Yes it should be brought back. IMO, if one commits murder, one's human rights are void.
What about police officers who falsify evidence in order to get a conviction of the same murders to keep the public and the press happy as has happened in the past, should they get the death penalty for murdering an innocent ?
What about police officers who falsify evidence in order to get a conviction of the same murders to keep the public and the press happy as has happened in the past, should they get the death penalty for murdering an innocent ?
Exactly.
If someone is executed as a result of evidence that is falsified (and as you pointed out, it has and does still happen), then they have effectively been murdered themselves.
Should the officers who falsified the evidence then face the death penalty?, or the judge who gave the order?, or the jury members who gave the guilty verdict?, or the person tasked with carrying out the execution?.
Absolutely not. Too many innocent people have been convicted already. Also, it makes someone else a killer, someone has to give the injection or push the button and I am not comfortable with that idea.
I'd say no. There's been too many examples of miscarriages of justice, not just of individuals but even groups of people who were wrongly put away for murder, including mass murder (IRA bombings). I wouldn't regard those individuals, had they been executed, as some sort of collateral damage for the greater good from any deterrent effect being provided by having a death penalty. It would then become a question of who do you execute for murdering them?
However, since we live in a country where politicians can send troops off to their deaths in phoney wars I would consider a firing squad for such wilful deceit in the highest office.
I just don't think convcted scum like Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Huntley deserve to live and it would save us millions in not having to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. Let's face it, none of them are ever coming out.
But death would be an easy way out for such people, and it is what they each want or have tried to do themselves. I don't see it as wasting money on them, I see it as providing justice for their victims.
Take spree killers, they usually try to shoot themselves after their carnage to avoid capture and incarceration, and psychologically speaking it's also so the control freak remains entirely in command of the situation. Clearly, their own death is no deterrent to what they do, and such killers predominate in a country with the death penalty, whereas hearing of a miserable eternity spent in prison by similar cases who got caught might provide at least some deterrence.
I'd like to see a two strikes system for the most serious crimes.
Retain existing sentencing (which contrary to popular belief, HAS been getting tougher over the years) for serious crimes. Retain whole of life or very long minimum terms for the most serious offences though. But if those who commit serious crimes are to be released then they should be more strictly monitored, for the rest of their lives. If they go on to commit another serious offence and are found guilty, then it is back to prison for the rest of their lives with no parole for a second serious offence.
Over time though, that would lead to even more over population than we have now, so to balance it out we'd need to make better use of alternative sentences for lesser crimes, such as more use of community sentencing, as we can't really afford to keep building more and more prisons.
But we also need better systems and more support for the more petty offenders who, while an annoyance, aren't a danger. Often they are released back into the community with no help (such as with finding work, with mental health issues, with support for drug and alcohol issues etc.). It's then all too easy for them to fall back to their old ways, and into the same circles as before. If we can somehow find the means of supporting them, we could hopefully make it easier for most to stayn out of trouble and actually become productive members of society, which benefits us all in the long term. Of course, the ultra right wingers and much of the press don't like such things, even though in other countries such things do appear to work and cut re-offending rates..
The UK is signed up to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which requires those who have signed up to it to abolish the death penalty (with exemptions during war time) and remain that way.
The only way to remove that protocol is if we ask every other signatory for our support to be removed from it. And that'll never happen. The only country which has tried to remove itself from a UN human rights treaty is North Korea. Do we really want to associate ourselves with Kim Jong-Un?
And I haven't even had to mention the fact that EU membership requires members to abolish the death penalty and remain in that status-quo for as long as they are a member. You'll also be kicked out of the Council of Europe. Belarus cannot join the CoE as the only country in Europe to have the death penalty. Expect a backlash and cold shoulder from virtually every European country.
The death penalty will never happen in the UK unless we leave the EU, obtain a fascist party who chooses to ignore all UN treaties and human rights and tear up all our own laws. At which point we'll give ammo for the likes of Iran and North Korea to boast about how the UK is descending into the depths and can no longer lecture other countries about how to uphold human rights.
Whilst UKIP have members who'd love for it to come back, there is only one political party whom publicly supports the reintroduction of the death penalty - the BNP.
