About time this country stopped fking about and brought back hanging
:x :x :x If someone kills someone and there 100% guilty they should be hanged
Tin Hat On!!
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Death Penalty
Master of Sex
courts have found people 100% guilty in the past and they have later been found to be 100% would you deal with that ?
But did you know we would have to leave the EU to be able to bring back the death penalty no matter how serious the crime, even in a time of war?
Of course the British public weren't told any of this, all we were allowed to vote on was a common trading market back in the 70s.
(But that's a different debate).
EU Member States are all signatories to Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. This treaty explicitly bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including in war-time.
So next time you hear of an MP tabling an Early Day motion on the topic you know they are wasting everyone's time, just seeking publicity.
Of course the British public weren't told any of this, all we were allowed to vote on was a common trading market back in the 70s.
(But that's a different debate).
EU Member States are all signatories to Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. This treaty explicitly bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including in war-time.
So next time you hear of an MP tabling an Early Day motion on the topic you know they are wasting everyone's time, just seeking publicity.
Sex God
An eye for an eye is all well and good but I like to think, despite recent events, that I live in a civilised society. No matter how many people you hang/electrocute/leathally inject, it will not bring a life back.
I would not vote to bring back the death penalty and I suggest anyone who wants to bring it back go live somewhere that has it and hope they are never arrested on suspicion of murder.
I would not vote to bring back the death penalty and I suggest anyone who wants to bring it back go live somewhere that has it and hope they are never arrested on suspicion of murder.
Sex God
Quote by annejohn
courts have found people 100% guilty in the past and they have later been found to be 100% would you deal with that ?
and that is the reason I would never want it back!!!
I am all for a life sentence meaning life, hell throw away the keys if you have to...
in the case of knife crime, the maximum penalty for carrying a knife is 5 yrs... last year, it all the thousands of cases of people being charged with carrying a weapon, only 9 people got the maximum sentence, that is where the problem is...
it's all well and good wanting back the death penalty, but in good faith could you turn around to the family of an innocent person you killed for a crime they didn't commit as say "oops... we got it wrong... here's a sorry for you.!!!"
I couldn't
Sex God
I voted no. Same reasons as everyone else.
Nola x
Nola x
If it was possible to be 100% sure that the small minority who are in the position to make and enforce the decisions that introduce laws and move goal posts for themselves and the majority are less corrupted, objective and innocent of crimes than the people they judge and sentence. I may, just may, thinkthat those people can pass laws that end another's life.
I have seen the freedom of information act misused.
I have seen the terrorism act misused.
etc etc etc.
In countries where the death penalty is used with gusto the vast majority of the people sentenced are poor minorites. Nah, we don't need more of that crap here.
Although why I am commenting on this thread when 'it aint never gonna happen' I don't know.
perhaps cos I am outspoken and I can't stand to see another thread started that will eventually lead to a minority group outdoing each other on their moral panic agenda.
pah !
I have seen the freedom of information act misused.
I have seen the terrorism act misused.
etc etc etc.
In countries where the death penalty is used with gusto the vast majority of the people sentenced are poor minorites. Nah, we don't need more of that crap here.
Although why I am commenting on this thread when 'it aint never gonna happen' I don't know.
perhaps cos I am outspoken and I can't stand to see another thread started that will eventually lead to a minority group outdoing each other on their moral panic agenda.pah !
Sex God
I voted NO, for the reasons that most of the other no-voters have given.
Quote by annejohn
courts have found people 100% guilty in the past and they have later been found to be 100% would you deal with that ?
My thoughts exactly!...
Yeah I'm in full agreement of a severe punishment, but maybe bring back corporal punishment?.. I can't quite agree with 'Death Row' there could well be too many innocent people on there.
There are people who don't agree with the death penalty. But are quite willing to put someone in jail and throw away the key. And how do you apologise to someone's family after you return their incorrectly sentenced son or daughter. They are unlikely to be able to work and probably need support for the rest of their life. What is so better about keeping someone alive in a state of hell, if they are truly innocent of the crime?
I think the stabbing in broad daylight is appropriate for the death penalty.
I think the stabbing in broad daylight is appropriate for the death penalty.
Quote by duncanlondon
There are people who don't agree with the death penalty. But are quite willing to put someone in jail and throw away the key. And how do you apologise to someone's family after you return their incorrectly sentenced son or daughter. They are unlikely to be able to work and probably need support for the rest of their life. What is so better about keeping someone alive in a state of hell, if they are truly innocent of the crime?
I think the stabbing in broad daylight is appropriate for the death penalty.
