The Death Penalty - the will of the people?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Mar 29, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Undecided

    0 vote(s)
  2. Yes

    0 vote(s)
  3. No

    0 vote(s)
  1. It's amazing how the government goes on about "the will of the people" when it comes to its pet projects, such as the foxhunting ban, but whenever capital punishment comes up & a poll indicates a majority in favour (as they often do), suddenly "the people are misguided", or "the poll was hijacked by right-wing reactionaries / neo-nazis / the BNP / the Tory party / the camping & caravanning club of GB".

    So this is an Arrse straw-poll: do you support the death penalty for serious offences, such as pre-meditated murder? Or only mass-murder? Or maybe rape, or rape of a minor?

    Apologies if this has been done to death before
  2. I voted no. Too many mis-carriages of justice for it to be used.

    What should happen is for life to mean life and for miniumum sentences to be increased. Also the cushy life of those in prison should be stopped. Prisoners have better rooms and facilities than most of the lads in the block - that's just not right. :x
  3. Death Penalty for murder, terrorism etc
  4. I agree that life should mean life - that's what was promised at the time of the abolition.

    However, there is a utilitarian argument to counter your first point: Do more or less innocent people die now that the death penalty has been abolished? If you are responsible for the (relatively few) miscarriages of justice, you are equally responsible for what replaces them come abolition. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to the deterrent effect (for instance look what happened when they changed the rule from everyone involved in a gang murder being done for it to only the actual perpetrator - the organized crime bosses apparenlty used to frisk their guys to make sure nobody was carrying a gun, cos if someone died then they'd all hang).

    I think that the standard of proof should be "beyond doubt", not "beyond reasonable doubt" for a death sentance, but I support it in principle.
  5. Cold-blooded, state-sanctioned executions are a barbaric idea, and belong in the past. The death penalty is not a deterrent, costs more to administer than incarceration for life, and is a lesser punishment. The will of the people is an irrelevance in some instances, after all, I am sure that "the people" would support an abolition of all forms of taxation. More often than not, the "little" man does not see the "big" picture.
  6. I voted No. The DP is not a deterrent - Pierrepoint stated that on his retirement and one has to look at the USA and its overcrowded death rows. Life should mean life - loss of freedom in totality and the knowledge that the only way out of the can is via a hearse.
    I think that the only possible way the DP could be legitimised is for mass/serial murder and terrorism but life until death should be the standard.
  7. Unfortunately the will of the People counts for nothing here. European Law takes precedence over National Law so even if a democratically elected government wanted to restore capital punishment-even if it had been elected on that issue alone - it couldn't do it.

    Still think we live in a free country?
  8. Surely if someone was sentenced to death and the sentence carried out within say a month, that must be cheaper then keeping someone for life ?
  9. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    A life sentence, is a life sentence. Life does actually mean "life". Prisoners given a life sentence may be paroled after a minimum time set by the trial judge. If paroled, the prisoner is released on licence. That licence can be rescinded for any cause at any time and the prisoner recalled to prison.

    Given that the majority of life sentences are handed down for murder within the family (eg husbands killing their wives (or vice versa) in a drunken rage), the majority of murderers are not likely to offend a second time whilst paroled.

    The other problem is that in high profile cases (normally terrorist ones) the police are often under great pressure to find the perpertrators; they dont always find the right people. Judicial killing "pour encourager les autres", is self defeating.
  10. Agreed, but that could be seen as a social contract and it would seem it's no longer fashionable to know Burke, Hobbes & Locke...

    For the record I voted YES as I've no 'warm & fluffy' feelings about the worth of the life of murderers, rapists & paedophiles. I'd also be happy with 'life means life' prison sentences with a complete lack of privileges as mentioned by previous posters. I'm all for what could be described as 'wayward youths' being given the opportunity for rehabilitation and a return to education (obviously repeat offenders should be dealt with more seriously for each further offence) but I don't pay my tax pounds for serious criminals to have cushy rooms with TVs & the opportunity to work toward degrees. I'm an evil cow & for the worst cases would advocate solitary confinement with restricted access to anything that makes their life more human.

    Step outside of the rules of a civil society by committing anti-social and inhumane acts & as far as I'm concerned you're no longer entitled to be treated civilly yourself. :evil:
  11. In my view there should be a death penalty, and to keep the blleding heart liberals happy I'm quite content for it not to actually be carried out unless there is absolutly no doubt that the convicted criminal actually did the deed.

    Sound a little strange? Not really. As long as anyone with the death sentence never gets the option of parole, and the 'death row' cells are kept in the cellars in the old 'no window, a bed and a pi22-pot style' of the 18th century, I'd be happy for them to sit in the dark with no contact with the outside world, and the possibility of execution hanging round their neck for the rest of their lives.

    As it is at the moment, 'life' means 7-15 years in more comfort and with better supervision than a lot of innocent people in the third world.

    And by the way, the only 'will' of the people this government are interested in is the 'will' in 'will' they vote for us again.
  12. It never happens that way. There are always appeals which drag on for years and cost millions in legal fees. It is far cheaper to lock someone up for 50 years.
  13. But they don't do they? Even for premeditated murder you can be out in under 15 years. What sort of deterent is that?
  14. I vote no its a problem if you get it wrong .Life should mean mimimum of 15
    -20 years and proof of rehabilation before being let out otherwise rot in hell
    Clean and hygenic jails with . Tv radio etc earned by good behaviour if they have it .it can be taken away if they misbehave .
  15. clean hygenic cells
    anything else earned by good behaviour