Death penalty - for or against

[steveo]

- not many white middle class get death penalty - they can generally afford good lawers and *only* get life - it targets poor black people (in US certainly)
- it doesnt reduce the murder rate
- it creates further grief by destroying another family - big campaign about this in US - good video on youtube
- you might get it wrong
- if you take their life you are just as bad
- we have no human right to do it
- could be downward spiral with eventually petty criminals executed (I said this was a little far fetched but they argued well for it!)

1) Wouldnt be anything to do with who is committing more crime then.
2) unproven
3) Should have thought about that before they did it.
4) Chance that you take
5 and 6) If it is voted by the majority then whats the problem.
7) Good idea.

 

[Napster]

As a matter of interest and not a loaded question - What is the murder rate like in countries other than America that have the death penalty (Middle East etc).

On average, two countries per year have abolished the death penalty since 1976, the year it was abolished in Canada. Since then the Canadian murder rate has dropped from about 3 to about 2, undermining the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent

 

[Napster]

In the US, for 2006, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 4.22

 

[Napster]

In California, "Thirty persons have been on California’s death row for more than 25 years; 119 have been on death row for more than 20 years; and 240 have been on death row for more than 15 years."

Which in a sense is little more than incarceration

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

In California, "Thirty persons have been on California’s death row for more than 25 years; 119 have been on death row for more than 20 years; and 240 have been on death row for more than 15 years."

Which in a sense is little more than incarceration

In addition to which, the legal costs involved in the complex appeal procedures (which are surely essential to ensure as robust a conviction as human error allows for) coupled with the cost of incarceration in the interim often result in the cost of capital punishment proving far greater than that of life imprisonment.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

1) Wouldnt be anything to do with who is committing more crime then.
2) unproven
3) Should have thought about that before they did it.
4) Chance that you take
5 and 6) If it is voted by the majority then whats the problem.
7) Good idea.

1) No just who has the best lawyers.
2) then its not proven the other way either.
3) the murderer's family didn't commit the crime, why punish them?
4) contempt for human life that you claim to want to protect
5 & 6) [sighs.]
7) i can only assume you're joking.

 

[number11]

On average, two countries per year have abolished the death penalty since 1976, the year it was abolished in Canada. Since then the Canadian murder rate has dropped from about 3 to about 2, undermining the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent

Despite how those facts are portrayed your not suggesting the abolision of death penalty helps prevent murders!? With regard to the stats about the states, that is interesting reading, but I dont know if there is any stats that correlate to the amount of crime in the states if there wasnt such a sentance

Ie, a Southern state may have much more of a prevailance of crime, therefore introduces a death penalty. Somewhere like New Hampshire may have lower crime so doesnt feel the need for such serious punishment. The stats will still show that the Southern state has a higher crime rate despite having the death penalty, but this wouldnt necessarily point to it being no deterrant.

I personally would be in favour of the concept.....though that is subject to change depending on how recently Ive seen Prison Break or the Green Mile.

 

[steveo]

Originally Posted by steveo
1) Wouldnt be anything to do with who is committing more crime then.
2) unproven
3) Should have thought about that before they did it.
4) Chance that you take
5 and 6) If it is voted by the majority then whats the problem.
7) Good idea.

1) No just who has the best lawyers.
2) then its not proven the other way either.
3) the murderer's family didn't commit the crime, why punish them?
4) contempt for human life that you claim to want to protect
5 & 6) [sighs.]
7) i can only assume you're joking.

1) Not true in this country per centage of the population
2) Draw
3) So should we let every criminal off so it doesnt affect their family?
4) Contempt for the worst type yes - i.e murderers
5&6) ?
5) Depends how petty.

 

[jerseyshrimper]

The death penalty should be brought back for those convicted of offences against children and where scientific evidence is so overwhelming it cannot be wrong (dna proof).
If you are prepared to commit these henious crimes in the first place then you should be prepared to take the consequences and the people who are going to commit these offences may just think twice if the death penalty was being handed out.

