Capital Punishment .. For or Against ?
 

You guys ever get interested in some dark ****?
Kidnapping cases, serial killers, capital punishment? Like I get really interested by things !

Im not a psycho I swear haha.

What do you guys think of capital punishment?
Do you think it should be legal or not?

I'm pretty sure I'm really against it.. Especially the electric chair.
What do you guys think?

If people were 100% known guilty I wouldn't care what happened to them. However I knew a guy who spent 20 years in prison for a murder he was eventually cleared of (via DNA and confession). So I'm not a big CP person.

I had a grandfather who thought the usual modes of execution weren't severe enough. He thought steamrolling might be more effective lol

Where a case of murder is absolutely proven I cannot accept that a prison sentence of a "mere" 15-20 years is an adequate punishment. Think of the victim's family, knowing that he or she will be out again enjoying the rest of their life while the murdered person won't. To take another person's life is unforgivable, and to walk away free with your own life intact is equally unforgivable ...

Tony (though I wouldn't enjoy pressing the button/pulling the lever/or squeezing the trigger when it came to it. But it would be justified.)

No.

How can a State say that murder is wrong and unforgivable and then go and do exactly the same thing? That's not justified.

Also, I don't buy into the "victim/victim's family" argument, because with any crime (rape being the obvious example, but even things like assault or burglary) the victim has to live with the effects of that crime for the rest of their lives, as well as the family of the victim. Surely it is worse for someone alive to have a life destroyed, than a life ended with no further pain/hurt to live through? At least in my mind having to live through it is worse.

^ pretty much

I am completely against capital punishment, and I am so glad that we don't have it in the UK anymore. I think it's barbaric and backwards.

It's like the biblical analogy of "an eye for an eye". We're murdering you because you murdered someone else! What sort of message is that?!

Plus there's the fact innocent people get given the death sentence and killed. It's awful.

Murderers should get life imprisonment that actually means life, but I'll never agree with capital punishment.

I'm against capital punishment

partly because I don't believe in an afterlife or anything and I believe anything you do in this life you should make up for it in this life, also there have just been too many cases over the years were people have been fund innocent after spending years and years in prison, you can recover from an ordeal like that with the right support but you cant recover from being executed.

Also in the UK if we hadn't abolished the death penalty then there would hve been a lot of innocent people who would have been executed over the years, the Birmingham six and the Guildford four for example, plus the execution of them would have only made martyrs of them and been a propaganda victory for the IRA, then we have cases like Angela Cannings and all those mothers who were wrongfully jailed for killing their children, they would have been executed for sure.

People are always saying "oh well if they are 100% sure then yes the death penalty" the courts were 100% certain they had the right people in those cases I just mentioned and look how that turned out, it would have been much much worse if they had been executed.

I am completely against capital punishment too. I do not think it can be part of a civilised society.

Nor, Foxtrot Oscar, is taking another person's life part of a civilised society. Why should a murderer continue with their own life when their victim's has been wiped out by them?

Personally, I believe they should stay in jail until they die ..
Not even just hail actually, but death row .. Let them live in anticipation they that could be called up for their death any day now.

But equally, as bad as it sounds but the convict also has a family.. Who may all be the sweetest most innocent people ever.
I don't believe in a life for a life .. I believe in a life for a life long sentence, absolutely .. I just don't believe in capital punishment.

I don't suppose I could claim to be 'for' capital punishment but I do believe that there are instances where it would be more appropriate. The concept of life meaning life is great and I don't think anyone would argue against it. However, our prisons are over run as it is. It is just not practical to keep a disturbingly large number of people in prison indefinitely.

There is a genuine concern about our justice system getting it wrong, and for this reason alone I don't think capital punishment should be a mainstream answer, it is not as simple to say murder=electric chair (or whatever format is chosen), circumstances and the extent of the quality of evidence- DNA evidence for example. I don't like to say that there are different 'levels' of murder because murder is wrong no matter what, but in cases like the moors murderers, Soham murderers etc I DO think capital punishment is more appropriate than prison. Think about how much it has cost to the tax payer to keep these people in prison- with no hope of getting out.

In terms of the convicts family, isn't it 'easier' to have them killed quickly rather than a lifetime of prison visits. Especially when the convict is beaten but other inmates or makes attempts on their own life? Surely living under the constant worry of the 'call' is worse for the innocent family than having to deal with a single (horrific) event?

I also think that people who sexually abuse/rape should be made infertile as part of their punishment. One of the most consistent effects of the victim of these crimes is problems in forming relationships (particularly those sexual in nature). The victim has to live with the consequence forever- why should the perpetrator serve a prison sentence (often around 5 years) and move on with their lives uninhibited.

