death penalty

Forums New posts

Death Penalty - for or against

  • For - assuming evidence is watertight (eg DNA)

    Votes: 28 49.1%

  • Against

    Votes: 29 50.9%
  • Total voters
    57
For - Cheaper than keeping the bastards in jail and the prisons are crowded enough . Make it slow and very painful though
 
No.

State murder. If it stops one innocent getting killed then.....

However, much, much tougher sentences for crimes against people.
 
Against. It's hypocritical for a start. No place for that in a civilised society.
 
emerald green said:
...and it would be more civilised if there was a death penalty in the UK?

:surp@
Click to expand...

Is it more civilised forking out millions to keep murderers etc in food and play stations ? not to mention the Bulger killers getting new identities and new lifes , aye thats nice and civilised (but not for the victim)
 
Forzahibs said:
Is it more civilised forking out millions to keep murderers etc in food and play stations ? not to mention the Bulger killers getting new identities and new lifes , aye thats nice and civilised (but not for the victim)
Click to expand...

Ah, the good ol' playstations/colour tv etc etc.

You are arguing for tougher sentences rather than capital punishment.

That someone is against state murder by no means are they advocating a cushtie sentence:dali:
 
against - agree with the state murder view

btw - DNA evidence is not infallible nor even that close e.g. link
 
Against..

Nobody has the right to take someone else's life.

The death penalty belongs in the dark ages along with the plague and other such horrors. If it is wrong for a criminal to murder someone, how can it be right for a society to murder the criminal ?
 
I don't think DNA evidence is ever 100% and that's my general problem - how many innocent people are locked up just now? The justice system is totally flawed despite what we have to pretend. Locking innocent people up for half of their lives is bad enough without starting killing them too.
 
I can think of ten reasons why its wrong Birmingham and guildford and thats just the obvious ones plenty more.
 
my intention with the dna thing was to address principle rather than execution (pardon the pun) please answer in that spirit. i'm against it for the guilty, for all the reasons others have put. i'll add redemption to the mix; if life has a meaning then that is it.
 
Greenmachine said:
Against..

Nobody has the right to take someone else's life.

The death penalty belongs in the dark ages along with the plague and other such horrors. If it is wrong for a criminal to murder someone, how can it be right for a society to murder the criminal ?
Click to expand...

Is it wrong to hold someone against their will ?
 
Forzahibs said:
Is it wrong to hold someone against their will ?
Click to expand...

without wanting to put words in GM's mouth, my own view is that is overridden by the obligation to protect others. on that basis i could accept the death penalty if, for example, we were all stuck on a raft and the hardest fecker in the band was keeping all the food. but where we have the infrastructure to protect society without killing...then that's what we should do.
 
egb_hibs said:
without wanting to put words in GM's mouth, my own view is that is overridden by the obligation to protect others. on that basis i could accept the death penalty if, for example, we were all stuck on a raft and the hardest fecker in the band was keeping all the food. but where we have the infrastructure to protect society without killing...then that's what we should do.
Click to expand...

Eat him or her
 
egb_hibs said:
without wanting to put words in GM's mouth, my own view is that is overridden by the obligation to protect others. on that basis i could accept the death penalty if, for example, we were all stuck on a raft and the hardest fecker in the band was keeping all the food. but where we have the infrastructure to protect society without killing...then that's what we should do.
Click to expand...

So a guy that holds someone against their will shouldn't be jailed ? (going by GMs reasoning above) ?
 
for the advocates - can i ask you to consider what is involved in an organised killing? the procedure, the calculation, the deliberateness.

i think it is monsterous not just in theory but in the mechanics of doing it. it debases any society that does it.

Forzahibs said:
So a guy that holds someone against their will shouldn't be jailed ? (going by GMs reasoning above) ?
Click to expand...
of course they should - i thought you were putting an argument against imprisoning people.
 
Last edited:
egb_hibs said:
for the advocates - can i ask you to consider what is involved in an organised killing? the procedure, the calculation, the deliberateness.

i think it is monsterous not just in theory but in the mechanics of doing it. it debases any society that does it.

of course they should - i thought you were putting an argument against imprisoning people.
Click to expand...

