Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

Those are the technical reasons, but for whose benefit is it to release a murderer ?? the general public don't want them, so its done by the criminal justice system itself.

Where is the morality, how is right to apply morals to the rights and wrongs of the death penalty and not for releasing people. If a victims loved ones are unhappy, then tough. I just have a massive deal with morality been applied selectively.
Morality is merely an individual's perception of right and wrong.
 
a system which abolished something that is final and absolute and replaced it with a system or process, which is rather lacking in morality,
But it wasn't absolute, it's mistakes and anomalies returned to haunt it and undermined confidence in the penalty itself, and the administration of justice.
 
I doubt that is achievable, if there was no possibility of wrongful convictions I’d have to reconsider my position on capital punishment.
We must have gone round in at least one loop by now but i´m not reading back through 45 pages to find out.

This is the crux of the issue and we should strive to solve that problem regardless of the death penalty. There are also some absolutely undeniably guilty people could have been safely executed too, the Lee Rigby killers for example.

We could execute people like that right now.

I expect that if we looked into 100 cases to check if they met the ¨undeniably guilty test¨ we would find a dozen or more that we could shoot in the face without any doubt.
 
Morality is merely an individual's perception of right and wrong.
Exactly, I wasn't trying to have a pop at dingerr, merely draw attention to my own moral view and compare it with others and find myself in agreement with regards the death penalty, but, seriously at odds, with what happens after the abolition.

There could be something like: manslaughter, Murder by Instance (to signify some discretion) and outright 'murder', of which their is no tariff for the final category.
 
But it wasn't absolute, it's mistakes and anomalies returned to haunt it and undermined confidence in the penalty itself, and the administration of justice.
The progressive movement wanted to modernise britain and this was one of those ways to do it. The mistakes and such, were highlighted as evidence and the mobilising of a moral argument to widen support.

Hence my tedious and repetitious twist about what happened after the abolition.
 
The progressive movement wanted to modernise britain and this was one of those ways to do it. The mistakes and such, were highlighted as evidence and the mobilising of a moral argument to widen support.

Hence my tedious and repetitious twist about what happened after the abolition.
You say that like its a bad thing?
 
As with many situations in modern western life, the whole death sentence position has been gamed so much as to lose much of its value. The victim and the perpetrator have been sidelined so much in the process that sometimes the purpose of the whole exercise gets lost..

A death penalty has a number of purposes; the most obvious being that of deterrent, but there are others.. There is a justifiable element of penalty and revenge and also, although less talked about, a cost and economic element, there is also a need for society to be seen to be exercising the power given to it by the people on the understanding that society will carry out acts on behalf of the people which are forbidden to individuals!

The death penalty is an interesting issue, in that it is generally held by all sides in the debate that if a free vote were to be given to the population, there would be overwhelming support for it. The political system could therefore be accused of being undemocratic at the very root of the system...!

It would seem that this is not really a moral or ethical issue, but a political one between various power groups within society, namely the legal and judicial community, politicians, civil servants and elements within the media.

...we don't really have a say!
 
I’ve not seen a single shred of evidence (or a plausible theory) that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
 
Why must we first ensure there are no mistakes?

The decision to execute is either correct at the time or not, regardless of outcome. Mistakes will be made.

Why accept this for suspects, who are by definition not guilty, but not for those found guilty?
I´m not sure I understand your point of view but I thought it was pretty obvious that executing innocent people is problematic and something to be avoided.

The reason that we must ensure that there are no mistakes made in convicting and sentencing people is that after killing them, you cant then apologise and resurrect with a quick pay off and a ¨sorry about that old chap, the police stitched you up and the DNA evidence was flawed¨.

Accept what for suspects who are not guilty?
 
The death penalty is an interesting issue, in that it is generally held by all sides in the debate that if a free vote were to be given to the population, there would be overwhelming support for it.
That’s incorrect.
 
It would seem that this is not really a moral or ethical issue, but a political one between various power groups within society, namely the legal and judicial community, politicians, civil servants and elements within the media.
The judiciary are not a political entity nor is the media.
 
You say that like its a bad thing?
Do I, perhaps... I really don't like the haste and think things change far too much at the drop of the hat and the reasons given for change, are manufactured to sell a policy, rather than been properly thought through and gamed.

The penalty itself was from the old world which had hard solutions to problems and I dislike the wooly world where no absolutes are allowed and everything is soft and squishy. I don't think it makes a better world and I find it immoral, that someone who has murdered somebody elses daughter or son is out and immoral that the justice system demands that I should accept that conclusion.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The death penalty is an interesting issue, in that it is generally held by all sides in the debate that if a free vote were to be given to the population, there would be overwhelming support for it.
That’s incorrect.
Has there been a vote about how people would vote ?
 
Last edited:

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Has there been a vote about how people would vote ?
That was my point. Some people hear the rhetoric of one side in the debate and presume that is the voice of the people. There is no tested majority either way.
 
No will to test it either. That may reinforce the point that it's not the will of the people but an assumption by our political betters.


ETA: Press/media political bias governed by the constitution? Who knew?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top