Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

Release them at 80 with no further support beyond what the rest of society gets. No more free dental, no more immediate treatment on the NHS etc, etc.
 
Release them at 80 with no further support beyond what the rest of society gets. No more free dental, no more immediate treatment on the NHS etc, etc.
As loki suggested release can have its own form of unpleasant :), but the person is free to walk the streets amongst there fellow man and I find that morally wrong. I am not stiff necked and would compromise and say some distant island or remote locale where they could be released and made to perform some useful activity.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Did I miss the meeting where we decided the only options were execution or release?
Same here.
Birching, branding and amputation are still open for discussion.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Release them at 80 with no further support beyond what the rest of society gets. No more free dental, no more immediate treatment on the NHS etc, etc.
By that age they'll have a cracking set of teeth courtesy the Lubyanka fang farrier.
Wouldn't denying or delaying healthcare also fall foul of one of their rights ?
 
You keep avoiding the point... We both agree that the death penalty is morally wrong. How is it morally right to let a killer out of prison ??
If only there was some sort of middle ground, like a whole-life tarrif...

Cause and effect... If the death penalty is abolished, then what happens to that killer afterwards, should be discussed by those who supported an end to the death penalty. Else, you have made a moral judgement and divorced yourselves of the consequences.
I’ve already stated that I think a whole-life tarrif should be the standard for premeditated murder with no mitigating circumstances.
 
If only there was some sort of middle ground, like a whole-life tarrif...


I’ve already stated that I think a whole-life tarrif should be the standard for premeditated murder with no mitigating circumstances.
Its not about punishment, its about justice... Whatever the punishment inside prison, I don't see justice can be satisifed by letting murderers out of prison. Take the bulger killers, they were able to swerve the tariff, as do many other killers because give a judge leeway they will take that inch and out they come at some appeals point in future.
 
Imagine the amount of crime that could be prevented by:
Early intervention in youth crime (prevention of offending and rehabilitation)
3 strikes
Death penalty
 
Its not about punishment, its about justice... Whatever the punishment inside prison, I don't see justice can be satisifed by letting murderers out of prison. Take the bulger killers, they were able to swerve the tariff, as do many other killers because give a judge leeway they will take that inch and out they come at some appeals point in future.
That technicality of being children themselves when they committed the crime? Or would you also like to go about executing children as well?
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
Same here.
Birching, branding and amputation are still open for discussion.
Heinlen's Starship Troopers (the book not the film) makes and excellent point. The argument against a cruel and unusual punishment is rubbish. Punishments have to be cruel and unusual otherwise they are neither deterrent nor punishment.

Of course cruel and unusual is rather subjective to the convict. Fir some they might be reduced to a sobbing mess if his twitter account is deleted. Others may (though suspect not) take a hitching in their stride. Alas that variability makes drafting legislation a pain in the arse.
 
Imagine the amount of crime that could be prevented by:
Early intervention in youth crime (prevention of offending and rehabilitation)
3 strikes
Death penalty
You can do what you want in your third world backward state.
 
Heinlen's Starship Troopers (the book not the film) makes and excellent point. The argument against a cruel and unusual punishment is rubbish. Punishments have to be cruel and unusual otherwise they are neither deterrent nor punishment.

Of course cruel and unusual is rather subjective to the convict. Fir some they might be reduced to a sobbing mess if his twitter account is deleted. Others may (though suspect not) take a hitching in their stride. Alas that variability makes drafting legislation a pain in the arse.
It does miss the rather fundamental point that it is not the punishment that is a deterrent, it's the perceived likelihood of being caught. I know what the speed limits are, I know what the punishment is and know the likelihood of being caught is miniscule which is why on occasion a friend of mine has been known to exceed the speed limit to an extent that would if caught and convicted lose my err his licence and potentially job however as the risk / reward equation is so heavily skewed one way it seems a risk worth taking.
I would imagine it's a rare criminal indeed that goes out expecting to be caught so the sentence is inconsequential in terms of preventing crime.
 
Ah, that's better , although you'll see that the list actually includes other crimes rather than just murders, and is less then one person per year from a UK population of 60 million.

Fair try though, but still not ready to jump in with the bigs boys ........

As for wrongly executing one person being a pi55er, yep.....same as seeing your son's smirking killers being let out after a relativley short time too - which is also happening.

I gather that you grasped that what was used to convict someone for murder in 1908 has changed a bit now?

Anymore irrelevant or misleading links that you want to put up? ..cos you've only done it twice so far

And some of the cases go back to the 17thC, plus not all are even for murder. The usual pathetic handwringing to try to prove the point. Forgetting that law is there to protect us & deter criminals. Something which todays society seems to be forgotten especially with the growth of feral gangs roaming many of our larger towns & cities.
 
Punishments have to be cruel and unusual otherwise they are neither deterrent nor punishment.
The deterrent effect is the prospect of being caught.

During the Bloody Code, death sentences were handed out for relatively trivial crimes (by comparison with later eras of capital punishment) yet crime was through the roof.
 
As I no longer have the ability to think about stuff or create an argument, what follows is just stuff that's been triggered by various posts here recently.

I post from a long-held view that a society had the right to kill a member, if that member is seen as sufficient threat to the society. I will have had a reasoned argument for this but what it was, I've no idea.

Every time I read a measured post here from the anti side though, I'm persuaded from the idea of capital punishment. And yet doubts continue to arise.

It also has to be said that Nato, due to his posting style, continues to detract from his own arguments, some of which seem to have merit.

From my perspective, it would initially seem better to talk about killing. There's been a general consensus her, that the killing of an innocent Brazilian was justified. It seems it's often justifiable to kill 'suspects' because of a seriously held belief in what they might do, yet not justifiable to kill those proven guilty of an actual crime, in case they may prove innocent. I cannot see the logic behind the two views being held simultaneously. Seems to me that if a decision to condemn is justifiable at the time, a sentence could be carried out and the society must accept responsibility for the consequences of a future finding of innocence. The decision to condemn and execute would remain justified however. It's apparently a cognitive bias to consider outcome in the correctitudeness of the decision.

In short, I've no idea how I'd vote, should capital punishment be put to the people.


I once read a book. Crime and punishment have been debated and studied for centuries. As far as I'm aware, there is no deterrent effect of capital punishment.

There are also considerations of the society we aspire to.

Maybe it would be appropriate if we charged people with 'killing' and if found guilty, to then further decide whether it was murder or manslaughter or whatever and thus allowing for mitigation such as mental health, self defense and such.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top