Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Against nothing is worth killing an innocent person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30677 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Against. If we're going to go down that road then I can think of more 'cruel and unusual' forms of punishment that I'd like to see used on certain criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Breivik will never be a free man, while legally there is a technical possibility - there wont be any political will to let that happen. Dont imagine any judge willing to be the one who lets him out. Have you seen Halden Prison, our newest one courtesy of our socialist government? A former american Prison executive visited it and was shocked, "is this PRISON?" HMM X-BOX OR PS2 TODAY - TOUGH CHOICE NICER THAN MY BATHROOM TBF.. Davie Charlton should move there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Nice. I saw the other day that pensioners are getting a 38p a day increase in their pensions. Perhaps they should go out and kill somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7297 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Against nothing is worth killing an innocent person. Voting for is not voting for the killing of innocent people. For, obviously highly dependent on the nature of the crime. The cost of imprisonment in such cases could be put to much better use. Revenge has nothing to do with it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment. Anyway, do you really want to base the argument on costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Also, the idea there should be different tariffs based on amount or quality of evidence goes against fundamental principals of jurisprudence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) What? How is capital punishment more expensive? Edited October 20, 2012 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7297 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment. Anyway, do you really want to base the argument on costs? Taking cost out of it there are plenty that could be considered either beyond redemption or simply don't deserve the chance at it (IMO). Please explain how capital punishment is more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Capital punishment, in the US at least, is more expensive because of the complexity and cost of the appeals process. Of course, you could advocate summary justice and execute as soon as the verdict is reached, I'm sure that would be a great advancement to our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The death penalty certainly wouldn't save money, Just look at the legal challenges relating to extraditing Hamza and Mckinnon. Both have taken about 10 years with constant legal challenge. The death penalty would be a lot worse then that. Certainly is in the USA. People are on death row for over 20 years in certain cases. Also I find the argument to kill someone as its cheaper then imprisonment completely barbaric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7297 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The problem with the above two remarks is that they are inserting the death penalty into the existing system. The argument that was not that it was cheaper, but that the money spent on imprisonment could be better utilised in other areas; health care, education, pensions for the elderly. Each of these would have a cumulative better effect on the advancement and/or betterment of society than maintaining a life that has shown to have no regard for the right to live of innocent others. This is before the argument of repeat offenders comes into it. Barbaric it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Voting for is not voting for the killing of innocent people. For, obviously highly dependent on the nature of the crime. The cost of imprisonment in such cases could be put to much better use. Revenge has nothing to do with it IMO. If you bring back capital punishment innocent people will become victims of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7297 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 If you bring back capital punishment innocent people will become victims of it. Not in my version. But sure, agree that nothing is perfect. Repeat offenders make up such a large percentage of prisoner numbers that it would be difficult to argue that the current system is effective. By the same token it could not be considered cost effective in the scheme of the value added to the general law abiding population. Capital punishment is something that should only be used in certain circumstances for particularly heinous crimes and only where there is no reasonable doubt. There should be no avenue for 'death row appeals' as it makes a mockery of the initial decision. Convict and eliminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Not in my version. But sure, agree that nothing is perfect. Repeat offenders make up such a large percentage of prisoner numbers that it would be difficult to argue that the current system is effective. By the same token it could not be considered cost effective in the scheme of the value added to the general law abiding population. Capital punishment is something that should only be used in certain circumstances for particularly heinous crimes and only where there is no reasonable doubt. There should be no avenue for 'death row appeals' as it makes a mockery of the initial decision. Convict and eliminate. All convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7297 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 All convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" Exactly why there 'should' be no need for appeals and the like. If the court system is broken fix it, don't use it as a reason for not taking other action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3905 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Exactly why there 'should' be no need for appeals and the like. If the court system is broken fix it, don't use it as a reason for not taking other action. The court system isn't broke it is just not infallible and I would say can never be. Convictions are based on evidence which can be misleading. You can't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The court system isn't broke it is just not infallible and I would say can never be. Convictions are based on evidence which can be misleading. You can't change that. Exactly. OTF seems to want a sliding scale of 'definitely' guilty to 'well maybe' when it comes to deciding if the state should murder its citizens. That's philosophically bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30677 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) OTF seems to want a sliding scale of 'definitely' guilty to 'well maybe' when it comes to deciding if the state should murder its citizens. That's philosophically bankrupt. Requiring a different standard of proof depending on the punishment isn't exactly morally bankrupt. Look at the different requirements in civil and criminal courts, is that morally bankrupt? I'm not a supporter of the idea btw. Edited October 21, 2012 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7297 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Exactly. OTF seems to want a sliding scale of 'definitely' guilty to 'well maybe' when it comes to deciding if the state should murder its citizens. That's philosophically bankrupt. Not at all correct, but nice straw man argument. I'm saying that the death penalty should be an option in extreme cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Breivik will never be a free man, while legally there is a technical possibility - there wont be any political will to let that happen. Dont imagine any judge willing to be the one who lets him out. Have you seen Halden Prison, our newest one courtesy of our socialist government? A former american Prison executive visited it and was shocked, "is this PRISON?" HMM X-BOX OR PS2 TODAY - TOUGH CHOICE NICER THAN MY BATHROOM TBF.. This notion that an x-box makes prison a glorious holiday everyone should be jealous of is simplistic nonsense. Even Alcatraz had little earphone connectors in the cell that allowed prisoners to enjoy the radio.....but they did so looking over the bay at a city of free people doing anything and everything they wanted. Better conditions are used in prison to reward good behavior. To teach a criminal that avoiding misbehaviour brings a better life. A valuable lesson if you're hoping to rehabilitate. Much better than constant misery, which likely led them to a life of crime in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Im in favour of it for Martin Atkinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) sorry but i am for the death penalty the uk is to soft on murderers its high time they were all deed Edited October 29, 2012 by DEADMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35120 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I used to be completely against it but not I'm for it, in certain cases, in principle, but I don't think it would work in practice. Even in the United States where it's been around for years you have too many legal appeals etc. which stops it from being enforced. Take the case of Richard Ramires who's been on death row in California since the mid-80s. He's a sick fucker who deserves to die but that's by the by. You only need to look at a case like Abu Hamza recently to see how the only people likely to benefit from a re-introduction of the death penalty are highly paid lawyers. I think sentences for a number of crimes should be a lot more severe in this country though. That would be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now