The death penalty

[egb_hibs]

Was reading an article about Richard Branson urging business leaders to oppose it. Fair play to him though I can’t help feeling it’s a bit ‘painless’ and will have support from all the wheels he needs to oil.

That aside, who’s for or agin? Lots of threads people say …but yeah for nonces or whatever, but do you really mean it?

I’m against, myself, absolutely against. I think it’s an obscenity that diminishes any country that does it; I think it’s an expression of the very worst of human instincts. I also think it reduces crime though, and any arguments for or against on that basis are phoney and beside the point.

It’s wrong because it’s wrong, not because it’s ineffective - a shitty and flimsy excuse for a culture too scared to call a spade a spade; same goes for torture during war and other things. Same also goes for arguments about potentially innocent people going to the chair - of course that’s horrific, but even if we could be 100% accurate in convictions, it would still be wrong.

Anyway, that’s my opinion. Yours ?

Public poll btw

At the risk of overthinking it I do acknowledge that in places that don’t have the resources for prisons, like the Wild West or maybe parts of the poor world today, it may be necessary. But that’s strictly down to protecting the community when there aren’t the means to do it other than evil ones. There is no excuse for a developed society imo, and no exceptions be they nonces, counter revolutionaries or whatever exceptions others may make.

 

[Greenmachine]

I'm against the taking of human life in all circumstances.

 

[egb_hibs]

I'm against the taking of human life in all circumstances.

To the point.

 

[gun ainm]

no argument from me EGB - you've laid it out pretty well and although I'm sure the deterrent effect is debateable thats not really the point.

 

[joethehibby]

Yay from me, you kill intentionally, you die . Life for a life .

 

[Bangkokhibby]

I agree it's wrong but you'd better have a better argument against it if public opinion sways towards it and politicians start calling for it in serious numbers. Just saying "it's wrong" won't cut it.

 

[Bofahibee]

Yay from me, you kill intentionally, you die . Life for a life .

And when they get it wrong as they will - do we then kill the hangman? The judge? The Jury?

 

[joethehibby]

And when they get it wrong as they will - do we then kill the hangman? The judge? The Jury?

A few points, then I’m out , science tday eliminates most of the risk of that Then just two examples of thousands
1 Dunblane
2 guy who walks into a house and kills three women with a crossbow . And they should be allowed to see out their lives in a prison cell . Prison cells that are bursting at the seams
My opinion and wont change .

 

[Archie]

I completely agree with EGB. I think the potential for a mistake does really resonate with the public, so wouldn't downplay that as an argument. There's also, on a more philosophical level, something about giving the state the power to kill citizens. That's quite the power when you think about it. Are we ok with that? That's before you get into the issue of mitigation. Using that only some murders would get the death penalty. Is that fair?

And why stop at murder? More authoritarian countries have the death penalty for a wide range of crimes, including corruption. If we had the death penalty here, you can bet there would be a campaign to execute criminals like child rapists.

Finally, we don't do an eye for an eye for any other crime.

 

[Two Headed Boy]

Against.

It isn't a deterrent because people still do awful things where it exists.

It is an irreversible form of justice and the possibility of wrongful conviction always exists.

It creates martyrs of terrorists.

I'm not even sure it's a worse fate than life imprisonment for the worst of the worst. I was reading an article recently about the prison life of notorious pop peado Ian Watkins and frankly you'd rather be dead than live it.

 

[emerald green]

100% against.
Its not a deterrent.
Governments shouldn't murder. Mistrials galore in every country where a person would be put to death. By mistake.

Hopefully no one will argue about how soft or hard prisons are, or what sentences people get for different crimes. Thats nothing to do with the subject.

(Its also doesnt correlate with abortion, if the OP is starting to trip on that)

 

[emerald green]

A few points, then I’m out , science tday eliminates most of the risk of that Then just two examples of thousands
1 Dunblane
2 guy who walks into a house and kills three women with a crossbow . And they should be allowed to see out their lives in a prison cell . Prison cells that are bursting at the seams
My opinion and wont change .

an eye for an eye joe? The world would be blind.

 

[aggie]

Against.

It isn't a deterrent because people still do awful things where it exists.