So on that arguement lets just tell criminals off JUST on the off chance they may be innocent. :shock:
The law in this country works and it is all we have. If a jury convicts on evidence given in court, then thats good enough for me. On the very very very rare occasion that the jury gets things wrong, then thats a shame indeed, but you cant possibly not bang people up unless you are 100% sure. Blimey we would have nobody in prison. I would not want to guess how many innocent people end up in prison, blimey everyone in prison says they have been framed.
but I reckon a tiny tiny ammount are innocent the rest are as guilty as hell, judged and found guilty by a jury.I believe life should mean life if a jury convicts on the evidence put forward in court on murder. I believe that a child murderer should def hang...the Saddam swing! :lol:
Sex God
So, does anyone think Ian Huntley might have been innocent? Or Peter Sutcliffe? Or Harold Shipman?
I voted Yes, but only in the circumstances when the evidence is incontravertible (and there ARE those circumstances sometimes).
And I'm all for satisfying outrage and removing murdering, child abusing scum premanently from breathing the same air as the rest of us.
I voted Yes, but only in the circumstances when the evidence is incontravertible (and there ARE those circumstances sometimes).
And I'm all for satisfying outrage and removing murdering, child abusing scum premanently from breathing the same air as the rest of us.
Quote by foxylady2209
So, does anyone think Ian Huntley might have been innocent? Or Peter Sutcliffe? Or Harold Shipman?
I voted Yes, but only in the circumstances when the evidence is incontravertible (and there ARE those circumstances sometimes).
And I'm all for satisfying outrage and removing murdering, child abusing scum premanently from breathing the same air as the rest of us.
Wont hear me argueing against that statement.
Its paradoxical that with removing the death penalty, a 'civilised' society is still able to invoke the lynch mob mentality seemingly directed towards selective offences.
By rights the broad daylight, public murderer, should be struck down by the hand of god, bringing a conclusioon to the event. But this doesn't happen. and the law can't be invoked in such a way either. Which makes it all the more difficult to choose either for or against the death penalty.
For the argument about the death penalty being no deterrent for the committed murderer, its true. But this does not mean there will be an escalation of murderers. Its still a minority pursuit.
By rights the broad daylight, public murderer, should be struck down by the hand of god, bringing a conclusioon to the event. But this doesn't happen. and the law can't be invoked in such a way either. Which makes it all the more difficult to choose either for or against the death penalty.
For the argument about the death penalty being no deterrent for the committed murderer, its true. But this does not mean there will be an escalation of murderers. Its still a minority pursuit.
Master of Sex
Quote by duncanlondon
There are people who don't agree with the death penalty. But are quite willing to put someone in jail and throw away the key. And how do you apologise to someone's family after you return their incorrectly sentenced son or daughter. They are unlikely to be able to work and probably need support for the rest of their life. What is so better about keeping someone alive in a state of hell, if they are truly innocent of the crime?
I think the stabbing in broad daylight is appropriate for the death penalty.
are you saying these people are better off dead?
are you saying we would be better hanging them anyway in case they might just be innocent ?
this could be the thin end of a very thick wedge if society can decide who is better off out old, mentally ill,minorities.
Quote by annejohn
There are people who don't agree with the death penalty. But are quite willing to put someone in jail and throw away the key. And how do you apologise to someone's family after you return their incorrectly sentenced son or daughter. They are unlikely to be able to work and probably need support for the rest of their life. What is so better about keeping someone alive in a state of hell, if they are truly innocent of the crime?
I think the stabbing in broad daylight is appropriate for the death penalty.
are you saying these people are better off dead?
are you saying we would be better hanging them anyway in case they might just be innocent ?
this could be the thin end of a very thick wedge if society can decide who is better off out old, mentally ill,minorities.
No. Its to include the other side of the argument for those who think that sentencing the innocent is the less extreme or fairer act of punishment. It would not be fair to either execute them or sentence them.
If the death penalty is 'no deterrent' to the committed murderer, then what is no deterrent for the innocent and law abiding citizen? Nothing, which is why they can be punished with the guilty.
I will never agree with the Death Penalty, to be blunt there are to many miscarrages of justic to make it work, ohh i hear you say but what if we know they 100% guilty is it ok then? in my opinion no because theres no such thing as knowing someone is 100% guilty unless you was there and seen them do it, evidance can alwasy be tampered with and it does and has happened before, you can't bring someone back from the dead once they have been found innocent 10 years later.
Plus and this is my big on, if i knew i had to spend the rest of my life in prison and i had the choice of an injection to end it id take it, death is no punishment, once your dead your at peace.
Plus and this is my big on, if i knew i had to spend the rest of my life in prison and i had the choice of an injection to end it id take it, death is no punishment, once your dead your at peace.