The death penalty will never happen in the UK unless we leave the EU, obtain a fascist party who chooses to ignore all UN treaties and human rights and tear up all our own laws. At which point we'll give ammo for the likes of Iran and North Korea to boast about how the UK is descending into the depths and can no longer lecture other countries about how to uphold human rights.
The UK is signed up to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which requires those who have signed up to it to abolish the death penalty (with exemptions during war time) and remain that way.
The only way to remove that protocol is if we ask every other signatory for our support to be removed from it. And that'll never happen. The only country which has tried to remove itself from a UN human rights treaty is North Korea. Do we really want to associate ourselves with Kim Jong-Un?
And I haven't even had to mention the fact that EU membership requires members to abolish the death penalty and remain in that status-quo for as long as they are a member. You'll also be kicked out of the Council of Europe. Belarus cannot join the CoE as the only country in Europe to have the death penalty. Expect a backlash and cold shoulder from virtually every European country.
The death penalty will never happen in the UK unless we leave the EU, obtain a fascist party who chooses to ignore all UN treaties and human rights and tear up all our own laws. At which point we'll give ammo for the likes of Iran and North Korea to boast about how the UK is descending into the depths and can no longer lecture other countries about how to uphold human rights.
Absolutely.
I already find it a bit ironic that we lecture the likes of Iran, N Korea and China (and just this week, Syria), about their blocking of internet sites, their control and monitoring of every citizen etc. when our own government have proposals on the table that will do exactly that, and we already do it to some extent.
Of course, it's OK for us to do it because we do it in the name of protecting copyright, protecting children or fighting terrorism, but it isn't OK for them as they do it to stifle freedoms, even though in the long term, the end results are likely to be the same.
Its a no from me, for many of the reasons posted already. Juries are less likely to convict in death penalty cases. I do favour longer sentances in many cases. No country who has death penalty has a good record of water tight convictions.
No. It doesn't save any money, it doesn't deter potential criminals and you can't guarantee you've got the right person. There is no rewind button should the wrong person get convicted.
Especially with the screwed up legal system we have......
Its a no from me, for many of the reasons posted already. Juries are less likely to convict in death penalty cases. I do favour longer sentances in many cases. No country who has death penalty has a good record of water tight convictions.
Agreed.
I mentioned in another similar thread about the State of Illinois. They recently put a moratorium on the death penalty after a dozen inmates, found guilty in court and sentenced to death, were later found to be innocent. Luckily they hadn't yet been executed, but it caused such an outcry that Illinois put a moratorium on the death penalty and are in the process of enacting legislation to repeal the death penalty.
At least if someone is jailed for life, and later found to be innocent, they are still alive to be released and allowed to try and rebuild their lives.
Is it? As a Christian you will remember well how a vote on Jesus' fate was passed into the hands of the crowd by Pontious Pilate For your full reference... and here you are, as a Christian, calling for a vote on the fate of those found guilty of murder... I don't find referencing the religion you freely associate yourself with and your support of the death penalty through a free vote strange in the slightest.
I already find it a bit ironic that we lecture the likes of Iran, N Korea and China (and just this week, Syria), about their blocking of internet sites, their control and monitoring of every citizen etc. when our own government have proposals on the table that will do exactly that, and we already do it to some extent.
Of course, it's OK for us to do it because we do it in the name of protecting copyright, protecting children or fighting terrorism, but it isn't OK for them as they do it to stifle freedoms, even though in the long term, the end results are likely to be the same.
Its different when a democratic government tables powers to monitor email etc (to protect its citizens) to when a dictatorship does the same (to protect itself). We would still hold the high ground there. (Its been binned for this parliment anyhow but point still valid)
Comments
Wrong.
Also no.
What about police officers who falsify evidence in order to get a conviction of the same murders to keep the public and the press happy as has happened in the past, should they get the death penalty for murdering an innocent ?
Like the one they held for Jesus or the other guy... that worked out well.
Exactly.
If someone is executed as a result of evidence that is falsified (and as you pointed out, it has and does still happen), then they have effectively been murdered themselves.
Should the officers who falsified the evidence then face the death penalty?, or the judge who gave the order?, or the jury members who gave the guilty verdict?, or the person tasked with carrying out the execution?.
Edit
Altho I think there should be a forum death penalty for starting stupid threads.