It is an irreversible form of justice and the possibility of wrongful conviction always exists.

It creates martyrs of terrorists.

I'm not even sure it's a worse fate than life imprisonment for the worst of the worst. I was reading an article recently about the prison life of notorious pop peado Ian Watkins and frankly you'd rather be dead than live it.

Agree entirely with your last point — egregious crime, and you get to just fall asleep and never wake up? I’d rather see them confined and constantly afraid for their safety.

Very definitely against here too. It’s an absolutely Neanderthal form of “justice”.

 

[joethehibby]

an eye for an eye joe? The world would be blind.

A lot more alive though, babies via Letby and patients via shipman

 

[Archie]

It creates martyrs of terrorists.

Absolutely. Look at the 1916 rising. Their leaders were jeered when arrested, but their execution was galvanising to their cause. Can you imagine if the people who were convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings had been executed?

 

[Archie]

A lot more alive though, babies via Letby and patients via shipman

How would that be? Lucy Letby, even if she was cleared, would never be in the position to do that again. And wouldn't someone like her be a prime candidate for execution - a baby murderer? And yet I see reasonable people throwing doubt on her conviction. So do we ignore that and press ahead with an execution?

 

[emerald green]

A lot more alive though, babies via Letby and patients via shipman

A silly post joe. Image one of your family being arrested and sentenced to a crime they didnt commit. Then after the state murdered your family member, it came out that infact there was new evidence and someone else did it.

Whats that joe? Youre raging we killed your innocent family member? Ah sorry abbot that, im sure we will get it right next time. Bye bye.

Read the OP again.

Then how about a different government gets in and the death penalty is extended to other crimes? Not for normal courtyard exercise types for example?

We are meant to be or aiming to be a civilised country. Personally cannae get my head around anybody who advocates for the death penalty.

 

[anti-remaster]

I'm against the taking of human life in all circumstances.

So the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was wrong then?
That's the ultimate 'life taking' situation surely?

 

[egb_hibs]

Against.

It isn't a deterrent because people still do awful things where it exists.

It is an irreversible form of justice and the possibility of wrongful conviction always exists.

It creates martyrs of terrorists.

I'm not even sure it's a worse fate than life imprisonment for the worst of the worst. I was reading an article recently about the prison life of notorious pop peado Ian Watkins and frankly you'd rather be dead than live it.

Just to clarify, I don’t know if it’s a deterrent or not. When I said it was effective I meant that executed people ain’t gonna commit any more crimes!

I suspect it is a deterrent, just a far from comprehensive one, as indeed with jail time.

But either way this isn’t the point imo. I think @Archie is right tbf that the innocent person problem is a powerful argument. However I think the durable argument is it’s wrong regardless.

 

[joethehibby]

A silly post joe. Image one of your family being arrested and sentenced to a crime they didnt commit. Then after the state murdered your family member, it came out that infact the re was new evidence and someone else did it.

Whats that joe? Youre raging we killed your innocent fanily member? Ah sorry abbot that, im sure we will get it right next time. Bye bye.

Read the OP again.

Then how about a different government gets in and the death penalty is extended to other crimes? Not for normal courtyard exercise types for example?

We are meant to be or aiming to be a civilised country. Personally cannae get my head around anybody who advocates for the death penalty.

Spologies for saying I was out earler then replying again, this is def my last reply :- the families of one in however many million wrongly convicted compared to all the family and friends whose lives are changed forever due to the MURDERERS actions. I can see why the other yays aren’t getting involved now . Should’ve just voted and left it at that maself

 

[egb_hibs]

So the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was wrong then?
That's the ultimate 'life taking' situation surely?

I may be wrong, but I suspect Greenmachine means taking life other than to stop the taking of life.

 

[paigntonhibby]

Make them suffer inside for the rest of their lives.

 

[Archie]

So the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was wrong then?
That's the ultimate 'life taking' situation surely?

Except the mitigation would be defending yourself. Or would you advocate executing Ukrainian soldiers? Would you see an equivalence between the Ukrainian defenders and the Russian attackers?

 

[egb_hibs]

I am also against these mental sentences in America which see people locked up for hundreds of years, meaning that subsequent deductions in sentence still see them dying in jail.