I'm sorry but i fail to see how a Government can state that it is Wrong/illegal to commit murder then as punishment turn around and say " But we can legally end a persons life" In the USA the far right preach that the Bible Book of Deuteronomy states "an Eye for an eye" etc but convieniently disregard the first commandment issued to moses on Mount Sinai which state's "Thou shalt not Kill" until of course they want to argue over Abortion - Although i myself am not religous and i certainly wouldn't let it influence our legal system!
In countries which practise capital punishment it is shown to have little deterent in those crimes being committed and indeed every crime should be treat differently. As soon as i mention this my work collegues then embark on a rant of "oh so you would put Ian Huntly in a Big spacious cell with Sat TV and Internet" etc Why they think i want to be that lenient i dont know. For me such vicious criminals should be locked in a 4m x 4m cell with simple toilet facillities and never see the light of day again. Im sure a life of solitary would drive them insane which for me is much worse punishment.
In countries which practise capital punishment it is shown to have little deterent in those crimes being committed and indeed every crime should be treat differently. As soon as i mention this my work collegues then embark on a rant of "oh so you would put Ian Huntly in a Big spacious cell with Sat TV and Internet" etc Why they think i want to be that lenient i dont know. For me such vicious criminals should be locked in a 4m x 4m cell with simple toilet facillities and never see the light of day again. Im sure a life of solitary would drive them insane which for me is much worse punishment.
Quote by Mattjo80
I'm sorry but i fail to see how a Government can state that it is Wrong/illegal to commit murder then as punishment turn around and say " But we can legally end a persons life" In the USA the far right preach that the Bible Book of Deuteronomy states "an Eye for an eye" etc but convieniently disregard the first commandment issued to moses on Mount Sinai which state's "Thou shalt not Kill" until of course they want to argue over Abortion - Although i myself am not religous and i certainly wouldn't let it influence our legal system!
In countries which practise capital punishment it is shown to have little deterent in those crimes being committed and indeed every crime should be treat differently. As soon as i mention this my work collegues then embark on a rant of "oh so you would put Ian Huntly in a Big spacious cell with Sat TV and Internet" etc Why they think i want to be that lenient i dont know. For me such vicious criminals should be locked in a 4m x 4m cell with simple toilet facillities and never see the light of day again. Im sure a life of solitary would drive them insane which for me is much worse punishment.
But that would cost the taxpayer you and me a fortune! One little tiny jab costing about 30 quid and thats it.
Sex God
Quote by Sarcasticcupid
Any logical person will realise that the death penalty is not a good idea.
I think logic has very little to do with it really.
As has already been said, I find it hard to reconcile the idea that there should be no death penalty because we can't be 100% sure of guilt, but that given, we can imprison for life and feel fine about there is doubt, then the people should not be in prison in the first place.
Personally,I don't mind a bit of revenge. If someone harmed my family I would happily entertain them at some leisure (after they had served their mandatory sentence) and bury the little bits left in woodland around the country.
A death sentence is defiantly the cheaper option.
That said, I still vote no, not because I have any sympathy or worry about the 100% guilty, but because I would not want to put such a powerful tool of oppression in the hands of those who control us.
Personally,I don't mind a bit of revenge. If someone harmed my family I would happily entertain them at some leisure (after they had served their mandatory sentence) and bury the little bits left in woodland around the country.
A death sentence is defiantly the cheaper option.
That said, I still vote no, not because I have any sympathy or worry about the 100% guilty, but because I would not want to put such a powerful tool of oppression in the hands of those who control us.
When the death penalty was law, it was not used without due consideration. There were a few cases where it was applied each year, but I don't think it was just handed out automatically. The jury and the courts had to think hard about it, and it was a big responsibility.
Having the DP meant that tougher sentences could be given for serious crimes. And they were applicable to the full term. Todays sentencing seems no longer appropriate for the crime, and many of us think that there is little punishment and therefore less deterrent than in bygone days.
With the stakes less high for criminals and the legal system, I think there has been a dumbing down of the evaluation of the crime and the cirsumstances. Its seems easier to select a reasonable sentence by default, than to spend time deliberating. Probably due to the high capacity of criminals appearing in court and the subsequent expenses.
Having the DP meant that tougher sentences could be given for serious crimes. And they were applicable to the full term. Todays sentencing seems no longer appropriate for the crime, and many of us think that there is little punishment and therefore less deterrent than in bygone days.
With the stakes less high for criminals and the legal system, I think there has been a dumbing down of the evaluation of the crime and the cirsumstances. Its seems easier to select a reasonable sentence by default, than to spend time deliberating. Probably due to the high capacity of criminals appearing in court and the subsequent expenses.