Read GMs post about not killing killers . How much must it cost to keep the likes of Ian Huntley inside ? I doubt he'll ever see freedom (quite rightly)
give the fucker the bullet
 
Forzahibs said:
Read GMs post about not killing killers . How much must it cost to keep the likes of Ian Huntley inside ? I doubt he'll ever see freedom (quite rightly)
give the fucker the bullet
Click to expand...

you want to kill people because its cheaper? how about starting on the geriatric ward after the prisons :hmmm?
 
I voted for it, only because the "watertight" option
I do not think that every person who kills another should be hanged.

But their are some blatantly obvious, heinous murders committed by people (almost 100% men :dunno:) that without any shadow of a doubt, are beyond any help or compassion

The Ripper, Tobin, Fred West (i ken he,s deid!!) for example, are people who spring to mind , whom have shown an evil which deserves only one outcome. And there is NO doubt about their guilt
 
gun ainm said:
you want to kill people because its cheaper? how about starting on the geriatric ward after the prisons :hmmm?
Click to expand...

What have old people done wrong exactly ? We can't avoid getting old we can however avoid murdering kids or raping old women (at least i can)
 
egb_hibs said:
for the advocates - can i ask you to consider what is involved in an organised killing? the procedure, the calculation, the deliberateness.

i think it is monsterous not just in theory but in the mechanics of doing it. it debases any society that does it.
Click to expand...


Against, that just about sums up how I feel about it.
 
Forzahibs said:
What have old people done wrong exactly ? We can't avoid getting old we can however avoid murdering kids or raping old women (at least i can)
Click to expand...

but if you're arguement for the death penalty is based on economics (as it looked like in your post above) what does right and wrong have to do with it?

if you have to do something wrong and cost a lot to deserve the death penalty, how about those murderers that can pay their own accommodation expenses get to live?
 
gun ainm said:
but if you're arguement for the death penalty is based on economics (as it looked like in your post above) what does right and wrong have to do with it?

Are you taking the piss ??

if you have to do something wrong and cost a lot to deserve the death penalty, how about those murderers that can pay their own accommodation expenses get to live?
Click to expand...

Murderers most likely get more spent on them than law abiding pensioners in this country , is that fair in your opinion ?
 
Forzahibs said:
Murderers most likely get more spent on them than law abiding pensioners in this country , is that fair in your opinion ?
Click to expand...

there's a lot of unfair in the world - doesn't want to make me start killing people - if as you're claiming the cost of keeping a convicted murderer in jail is important to you why not allow those with sufficient means to pay for their own up keep and escape from the noose/chair/jag/bullet?

cost is either important or not?
 
gun ainm said:
there's a lot of unfair in the world - doesn't want to make me start killing people - if as you're claiming the cost of keeping a convicted murderer in jail is important to you why not allow those with sufficient means to pay for their own up keep and escape from the noose/chair/jag/bullet?

cost is either important or not?
Click to expand...

So buying innocence is in your opinion acceptable ?
Killers can't be allowed to roam free (i assume you agree) rather than keep them in jail for years they should be put down like a dog that kills .
Would you suggest that Huntley could be released to become part of society ?
 
Forzahibs said:
So its not true that they get such luxuries ?
Well done on avoiding my other point too
Click to expand...


no one is saying that the luxuries you state don't exist in prisons. Thats got nothing to do with the death penalty!!

What other point have i "avoided"??
 
Forzahibs said:
The Bulger killers receiving new identities etc
Click to expand...

Apologies. Missed that.

Again, not sure what these two getting new identities has to do with the death penalty?

I think prison luxuries/new identities is another arguement.

Whats the matter with the likes of Huntly being in jail until he dies? (for example without the luxuries)?
 