It is sometimes necessary to never release people, i.e. irreformable bams who will always be a grave danger to those around them. But as a principle it should always be the case that people can pay their debt to society and then eventually be released.

 

[aggie]

Spologies for saying I was out earler then replying again, this is def my last reply :- the families of one in however many million wrongly convicted compared to all the family and friends whose lives are changed forever due to the MURDERERS actions. I can see why the other yays aren’t getting involved now . Should’ve just voted and left it at that maself

Executing the murderer won’t change their lives back. In fact, it won’t alter their new lives in any way.

 

[emerald green]

Spologies for saying I was out earler then replying again, this is def my last reply :- the families of one in however many million wrongly convicted compared to all the family and friends whose lives are changed forever due to the MURDERERS actions. I can see why the other yays aren’t getting involved now . Should’ve just voted and left it at that maself

Nothing wrong with trying to justify your position. Even less wrong that, as an adult, you could change your point of view when presented with other facts or opinions.

You didnt, for example, address the point about your innocent family member being killed by the state because they thought they had the right person, then finding, indeed, it was the wrong person. Your family member would still be deid. But you'd be alright with that as you think the principle of the death penalty is the correct stance.

Peoples lives are still affected by murderers joe. Those feelings dont go away because there is a death penalty!

I dont think you have put forward any viable reasons to validate your stance.

 

[emerald green]

I may be wrong, but I suspect Greenmachine means taking life other than to stop the taking of life.

Thats how i took Greenmachines post to mean too.

 

[emerald green]

I am also against these mental sentences in America which see people locked up for hundreds of years, meaning that subsequent deductions in sentence still see them dying in jail.

It is sometimes necessary to never release people, i.e. irreformable bams who will always be a grave danger to those around them. But as a principle it should always be the case that people can pay their debt to society and then eventually be released.

Its seems to be more of a business in America. The sentencing is mental... but i am ok with multiple muderers, for example, being given whole life sentences for each life taken. (but dont want to change the course of the thread as sentencing / jail conditions asa couple of examples are different from the principle of state moider)

 

[egb_hibs]

Its seems to be more of a business in America. The sentencing is mental... but i am ok with multiple muderers, for example, being given whole life sentences for each life taken. (but dont want to change the course of the thread as sentencing / jail conditions asa couple of examples are different from the principle of state moider)

Tbf to the mercs I think incarceration rates etc are high because it’s a very violent society. I think the argument that jail is not a deterrent as evidenced by high crime is maybe the wrong way around; as I say I think they have lots of folk jailed as they have lots of crime.

One reason I think the death penalty argument should simply be based on it being wrong, is I think arguments for it being ineffective etc are vulnerable to evidence - e.g if it could be proved it was a deterrent it would still be wrong.

 

[emerald green]

Just to clarify, I don’t know if it’s a deterrent or not. When I said it was effective I meant that executed people ain’t gonna commit any more crimes!

I suspect it is a deterrent, just a far from comprehensive one, as indeed with jail time.

But either way this isn’t the point imo. I think @Archie is right tbf that the innocent person problem is a powerful argument. However I think the durable argument is it’s wrong regardless.

I think you do know that its not a deterrent. If it was, there would be no murders in the states of 'merica where the death penaly exists for example. Unless im misreading you....

 

[egb_hibs]

I think you do know that it’s not a deterrent. If it was, there would be no murders in the states of 'merica where the death penaly exists for example. Unless im misreading you....

Deterrent is not the same as 100% effective deterrent!

I mean if there was no death penalty or jail I expect we’d have more crime, so one or both are deterrents, just far from 100% effective.

 

[emerald green]

Tbf to the mercs I think incarceration rates etc are high because it’s a very violent society. I think the argument that jail is not a deterrent as evidenced by high crime is maybe the wrong way around; as I say I think they have lots of folk jailed as they have lots of crime.

One reason I think the death penalty argument should simply be based on it being wrong, is I think arguments for it being ineffective etc are vulnerable to evidence - e.g if it could be proved it was a deterrent it would still be wrong.