 

[jerseyshrimper]

old blue you'r list is far more convincing than mks where i am sure as sure can be barry george and certain others in his list were guilty.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The death penalty should be brought back for those convicted of offences against children and where scientific evidence is so overwhelming it cannot be wrong (dna proof).
If you are prepared to commit these henious crimes in the first place then you should be prepared to take the consequences and the people who are going to commit these offences may just think twice if the death penalty was being handed out.

I understand DNA testing is not 100% reliable.

As for the deterrent argument, I think this is a red herring as in most cases people either (a) don't think or (b) don't think they will be caught.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Despite how those facts are portrayed your not suggesting the abolision of death penalty helps prevent murders!? With regard to the stats about the states, that is interesting reading, but I dont know if there is any stats that correlate to the amount of crime in the states if there wasnt such a sentance

Ie, a Southern state may have much more of a prevailance of crime, therefore introduces a death penalty. Somewhere like New Hampshire may have lower crime so doesnt feel the need for such serious punishment. The stats will still show that the Southern state has a higher crime rate despite having the death penalty, but this wouldnt necessarily point to it being no deterrant.

I personally would be in favour of the concept.....though that is subject to change depending on how recently Ive seen Prison Break or the Green Mile.

There is actually an argument that the possibility of the death penalty causes further crime. I'm not entirely convinced by it, but the argument is that once somebody has committed a crime that they'd face the death penalty for, they have nothing to lose, so they may as well try and shoot themselves out of trouble. So someone who has killed someone may then be more likely to go and shot the cops trying to arrest him.

 

[londonblue]

And then costs us money, and makes guards have to protect them against the wrath of other prisoners because child killers especially are never accepted.

Did you ever see the pictures of the inside of Ian Huntley's "cell"? Life of flippin' luxury albeit isolated all paid for by the tax payer.

We've been down this route so many times it's getting boring.

It costs about £250,000 per year per prisoner. (I think the actual cost is £150,000, so we're already erring on the side of caution.)

Let's say there are currently 15 people this would cover. (It really is that low because most "murderers" would probably not be counted - eg women that have murdered an abusive husband).

That makes it about £ 3,750,000 a year. Let's now divide that by 30,000,000 which is the the working population who are paying taxes.

So, it is costing each of us 12.5p a year to ensure these people rot in jail rather than take the easy option of being killed.

Moreover, how much more would it cost for these people to be kept on death row and go through appeal after appeal as they would have to be entitled to, to ensure there are no miscarriages of justice?

 

[OldBlueLady]

old blue you'r list is far more convincing than mks where i am sure as sure can be barry george and certain others in his list were guilty.

Jersey, my list was straight out of Wikipedia's list of serial killers.

I'm still not voting on this because it isn't as simple as yes or no.

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

Bring it back for paedos, rapists, Big Brother contestants and west ham fans.

 

[Andyhsufc]

I would always worry about miscarriages of justice and the fact that the person couldnt just be released (barry george for example), so it is a no for me

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

1) Not true in this country per centage of the population
2) Draw
3) So should we let every criminal off so it doesnt affect their family?
4) Contempt for the worst type yes - i.e murderers
5&6) ?
5) Depends how petty.

1) the point is not which group in society commits crime. But if you are rich you can afford a better lawyer who is more likely to get you off the charges. [note: i'm not saying every rich person who commits murder gets away with it.]

3) Have i ever said let a criminal off? No. I have advocated life imprisonment meaning exactly that. In killing a murderer i maintain you are not punishing them, they can't suffer once their 6feet under. So the only people suffering are the family.

4) No. We were talking about wrongly convicted people potentially being
sentanced to death, ie. an innocent person. A dismissive "chance you take" doesn't cut it, and shows contempt for human life.

Anyway we'll obviously never agree, I've enjoyed the debate though. Time for me to go.

 

[londonblue]

Bring it back for Big Brother contestants, west ham fans, and Col Ewe fans.

See, for the most part I abhor the idea of the death penalty, but if you would agree to my amendments, we may well have a deal!

 

[steveo]

I'm still not voting on this because it isn't as simple as yes or no.

OBL just vote yes, we're murdering em at the moment by 3

 

[londonblue]

OBL just vote yes, we're murdering em at the moment by 3

Exactly! :D