However, since we live in a country where politicians can send troops off to their deaths in phoney wars I would consider a firing squad for such wilful deceit in the highest office.
But death would be an easy way out for such people, and it is what they each want or have tried to do themselves. I don't see it as wasting money on them, I see it as providing justice for their victims.
Take spree killers, they usually try to shoot themselves after their carnage to avoid capture and incarceration, and psychologically speaking it's also so the control freak remains entirely in command of the situation. Clearly, their own death is no deterrent to what they do, and such killers predominate in a country with the death penalty, whereas hearing of a miserable eternity spent in prison by similar cases who got caught might provide at least some deterrence.
Because of conventions we are signed up to.
Retain existing sentencing (which contrary to popular belief, HAS been getting tougher over the years) for serious crimes. Retain whole of life or very long minimum terms for the most serious offences though. But if those who commit serious crimes are to be released then they should be more strictly monitored, for the rest of their lives. If they go on to commit another serious offence and are found guilty, then it is back to prison for the rest of their lives with no parole for a second serious offence.
Over time though, that would lead to even more over population than we have now, so to balance it out we'd need to make better use of alternative sentences for lesser crimes, such as more use of community sentencing, as we can't really afford to keep building more and more prisons.
But we also need better systems and more support for the more petty offenders who, while an annoyance, aren't a danger. Often they are released back into the community with no help (such as with finding work, with mental health issues, with support for drug and alcohol issues etc.). It's then all too easy for them to fall back to their old ways, and into the same circles as before. If we can somehow find the means of supporting them, we could hopefully make it easier for most to stayn out of trouble and actually become productive members of society, which benefits us all in the long term. Of course, the ultra right wingers and much of the press don't like such things, even though in other countries such things do appear to work and cut re-offending rates..
The only way to remove that protocol is if we ask every other signatory for our support to be removed from it. And that'll never happen. The only country which has tried to remove itself from a UN human rights treaty is North Korea. Do we really want to associate ourselves with Kim Jong-Un?
And I haven't even had to mention the fact that EU membership requires members to abolish the death penalty and remain in that status-quo for as long as they are a member. You'll also be kicked out of the Council of Europe. Belarus cannot join the CoE as the only country in Europe to have the death penalty. Expect a backlash and cold shoulder from virtually every European country.
The death penalty will never happen in the UK unless we leave the EU, obtain a fascist party who chooses to ignore all UN treaties and human rights and tear up all our own laws. At which point we'll give ammo for the likes of Iran and North Korea to boast about how the UK is descending into the depths and can no longer lecture other countries about how to uphold human rights.
Whilst UKIP have members who'd love for it to come back, there is only one political party whom publicly supports the reintroduction of the death penalty - the BNP.
Won't that be the day!
But murder by the state is OK?
It's a no from me too.
Absolutely.
I already find it a bit ironic that we lecture the likes of Iran, N Korea and China (and just this week, Syria), about their blocking of internet sites, their control and monitoring of every citizen etc. when our own government have proposals on the table that will do exactly that, and we already do it to some extent.
Of course, it's OK for us to do it because we do it in the name of protecting copyright, protecting children or fighting terrorism, but it isn't OK for them as they do it to stifle freedoms, even though in the long term, the end results are likely to be the same.
Especially with the screwed up legal system we have......
Just checking:)
Agreed.
I mentioned in another similar thread about the State of Illinois. They recently put a moratorium on the death penalty after a dozen inmates, found guilty in court and sentenced to death, were later found to be innocent. Luckily they hadn't yet been executed, but it caused such an outcry that Illinois put a moratorium on the death penalty and are in the process of enacting legislation to repeal the death penalty.
At least if someone is jailed for life, and later found to be innocent, they are still alive to be released and allowed to try and rebuild their lives.
Is it? As a Christian you will remember well how a vote on Jesus' fate was passed into the hands of the crowd by Pontious Pilate For your full reference... and here you are, as a Christian, calling for a vote on the fate of those found guilty of murder... I don't find referencing the religion you freely associate yourself with and your support of the death penalty through a free vote strange in the slightest.
Its different when a democratic government tables powers to monitor email etc (to protect its citizens) to when a dictatorship does the same (to protect itself). We would still hold the high ground there. (Its been binned for this parliment anyhow but point still valid)