Yes, pretty much agree. Like you i think its wrong, because its wrong. (I dont think its proven in any way to be a deterrent tho')

 

[anti-remaster]

Except the mitigation would be defending yourself. Or would you advocate executing Ukrainian soldiers? Would you see an equivalence between the Ukrainian defenders and the Russian attackers?

Hi Archie, I asked the question.
I was in the military for 10 years and saw all sorts of shit in NI, Bosnia and the Gulf. All armies have killed prisoners and non combatants so what's presently going on in the Ukraine is nothing new - do I agree with that? Absolutely not.
For me personally I think the death penalty is an easy way out - though this gets you into the prison as a deterrent debate which gets you into the overcrowding debate which gets you into the prison is too soft debate blah blah blah.

 

[emerald green]

Hi Archie, I asked the question.
I was in the military for 10 years and saw all sorts of shit in NI, Bosnia and the Gulf. All armies have killed prisoners and non combatants so what's presently going on in the Ukraine is nothing new - do I agree with that? Absolutely not.
For me personally I think the death penalty is an easy way out - though this gets you into the prison as a deterrent debate which gets you into the overcrowding debate which gets you into the prison is too soft debate blah blah blah.

So in principle, regardless of you being trained to kill, do you think there should be a death penalty in Britain today?:.

Senetencing or prison numbers has nothing to do with it.

 

[Archie]

Hi Archie, I asked the question.
I was in the military for 10 years and saw all sorts of shit in NI, Bosnia and the Gulf. All armies have killed prisoners and non combatants so what's presently going on in the Ukraine is nothing new - do I agree with that? Absolutely not.
For me personally I think the death penalty is an easy way out - though this gets you into the prison as a deterrent debate which gets you into the overcrowding debate which gets you into the prison is too soft debate blah blah blah.

Wartime is the prime example of where the whole argument around murder and application of legal structures can fall apart. I'm not the one to judge the circumstances you describe. There's a famous case where a British captain cracked and executed a number of prisoners of war. This was completely wrong He was quietly moved home. The prisoners were concentration camp guards. Does that change anything? Should it change anything?

 

[Beagle]

The jails are full to overflowing. That’s why the government introduced the early release scheme in order to have space to house new prisoners. What happens when there comes a point that the jails are full to bursting in the future with all of the most serious of offenders? Build new jails? There’s nae money. A metaphorical bullet and body disposal is of much better value to the public purse than the hundreds of thousands of pounds needed to keep folk locked up until their natural passing or millions (billions) required to build new jails.
Just playing devils advocate here and not taking sides but worthy of consideration nonetheless

 

[anti-remaster]

So in principle, regardless of you being trained to kill, do you think there should be a death penalty in Britain today?:.

Senetencing or prison numbers has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure - but I think the death penalty is part of the whole prison debate so I don't agree with your last line.
Undecided should maybe have been a poll choice.

 

[emerald green]

I'm not sure - but I think the death penalty is part of the whole prison debate so I don't agree with your last line.
Undecided should maybe have been a poll choice.

The prison debate is neither here nor there. They are separate. If a prison is soft, or overcrowded, or sentencing is wrong i.e. too light or too heavy, these are stand alone subjects. the thread is simply about the state killing or not.

 

[emerald green]

The jails are full to overflowing. That’s why the government introduced the early release scheme in order to have space to house new prisoners. What happens when there comes a point that the jails are full to bursting in the future with all of the most serious of offenders? Build new jails? There’s nae money. A metaphorical bullet and body disposal is of much better value to the public purse than the hundreds of thousands of pounds needed to keep folk locked up until their natural passing or millions (billions) required to build new jails.
Just playing devils advocate here and not taking sides but worthy of consideration nonetheless

I dont think killing should be cost related.
No enough jails or incorrect sentencing is surely no related.

Theres nae money point is surely because of many other things that need corrected, and having nae money isnae going to be fixed by executions of individuals or en masse gor example.

 

[anti-remaster]

The prison debate is neither here nor there. They are separate. If a prison is soft, or overcrowded, or sentencing is wrong i.e. too light or too heavy, these are stand alone subjects. the thread is simply about the state killing or not.

Disagree mate.
A few messages mention the death penalty as a deterrent but is actual prison a deterrent? If not why not? I think that needs sorted before you get to the death penalty question.