Forzahibs said:
So buying innocence is in your opinion acceptable ?
Killers can't be allowed to roam free (i assume you agree) rather than keep them in jail for years they should be put down like a dog that kills .
Would you suggest that Huntley could be released to become part of society ?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything - I am trying to ask you about your view that the reason for re-introducing the death penalty is that it is "cheaper than keeping the bastards in jail and the prisons are crowded enough".

if the cost wasnt a factor - i.e. they had to work hard enough to pay for their upkeep or had family or friends donate enough then would you say the death penalty was not required? I don't mean to labour this point but I suspect that for most people (and possibly you) that cost isn't really the deciding factor in advocating or opposing the death penalty - analysis of that rationale makes it ridiculous because you then logically would only execute poor murderers who couldn't work.

That would seem a bit well unfair really no?

so if the cost of imprisonment shouldn't be the deciding factor what should? protection of society? as egb states that can be done in other ways - this isn't a debate (yet) about the leniency of some sentencing or the failures of parole judgements. What other reasons are left - for me it can only be about revenge - why don't those that advocate capital punishment just admit that rather than make up justifications like those based on expense?
 
emerald green said:
Apologies. Missed that.

Again, not sure what these two getting new identities has to do with the death penalty?

Is it fair that they come out with anonimity and most likely a better life ?

I think prison luxuries/new identities is another arguement.

Whats the matter with the likes of Huntly being in jail until he dies? (for example without the luxuries)?
Click to expand...

It costs the tax payer a small fortune , should you or I work to keep shit like him in food ?
 
gun ainm said:
I'm not saying anything - I am trying to ask you about your view that the reason for re-introducing the death penalty is that it is "cheaper than keeping the bastards in jail and the prisons are crowded enough".

if the cost wasnt a factor - i.e. they had to work hard enough to pay for their upkeep or had family or friends donate enough then would you say the death penalty was not required? I don't mean to labour this point but I suspect that for most people (and possibly you) that cost isn't really the deciding factor in advocating or opposing the death penalty - analysis of that rationale makes it ridiculous because you then logically would only execute poor murderers who couldn't work.

That would seem a bit well unfair really no?

so if the cost of imprisonment shouldn't be the deciding factor what should? protection of society? as egb states that can be done in other ways - this isn't a debate (yet) about the leniency of some sentencing or the failures of parole judgements. What other reasons are left - for me it can only be about revenge - why don't those that advocate capital punishment just admit that rather than make up justifications like those based on expense?
Click to expand...

So are you in favour of blood money payments ? As far as i know guilty prisoners have never been given the opportunity to buy their lives here and quite rightly so . Their personal wealth should not come into it ,would you be happy if a convicted killer could afford heating but your mother couldn't ?
 
I'll never agree with it because I don't agree with state-sponsored barbarism full stop - and I believe everyone deserves a chance at rehabilitation & redemption - but there doesn't seem like much rationale behind the death penalty, in any case.

For example, it doesn't act as a deterrent. States in the USA with higher execution rates do not have lower murder rates, in fact they are often higher.

Murder Rates 1996 - 2008 | Death Penalty Information Center

Folk have claimed in this thread that it's cheaper than life imprisonment, but in reality this often turns out not to be the case after post-trial hearings, reviews, appeals etc.
 
Forzahibs said:
Is it fair that they come out with anonimity and most likely a better life ?

It costs the tax payer a small fortune , should you or I work to keep shit like him in food ?
Click to expand...

No, its not fair that they come out with anonimity. Sorry, to be repeating - not sure its got anything to do with capital punishment.

It does cost the taxpayer, buti think the expense reasoning has been put to bed ?
 
Scorpio said:
Folk have claimed in this thread that it's cheaper than life imprisonment, but in reality this often turns out not to be the case after post-trial hearings, reviews, appeals etc.
Click to expand...

Ahhh so folk jailed for life don't appeal , i never realised that

emerald green said:
No, its not fair that they come out with anonimity. Sorry, to be repeating - not sure its got anything to do with capital punishment.
Click to expand...

So someone murders your kid and comes out lets say 10 years later with a new life / identity.........you'd be ok with that ????
Call me sceptical but i reckon like me you'd want to do the bastard ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom