Death Penalty

#1
Regarding the recent controversy over the death penalty in China, what is the best deterrent /punishment for cases such as murder,rape ect.
Is it life means life or is it more humane for the State to execute.
Personally I`m for the death penalty although I don`t think it`s a deterrent,although it does stop re-offending.
I don`t which would be a greater deterrent,being told you will spend the rest of your life in jail or being executed.
Your thoughts,please.
 
#3
Nah, the death penalty is the easy way out. I like dungeons, water torture and never ending repeats of Piers Morgan Life Stories, Celebrity (and I use that word very liberally) Big Brother and Songs Of Praise
 
#4
I think I once read somewhere that statistically, the death penalty has never been a effective deterrent.

I'm still a supporter of it though, if someone murdered one of my loved ones the death penalty would be the only form of justice I would be happy with.
 
#5
mortars2cg said:
Regarding the recent controversy over the death penalty in China, what is the best deterrent /punishment for cases such as murder,rape ect.
Is it life means life or is it more humane for the State to execute.
Personally I`m for the death penalty although I don`t think it`s a deterrent,although it does stop re-offending.
I don`t which would be a greater deterrent,being told you will spend the rest of your life in jail or being executed.
Your thoughts,please.
Life without the ability to use a space-bar :wink:
 
#6
I was taught not to used words I didn't know how to spell or know what they mean.

Death to the ect men.

Sensible head on, if the death penalty was any kind of detterant, why tf are there so many on death row, ect.
 
#7
Bollock-chops said:
Sensible head on, if the death penalty was any kind of detterant, why tf are there so many on death row, ect.
Because outside China, bundling the convict out of the courtroom and into a van for the happy jab isn't considered cricket. How would all those lawyers make money without ten years or so of protracted legal wrangling?
 
#8
Bollock-chops said:
I was taught not to used words I didn't know how to spell or know what they mean.

Death to the ect men.

Sensible head on, if the death penalty was any kind of detterant, why tf are there so many on death row, ect.
My bold. So you probably shouldn't have used the word deterrent then.
 
#9
Just torture the cnuts to death, it's far cheaper than keeping lifers fed and watered.
 
#10
Play Barry Manilow and David Hasselhof records to them for four hours a day in solitary. That's torture and a lingering death in one go.

MsG
 
#11
soldier.a said:
I think I once read somewhere that statistically, the death penalty has never been a effective deterrent.
It may not show as a deterrent, but it sure as hell stops the little buggers doing it again!!!

What are the stats on convicted murderers re-offending? , particularly within the prison environment; after they have been told they are there for life!!
 
#12
Lock them in a cell with Whet - the true horror. :wink:
 
#13
Hmm if it doesn't work then it's probably not that useful; however that's probably because punishment is fairly abstracted. It means nothing to be locked up for 2, 10 or even 20 years as the human brain cannot conceive of what it properly means. Even 6 months is a very long time to be locked up yet pales into insignificance when compared with other sentences. The same for the death penalty, it is abstracted and there is no evidence to the individual that they actually take place, they could have been abducted by aliens instead of being killed. What is needed is public punishment. If a thief were to be given a 6 hour spell in the stocks in the center of town with his 'mates' pelting him then that would be fairly embarrassing, combined with 2000 hours of CS then might be a fairly effective punishment, with a low chance of re-offending. In the severest murder cases perhaps hang, drawing and quartering should be brought back in; very effective and even the most hardened serial murderer might quaver at the thought of:
"Then Sentence was passed, as followeth, viz. That they should return to the place from whence they came, from thence be drawn to the Common place of Execution upon Hurdles, and there to be Hanged by the Necks, then cut down alive, their Privy-Members cut off, and Bowels taken out to be burned before their Faces, their Heads to be severed from their Bodies, and their Bodies divided into four parts, to be disposed of as the King should think fit.[6]".

However perhaps it comes under 'cruel and unusual punishment', that always seems to be the most effective though. Maybe Britain could get an exemption from the EU on it.

Perhaps Sharia law would work well as well, if a thief was to have a hand cut off every time he was caught.
 
#16
#17
This is a fascinating and difficult subject matter. It's a pit of ethical vipers. I plan to pen an essay on it at some point, though it could easily take a book to cover all the difficulties faced in coming to a practical and moral conclusion -- if an objective conclusion is possible at all.

The emotional, reactionary and cruel side of me feels that in some instances capital punishment is necessary. But then, once I delve into the matter less emotionally, I see the inherent flaws in advocating the ultimate sentence. A post on an internet forum really can't do this subject justice, but three main issues are central to the debate.

There's the issue of proving that the accused are guilty for certain. If the state were to make certain crimes capital offences, then there would inevitably be miscarriages of justice, since the criminal justice system, including forensics, is not infallible. Would the 'benefits' of capital punishment be worth the taking of one innocent life? If this issue could be settled then I'd have no qualms with seeing the worst criminals euthanised. It's unlikely, however, that we'll ever settle this issue for humans will always remain epistemologically fallible.

There's also the issue regarding the effects upon the family members of the condemned. Though saying that, everyone must face the possibility of losing a loved one at any given time -- life is harsh.

Finally, can the taking of a life in cold blood (not in direct response to an immediate threat) be justified? Could capital punishment be considered state sponsored murder?

If these and other issues could be satisfactorily settled then capital punishment would be the way to go. Saying that, there are cases where the accused are certainly guilty. However, once we start executing the certainly guilty, where would we decide to draw the line? Once the collective emotions of the blood thirsty masses dictate policy then do we cease to be a civilised nation?

I do, however, advocate corporal punishment without any qualms. Bring back the birch and watch the crime-rate fall, I say. Most small-time criminals are bullies and cowards and would think twice after fifty lashes and rock salt.
 
#18
Let's be honest about it. Capital punishment has never been an effective deterrent to murder. Somewhere along the line I understand that the majority of murders are actually committed by people that are known to eath other. You know the situtation, the long suffering wife of a violent husband, the cuckolded man in the relationship who eventually snaps and strangles the snake with ti.....sorry the lady concerned. In reality, these murders would have happened as there was no thought to the consequences. They happened when we had a death penalty and they continue to this day....have a look at the news from the Shott this week!

The Death penalty has only one purpose. Retribution! Would Shipman have carried out his murders with capital punishment on the cards for him? Of course he would, he never thought he would have been caught.

The abolition of this punishment makes us better people for it, just look at the countries that still have the death penalty. However, I really do believe that in some circumstances, life should mean life, and in nearly all circumstances, then prison should not be a very nice place to be! In fact, I think that much prison time should be spent making big rocks into little rocks! If I had my way then reoffending would be very rare because they simply wouldn't want to go back into stir!
 
#19
Bravo_Zulu said:
Bollock-chops said:
Sensible head on, if the death penalty was any kind of detterant, why tf are there so many on death row, ect.
Because outside China, bundling the convict out of the courtroom and into a van for the happy jab isn't considered cricket. How would all those lawyers make money without ten years or so of protracted legal wrangling?
When we had the death penalty in this country they didn't keep 'em locked up for up to 25 years or so before the drop. There could be an appeal or two but if lost the sentence was carried out quite soon after.
The penalty does not deter the real crims as they think they will never be caught.
 
#20
Infiltrator said:
Let's be honest about it. Capital punishment has never been an effective deterrent to murder. Somewhere along the line I understand that the majority of murders are actually committed by people that are known to eath other.
Is that true, though? Wasn't the murder rate much lower in Britain when capital punishment still existed? Or, was the lower murder rate due to it being a different time with different pressures and stimuli affecting people?

Infiltrator said:
You know the situtation, the long suffering wife of a violent husband, the cuckolded man in the relationship who eventually snaps and strangles the snake with ti.....sorry the lady concerned. In reality, these murders would have happened as there was no thought to the consequences.
This is an interesting point. It shows that there are different degrees of murder, and in the States abused wives who kill are rarely executed as their crimes are typically not considered capital offences.

Infiltrator said:
The Death penalty has only one purpose. Retribution! Would Shipman have carried out his murders with capital punishment on the cards for him? Of course he would, he never thought he would have been caught.
Retribution and future prevention and wider deterrence, I would argue. Was Shipman of sound mind? Was he aware of the evil of his actions and did he commit the acts irrespectively, or was he unaware of the evil of his actions? This is important, since if an individual is criminally insane then it's harder to justify a capital response. And how do we truly determine sanity or insanity? And what about untreatable personality disorders? Though locking these individuals up, and treating and caring for them does cost the taxpayer plenty.

Infiltrator said:
The abolition of this punishment makes us better people for it,
Has it made the country better and safer, though?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top