I don't have all the figures to hand, but if I remember correctly, in the US it is more cost-effective to keep someone in jail for life than to put them to death. Death penalty appeals are incredibly expensive and long-winded, and there are often multiple of them.

This is a highly distasteful subject. But where the guilt of a murderer is absolutely beyond doubt (as for example in the case of the murderers of Lee Rigby) then I fail to see why the State should spend millions in detaining them for the rest of their lives - though I'm not for a moment saying that they should be executed for the sake of mere economy! It may be that those particular lunatics might welcome execution but in any case why should we all have to pay huge sums for their incarceration for years and years to come. The victim's family have to live with it while the murderers still live ... fair?

Tony.

first off im in the USA so its legal here in some states..

my opinion is if they are convicted and been proven they are guilty without a doubt ill pull the switch,lever,trigger, inject the needle.... depending on what it is if it was a gruesome savage murder and the person suffered greatly then the criminal should have the same atrocities done onto them. if they were a rapist then i agree with the "pear" or
"wedge" which were medieval inquisition method i wont desribe them here but i caution you if you look them up they are graphic..

I'm inclined to agree. I disagree with widespread use of the death penalty partially because of the high number of wrongful convictions but for those who are most dangerous - terrorists and serial killers - who's guilt is 100% certain then I think it should be an option.

I also think that for some, the current imprisonment - often in secure hospitals - is supposed to be so horrific we can hardly suggest that it's a kindness. Ian Brady for example is being fed through an NG tube and requesting transfer to a mainstream prison so he no longer 'suffers' to the extent he is while in hospital. Many whole-life prisoners go on hunger strike, self harm, or make suicide attempts. We can hardly suggest that life imprisonment is a kindness.

Multiple studies (look online) show that the death penalty is much more expensive than a life in jail. You can't really compare the two as simply as that, but the costs mainly come from the actual trial costs. A capital trial is many times more expensive than a non-capital, for the fact that it is normally longer and more complex. Then you have the lawyers, both of which will be paid for by the State in the form of prosecutors and Legal Aid. Plus the lengthy and expensive appeals. Then, what if it goes wrong, and it does go wrong? That is even more expense!

Looking at it from a purely economical stand point, it is cheaper to keep someone alive.

As to your last sentence regarding the victim's family. What about crimes such as rape, assault or even burglary which can have a devastating, life-ending (if not biological, mental) effect on the victim. They can be breathing, but they certainly aren't living if they are too afraid to leave the house, for example. This one crime could have destroyed their entire life, forcing the break-up of families, the loss of a job and a house and all the luxuries than come with that. The victim's family may have to take them in and care for them, which then has a life sentence on them. Which is worse?

What makes you different to the original criminal? Simply because the State has sanctioned a criminal action? If the law is the law it should be applied universally, without a State, or a person acting on behalf of the State being able to commit the exact same crime with no penalty.

Arguably all persons convicted are done so "without doubt", as if there is any doubt they should not be found guilty in the first place.

I'll also ask you the same question I asked above, are you going to treat all "gruesome" crimes in the same manner? Many people suffer greatly on a day-to-day basis because of a crime that was committed against them, yet they are still breathing. It is simply impossible to give a criminal a sentence that reflects the suffering of the victim.

Ideally a balance of retribution and rehabilitation. It should not be more beneficial for someone to be a career criminal or to choose to spend their life in jail, but that would require a much wider reform of policing, as well as social welfare and such. It's also quite idealistic!

The "Bali 9" were executed this morning in Indonesia. Of the two Australians, both had rehabilitated in the ten years they were in jail. One got an arts degree and taught English to other inmates, the other became a Pastor and was known as the gentle giant for comforting others. Some say you do the crime and you do the time, that they knew this was the punishment for drug trafficking in Indonesia.

But it's been hard to sleep tonight knowing it was happening.

I'd say it's a bit of all three. For there to be a deterrent there must be some form of punishment, other than the "lack of freedom", which for some is actually more freedom than they would get in normal life. However, I am concerned with institutionalising people.

I'd agree with that, to be honest. Not the death sentence in general, but if a country has such a law, or similar even, then we should respect that. The international outcry has come from there being international citizens involved, whereas normally we don't bat an eyelid at the justice systems of other countries.

Similarly, a British drug mule caught and convicted in Peru is being brought back to the UK to serve the rest of her sentence. Why should the British tax payer fund this? She should serve her time in Peru, where the crime was committed. That the conditions aren't very good are the concern of the Peruvian authorities, not the British establishment.

I'll bet that potential drug traffickers thinking of operating in Indonesia will now think long and hard - and all but the most foolish will be deterred.

As for our own murderers in UK, it may be that capital punishment wouldn't necessarily have deterred them. But in say 20-odd years time would you want Lee Rigby's killers living next door to you on their release, particularly if you had a son or daughter in the armed forces? The problem of whether or not they'll ever be fit for release would have been solved effectively if they'd been hanged - and in my book they deserved it ...

