Debate: Capital Punishment

[Solaris]

"Capital Punishment is the execution of a convicted felon as a punishment for a crime." Wikipedia Article

Now we used to have this system in Britain. It was abolished in 1965, and crimes that were punishable from death have ranged from Regicide to Theft, and in between in the History of the English State.

A lot of people support the re-introduction of Capital Punishment, for Crimes such as Treason, Murder Child Abuse and so on.

Capital Punishment does raise a lot of questions, such as what is the role the Prison System: Justice? Revenge? Re-habilitation? Or maybe just to get rid of those who drain on society. I think currently for non-violent crimes, the re-offending rate is around 70%.

Obviously the prison system is not reforming prisoners, should that be its' role? Should we have longer prison sentences, to keep them off the streets, or maybe just execute those who show no attempt at reformation or whose crimes are just to great?

What do you think?

[Sweetpea]

I would like to see the return of Capital Punishment. Especially with the advances in DNA fingerprinting, making mistakes less likley.

Prisoners in for lesser crimes should receive reformation. For more serious crimes such as child abuse, prison must mean punishment. Physical castration for such men should be the norm.

[Mattylad]

"Capital punishment", heck we can't even get our "lower case" punishment right...

[Solaris]

I would like to see the return of Capital Punishment. Especially with the advances in DNA fingerprinting, making mistakes less likley.

Sadly that DNA evidence is rarely used, but often expected; this is known as the 'CSI Effect'. Very few convictions are based on DNA or hi-tech evidence.

But I think, at least in the UK, 99% of people in Prison are guilty, maybe more.
But we have been wrong, 'Guildford Four' for instance.

The Guildford Four were Paul Hill, Gerry Conlon, Patrick (Paddy) Armstrong and Carole Richardson, who were wrongly convicted in the United Kingdom in October 1975 for the Provisional IRA's Guildford pub bombing which killed five and injured sixty five people. They were imprisoned for over 15 years. On February 9, 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued an apology to the families and those still alive of the eleven imprisoned for the bombings in Guildford and Woolwich, saying in part that "I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice (…) they deserve to be completely and publicly exonerated."

Had we had the death penalty then, these innocent people would have been executed by the state, assuming the crime, as most supporters of the death penalty would agree warrented the Death penalty.

Plus giving the state the power to execute its citizens, is something it should never be granted in my opinion. It's just to dangerous. The USA have imprisonment without trial, and execution without trial for non-American citizens. We need to preserve our rights at a time when there being so brutally assualted. Rights prevent tyranny.

These 'Terrorists' are not going to be put off by the chance of execution, there willing to die in the act anyway.

And murderers, what good can come by executing them? It already costs in the USA more than 1Million Pounds to execute someone? Putting them to death isn't going to save us money. What good can come of executing somebody? It doesn't do the victims any good, the most healthy way, for a victim to recover from losing somebody, is through forgiveness, not vengance. Summed up by someone (I forgot who)
"I don't want revenge. I want justice"

+ On an emotional level, how can you watch the green mile and then support the death sentance, it's just so brutal. Real life executions arn't much nicer either. The thought of execution just does not fit my way of life. Surely it must contradict "Thou Shalt not Kill" as well?

[Sweetpea]

None of what you have said changes my mind. Ok, the odd mistake may happen, but the vast majority of those that are 'removed' will be those that will derserve it.

Also, much of your argument is based on USA law, which, sadly has little to do with ours.

The law in this country stinks. I wish it was a little more like that of the USA.

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

None of what you have said changes my mind. Ok, the odd mistake may happen, but the vast majority of those that are 'removed' will be those that will derserve it.

Also, much of your argument is based on USA law, which, sadly has little to do with ours.

The law in this country stinks. I wish it was a little more like that of the USA.

It would still apply here, unless you want to get rid of the safeguards that stop innocent people getting murdered. You need several rights to appeal, they'll probably need a lawyer from the state, thats gonna cost alot of money, becuase they'll be on death row appealing for about 5 years.

So it will still cost Millions.

And the ethical issue, who gains from executing someone? The Justice system isn't about vengance, it's about giving appropiate punishements, and ulitmatly re-habilitation.

Tell me what good can come of executing someone?

[Sweetpea]

Tell me what good can come of executing someone?

It removes them.

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

It removes them.

I'm aware of that.

Executing somone= removing someone.

It's like if I asked a questions, "Whats the point in buying a coke?" and you answering "You have a coke to drink".
I'm aware that it removes people, but why is that a good thing?

[Sweetpea]

There is a type of person, child abuser, terrorist, that have no right to life. They have crossed a line. They forfeit the right to human rights.

[milly]

well I think capital punishment should be brought back............IF it is found that the evidence is right................what do killers get in our country ....nothing.......a theif gets more time than a child killer............

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by milly

well I think capital punishment should be brought back............IF it is found that the evidence is right................what do killers get in our country ....nothing.......a theif gets more time than a child killer............

Rarely.

There is a type of person, child abuser, terrorist, that have no right to life. They have crossed a line. They forfeit the right to human rights.

Who are we to determin who has Human rights and who doesn't.

We effectively deny them that right with life sentances anyway. What good can actually take away there life bring?

[Sweetpea]

well I think capital punishment should be brought back............IF it is found that the evidence is right................what do killers get in our country ....nothing.......a theif gets more time than a child killer............

Rarely.

Happens all the time.

Who are we to determin who has Human rights and who doesn't.

We effectively deny them that right with life sentances anyway. What good can actually take away there life bring?

In a perfect world, I and the many who feel the same way as me would.

As I said thse people have no right to life, in my view. The world would be a sweeter place without them.

Human Rights? The do-gooders mantra. In this life you cannot demand respect, it must be earned. To the same end, you cannot demand human rights when you have crapped on your own kind to such an extent, crossed an unwritten line.

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Human Rights? The do-gooders mantra. In this life you cannot demand respect, it must be earned. To the same end, you cannot demand human rights when you have crapped on your own kind to such an extent, crossed an unwritten line.

Maybe they deserve death, but what good can killing them bring?

Why invest so much effort, time and money into killing someone?

[Sweetpea]

Both questions have been answered. The majority of the British public want it brought back. I am one of them. There is no more to say.