Death penalty - for or against

[Sussex Shrimper]

Presumably from the moral high ground from where you lock people in a cage, which seems ok with you.

Imprisonment is essentially restraint, which seems to me to be the most effective way to prevent somebody from doing further harm to society without stooping to vindictive acts in the name of punishment.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

"An eye for an eye" is my personal opinion

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind, as Gandhi said.

MtS says: I learned when I was a kid that two wrongs don't make a right. Killing someone (via the death penalty) because they killed someone is simply the apogee of that statement we all learned as kids, isn't it?

For me, it's state-sponsored murder, and so it's wrong. As I've said before, personally I'd send them all out to an island in the Atlantic and have them on exercise bikes chained to the National Grid for the rest of their lives, without parole. Whip the f***ers if they slacken, as well.

Hey ho.

Matt

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

It's the whole thing, convicted serial killers (that's where I'm basing this argument) are being housed, clothed and fed all at our expense whereas if the death penalty was in place then they wouldn't be costing us a penny. I dread to think how much it's cost to keep Ian Brady in "prison" over the years.

Sorry, but I don't think there ever comes a point where you terminate lives on the grounds of cost.

 

[SUFCLiam]

i would say yes

 

[Gremlin]

i would say yes

But......?

 

[steveo]

What gives the state the right to decide if someone deserves to live or die?

What gives the state the right to ban me from driving if I exceed the speed limit? Its the law isnt it?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Sorry, but I don't think there ever comes a point where you terminate lives on the grounds of cost.

It's not on the grounds of cost, it's on the grounds that they've committed such despicable crimes that they do not deserve to live! The cost of keeping them in prison is a secondary concern.

 

[DTS]

Sorry, but I don't think there ever comes a point where you terminate lives on the grounds of cost.

The money used to house these monsters for prolonged periods of time could be used to pay for cancer drugs for people that currently the NHS cant fund.

Surely these people are having there lives terminated or shortend on the grounds of cost yet they have done nothing wrong. ( Cancer suffers I mean).

 

[MK Shrimper]

The money used to house these monsters for prolonged periods of time could be used to pay for cancer drugs for people that currently the NHS cant fund.

Surely these people are having there lives terminated or shortend on the grounds of cost yet they have done nothing wrong. ( Cancer suffers I mean).

There's a whole load of money being wasted by this government - an illegal war in Iraq for starters. I doubt the money used to keep killers locked up even comes near the billions we've had no choice to spend to help out George W's push for oil.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

No human being has the right to take the life of another. That is the whole point of why murder is a crime. By re-instating the death sentance the state would effectively be saying, yes you do have the right to take a life.

 

[steveo]

By re-instating the death sentance the state would effectively be saying, yes you do have the right to take a life.

No they wouldnt, look at it more like "if you kill someone, we will kill you"

 

[Napster]

bloody lefties.

:)

ps this argument is boring. let's discuss our Olympic chances instead

 

[Vange Shrimper]

No human being has the right to take the life of another. That is the whole point of why murder is a crime. By re-instating the death sentance the state would effectively be saying, yes you do have the right to take a life.

Slightly off topic, but you got to think about, when people get banged up for life, does it really mean life for murder, or does it mean out in half of the 33 odd years for good behaviour?!

One American court banged up one bloke for murder for 2000 years, a few years ago with no probation period. Maybe we could have something like that over here. At least it will prevent the *******s getting out and doing it again.

 

[Vange Shrimper]

No they wouldnt, look at it more like "if you kill someone, we will kill you"

Exactly, Steve.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Steve Wright - aka The Suffolk Strangler;

But his afternoon radio show was ace.

 

[OldBlueLady]

bloody lefties.

:)

ps this argument is boring. let's discuss our Olympic chances instead

'Cos that's more interesting?

 

[Gremlin]

No they wouldnt, look at it more like "if you kill someone, we will kill someone"

Edited to account for miscarriages of justice.

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

The money used to house these monsters for prolonged periods of time could be used to pay for cancer drugs for people that currently the NHS cant fund.

Surely these people are having there lives terminated or shortend on the grounds of cost yet they have done nothing wrong. ( Cancer suffers I mean).

You could tap into any number of budgets to find additional funds for the NHS, not least of all that being spent on a nuclear arsenal specifically designed to bring about death and destruction. You could put 1% on income tax, but the sad fact is that the average family would never stomach the idea of giving up their second cars to save (or at least prolong) lives.

Basically it's a whole separate discussion, and as far as I'm concerned, still not an excuse for state sponsored murder.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Don't believe anything you read in the "popular" press.

Not fair MK. It says in The Sun today that Rangers were knocked out of Europe last night; that is certainly true.

 

[steveo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo
No they wouldnt, look at it more like "if you kill someone, we will kill someone"

Edited to account for miscarriages of justice.

Very good, but total rubbish. Who are you standing for, Criminals are us?