Tony.

^ I really think it depends on if they are still dangerous. Some people will always pose an immense risk to society - in prison or not - those who will spend their life in jail, are a enourmous danger to others, and have no possibility of being rehabilitated may justify considering capital punishment. I'm thinking along the lines of terrorists, and serial killers. I find it hard to rationalise killing someone for drug smuggling - which doesn't make them a danger to others - or even single murders for the most part.

Lee Rigby's killers are different - they are terrorists, and quite frankly, psychopaths, who show no remorse. They will likely always be dangerous, as will Ian Brady, the Boston Bomber and so many other mass-killers. But the two Australian guys killed yesterday - that seems difficult to justify.

(Also, while we're on the topic of living never door to someone, where do we draw the line? 75% of under 25's in jail grew up in care. They're just damaged kids that society failed. How can we judge them for our failings?).

so what about mules who are sometimes tricked and even forced into smuggling?? what good does it do having them executed or even rotting in jail when the cartels and the dealers at the top are still plying their trade and profiting?? and many officials in these countries are corrupt and often paid off by the cartels to look the other way and the ones who aren't are too scared to do anything from fear of violence.

Granted the two austraiians of the bali 2 were guilty and said so themselves but there is a French guy awaiting the firing squad who was only fitting machinery into a factory which he didn't know was going to be a drug lab, how does executing him help prevent drug smuggling?? the only message it sends me is don't go abroad :-P

I agree with much of the thrust of your post talaiporia, but surely someone smuggling drugs for their own selfish financial reward bears some responsibility for the eventual use of those drugs, which can result in the death of others?

And I cannot accept the release of those convicted and gaoled for murder unless those recommending release are prepared to have them living next door!

Tony.

I know some people that have been inside for various things and I get along with all of them. I'd rather have them next door than the ones I have now!

I've seen myself through the voluntary work I do how people can reform and change, the charity I volunteer with deals with people who've been in trouble with the law as well as those with addiction issues.

As someone who wants to work with offenders I am quite shocked at some attitudes on here towards convicts.

I don't really know what to say. I think offenders should have a chance at rehabilitation, and if they're deemed fit to be released then I wouldn't have a problem living in the same community as them.

When I was doing A level psychology 2 murderers who had been rehabilitated and released came to give us a talk. It was really interesting, and they spoke of the prejudice they experienced on release and how for the rest of their live they have to declare their crime every time they want to get a job, move somewhere new and so on. They can never properly move on even though they showed a lot of remorse for what they did.

Some of you on here would have executed them.

I have to be honest here, I used to have the "lock em and throw away the key mentality" and in many cases I still do (having been a victim of crime and anti social behaviour) but since being on the program at the place I volunteer for before becoming a volunteer I had to rethink a lot of what I thought I knew about crime and punishment and addiction and stuff, I'm definitely a lot more sold on the idea of rehabilitation now but rehabilitation does only work if people want to be rehabilitated, that's would I've figured out from my experiences anyway.

A tad off topic, but why are terrorists lumped in with other types of criminal? I really don't see much difference between a "terrorist" and gang members. Both can change their perspective on society and both can commit quite terrible crimes for their beliefs. Or even members of groups such as the EDL, National Front, or sectarian groups.

if you cant see a difference between the boston marathon bomber and a murder like james holmes ( shooter at the auror theatre in colorado ) is they both killed alot more people and method.. both should recieve the death penatly but for the terrorist who bombed the marathon i think his death should be nasty like put in a box with a bunch of flesh eating bugs or something....

The person they murdered can never move on either. Or their family, friends etc. And yes, they have to declare what they did for the rest of their lives, but they have a life, they took away someone else's!!

Execute. All the way. The planet is full enough without those kinds of people.

I agree with this.

This is an interesting article from The Guardian about capital punishment.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ubts?CMP=fb_gu

I am really undecided on the death penalty, more against because innocent people have been put to death previously.
The recent executions in Indonesia made my blood run cold. These men had been on death row for 10 years and were rehabilitated. The chances of them repeating their offences after release were very low after that experience. I have also just read that one of the men were schizophrenic and didn't know he was being executed until they were on their way....I could not imagine the terror they went through.
However, terrorists and mass murderers are not capable of living in society and therefore, should they spend a lifetime in jail or be executed for their crimes? I don't know to be honest....who should have the right to decide? Those whom are jailed for life should be made to work though, not sit comfortably in a cell with all they need handed to them on a plate.

It's also been revealed that the Philipno woman who was facing execution only got a reprieve at the last minute because someone has come forward an admitted they duped her.

Also one of the Nigerian guys had initially been sentenced to life without parole and had served years of that before being told he'd be getting the death penalty instead.

