

• More experts will be hired.

• Twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution.

• Jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered.

• Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.

• The trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials

• And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row."

They claim, (back in '92 mind you)...that the cost to execute someone was three times higher than it was to imprison them for 40 years....

I'd say that it's a worse punishment for someone, knowing that they going to spend the rest of their lives in prison (as someone else remarked earlier)...

[Harry Monk]

Four people hanged during the last 25 years of capital punishment have subsequently been posthumously pardoned, it's too many.

[blobloblob]

This old chestnut.

It's not enough to simply ask the one question on its own. You have to ask three questions:-

1)- Should very bad people be killed by the state?

2)- What margin of error are you prepared to accept regarding wrongful convictions?

3)- What are the chances of achieving the margin of error you stated in your answer to question 2?

For me:

1)- Yes

2)- 0%

3)- 0%

Hence I voted no.

[okaycuckoo]

There are no such things as rights tbh. They are like special offers which get withdrawn if too many people take them up

Haha! I don't agree with you, but that is a very nice way of dumping hundreds of years of political philosophy on its ****. Hats off.

Am in favour of the penalty for murder, but I recognise the sensitivities of the scented-handkerchief crowd.

We do blather on about appropriate punishments, when the greatest criminals have avoided any punishment and are making off with the loot.

[man o' the year]

Tell me an aspect of life where there is not corruption.

To bring back Capital Punishment would be to allow absolute life and death powers to the corrupt.