I agree with this. I don't believe you can ever justify killing someone as a suitable punishment.

So should we all go rape the rapists? Go kidnap those loved by people who kidnap? Go rob the robbers?

I'm sorry but if we can punish these crimes by jail time and rehabilitation (which, yes I do know, does not always work) then it should also work that a murderer should also be given the opportunity to rehabilitate.

An eye for an eye does not always work.

Sorry, Iamcatbug, but I believe that murder is in a class of its own. It is snuffing someone out, with all their hopes and dreams (and perhaps those of their family), and consigning them to a coffin or cremation in an instant. In my book murder is almost always unforgivable and while I accept that capital punishment won't always act as a deterrent it is in many cases the "reward" that the murderer deserves. That said, I of course wish that there never murders to spark this sort of controversy, but sadly life (or death!) ain't like that ...

Tony.

And rape and kidnap can't do the same as murder? People and families can have their lives ruined by any type of crime.

Sorry Tony I completely disagree with you on this.
That said, I respect your viewpoint and understand where you are coming from, but for me I just can't accept it being acceptable to kill someone for being a murderer.

OK, Catmanbug, so what are you going to do with him or her? Applaud them, or say "poor little disadvantaged fellow - it was all society's fault." Murder is murder, the deliberate taking of someone else's life is totally unforgiveable, and the penalty for murder should surely reflect the enormity of the crime ...

Tony (I hate the whole subject here, but think too about the victim's family and all the immense trauma suffered by them. How dare can some mindless unthinking person snuff out another person's life and enjoy the rest of their own lives, whether in prison or not.)

And yet here you are advocating the deliberate taking of someone's life.

Sorry to dive in. I agree with Iamcatbug. I believe that the death penalty should have no place in a modern society.

The clear answer is Robocop. Crime would fall to 0%.

And the family of the victims of rape or children/family members who are kidnapped don't have their lives changed forever?

In my personal opinion these can be just as traumatic as a murder, in a way murder does have closure, albeit not nice closure. Kidnap you often don't get that closure: prime example Claudia Lawrence, Madaline Mcann. The family of these two people have been destroyed by them disappearing.

I'm not saying we a should let murderers off the hook, stop twisting my words. I'm saying they should be punished but, to me, killing them is just as bad as the crime committed.

I would say life imprisonment for taking a life, but in this country life isn't always life sadly.

So if Madeleine McCann is found alive and it turns out to have been a case of kidnap and not murder then it'll be just as bad as if she's been murdered? I have not been in the situation but can imagine I'd rather find my loved one alive. I know your point was more about the not knowing being difficult, but I don't think its right to say that kidnap should hold the same punishment as murder.

I do agree with you though on capital punishment Cat. Tony, your argument was strongly based on how unfair it is for the families that the murderer lives whilst they don't get their loved one back. Killing the murderer does nothing to improve on the 'my family member is dead' situation. It doesn't bring them back or make it any easier for the family to grieve.

I think that countries with capital punishment create a really ironic situation where if you murder someone because they've done something to you (because they stole money, or hurt your family etc) that the state can say 'that was a really wrong thing to do' then do exactly the same.

Also this

Well no Jenna, if she is found alive and well that would be amazing. The point I was making is that the whole not knowing what happened in kidnap can be just as traumatic as murder. That said it could be traumatic for the family being reunited due to the age she was taken but it wouldn't be on par with the trauma of loosing someone forever. Yet the reuniting of families and the issues it can cause are a debate for another day.

However I think you are missing the point I was making Jenna. I'm saying that I don't think it is right to kill a killer just because it causes trauma to a family. It is not the only crime that can cause a massive trauma in a family. I was using Madeline's kidnap as an example of a traumatic event that can destroy a family.

Actually of course this whole debate is academic since there's no way that any government in UK is going to re-introduce the death penalty. But I still believe that in many cases it would be warranted and if there were to be a referendum on the subject I suspect that a surprisingly high proportion of people would be in favour - though perhaps not a majority.

As to rape, which has been mentioned, I can think of solutions involving wire-cutters which would ensure that those guilty would never do it again ...

Tony (in moderate mode!)

naa robocop follows rules we need Frank Castle.. ;-)

This.

Wire cutters? Sweet Jesus. Why not bring back crucifixion.

C'mon Enthused, I was of course joking. But I nevertheless believe that a case could be made for serial rapists to be chemically or surgically sterilised so that they were no longer a menace to society ...

Tony.

And Cat, I didn't miss the point you were making, the not knowing is of course ridiculously traumatic, but at the end of the day I think murder rightly holds a higher punishment than kidnap(not the death penalty though!) and I don't think Tony saying that he thinks murder being traumatic was him saying that things weren't.