Death penalty - for or against

[blue scorpion]

A number of preospective EU countries over the years have

Turkey will have to stop the death penalty if they want to join the EU.

That may be the case but it is not connected with Britains decision to abolish years ago.

 

[londonblue]

Mate, I take your point and I find myself really on the fence on this issue as I can see strong arguments on both sides but I've edited your post to prove a point.

That's the key question for me as there's more than enough people who have been wrongly convicted.

What point have you made? The point I made was the opposite of another view to show that it works both ways and that emotion should be kept out of it.

All you have done is back up my argument.

 

[canveyshrimper]

It's all been said, I am against the death penalty, and I am sure that I would feel the same even if it was one of my loved ones.

As YB put it we can't trust the state to look after computer records and collect our rubbish, let alone putting "guilty people" to death.

Having said that the amount of innocent people who are sentenced to death by those nice people from NICE shows the state to condemn folk to die.

 

[South Bank Hank]

What point have you made? The point I made was the opposite of another view to show that it works both ways and that emotion should be kept out of it.

All you have done is back up my argument.

I was "mis"quoting Dave the Shrimper to show that it works both ways and that emotion should be kept out of it. I didn't actually see your post before replying but it seems to me we're making the same point!

If all I have done is back up your argument then I heartily applaud myself.

 

[jerseyshrimper]

What a load of cobs bring back the death penalty in cases where scientific eveidence cannot be challenged end of story. An eye for an eye and a b tooth for a tooth.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

Would also be interested to know how many on the No vote would feel the same if someone they loved was killed in cold blood.....

Yes I believe i would feel the same way.

If my loved one's murderer was given the death penalty and killed their suffering would be over, while mine would continue to the end of my natural life. I would want the killer to go to prison for the rest of their natural life, so that that they suffered the same.

 

[londonblue]

I was "mis"quoting Dave the Shrimper to show that it works both ways and that emotion should be kept out of it. I didn't actually see your post before replying but it seems to me we're making the same point!

If all I have done is back up your argument then I heartily applaud myself.

In that case, then so do I!

 

[Firestorm]

What a load of cobs bring back the death penalty in cases where scientific eveidence cannot be challenged end of story. An eye for an eye and a b tooth for a tooth.

But that term "Eye for an eye etc" was not about punishment, it was about limiting revenge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

The way I read it is that by the strict definition of the phrase the Murderer would not be executed, the Victims parents (for example) would be able to deprive him of a child.

 

[Firestorm]

According to this site http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi03t.html

Under Commonwealth law, the death penalty was abolished in 1973 (in Australia) by s.4 of the Death Penalty Abolition Act, 1973.


I believe that Commonwealth law is based on the traditions of English law and therefore any changes in English law will have an effect on Commonwealth law.
Thus the abolition of the Death penalty would have had implications in Commonwealth law and therefore had an influence in the abolition of the death penalty in Australia.

 

[Pubey]

Having said that the amount of innocent people who are sentenced to death by those nice people from NICE shows the state to condemn folk to die.

you're right... those people at NICE are very pleasant!;)

It would be great if we could live in a world where unlimited money and resources could be thrown at our health care whenever we are ill or dying... and in 99% of cases you're likely to get exactly the care you need. However the NHS doesn't have unlimited pots of money, and so difficult decisions over treatments that are allowed to be used in the NHS have to be made.

Please understand that the decisions by NICE aren't made by money-pinching accountants from the government, but by independent academic experts, clinicians, health care professionals, the pharmaceutical industry and crucially, patient and career representatives.

I can understand why NICE are extremely unpopular, and I find it challenging to not take everything so personally. However if we want to stand by the values set out by the NHS 60 years ago, of 'equal access/care for equal need', and for NHS funding to be purely tax based, then decisions have to be made at the margin to determine which treatments are not cost-effective, and where it is best to focus our resources.


If people want to grind an axe, then have a look at the case of Mrs O'Boyle at Southend Hospital, and how the government policy rules that patients cannot top up their own care out of their pocket. Currently they either have to be fully private or fully NHS funded. here

...anyway this is completely off topic...


I'm against the death penalty!

 

[Uncle Leo]

Having said that the amount of innocent people who are sentenced to death by those nice people from NICE shows the state to condemn folk to die.

Also known as NASTY - 'Not Available, So Treat Yourself'

 

[Reg Martin]

I can't see how you can have a rule of law that is based on a book written over 2000 years ago where we still lived in mud huts.

Hmm, strictly speaking it was over 3000 years ago and the Hebrews lived in tents not mud hunts, but that apart it does seem that on the voting on this thread, the openly Christian and Atheist Shrimpers seem to be voting the same way on this. Well, there's a first time for everything I suppose;)

 

[Medway Blue]

Easy way out for criminals. Not much of a punishment, since as soon as they're dead, that's it for them - it matters not whether the death was painful mentally and physically because they are dead and can no longer feel anything. Criminals need to be made to suffer for their wrongs with an appropriate sentence w/o parole in a crappy jail WITHOUT televisions. Make their morale suffer, their will to live suffer - give them a hard time and make them suffer. Some might prefer death to the knowledge that they have to spend God knows how long behind bars. Death penalty isn't the way forward I'm afraid.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

I would have to say NO i am afraid, for 2 reason covered already, firstly it is an easy way out for the killer, but more importantly, the age old argument that the evidence is flawed and they could actually be innocent.

just of the top of my head, these guys would all be dead right now instead of being released from prison after being found to be wrongly convicted of murder.

Ray Krone - Served 10 years
Stefan Kiszko - Served 16 years
Michael O'Brien - Served 11 Years
Robert Brown - Served 25 years
Michael Hickey - Served 18 years
Vincent Hickey - Served 18 years

Incidentally the Brothers Hickey above, who were found to be innocent were told to give back 25% of there compensation to cover Board and living expenses by the Law Lords.

Even Dr Hawley Crippen, who was actually hung for murder should should have been released but alas the death penalty was law back then so the mistakes and corruption was unable to be reversed.

Forensics experts suggest that the case against Crippen, who was hanged in 1910, has so many anomalies that the only plausible explanation points to him being set up by detectives desperate to ensure a conviction after failing to catch Jack the Ripper two decades earlier.

Faced with pressure from a horrified public, the media and Winston Churchill, then home secretary, the police may have resorted to planting evidence and suppressing documents that could have helped to prove Crippen’s innocence at his trial.

 

[Gremlin]

I see that Colin Stagg has been compensated yesterday for the time he spent in custody having been wrongly convicted of murder. How would a dead man be compensated?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7559026.stm

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

I see that Colin Stagg has been compensated yesterday for the time he spent in custody having been wrongly convicted of murder. How would a dead man be compensated?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7559026.stm

Exactly the reason to say NO to the Death penealty

 

[OldBlueLady]

I see that Colin Stagg has been compensated yesterday for the time he spent in custody having been wrongly convicted of murder. How would a dead man be compensated?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7559026.stm

Actually they wouldn't be - obviously, but as in the case, I believe, of Derek Bentley, there would be a posthumous pardon and any compensation would go to the next of kin.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Upholding the law by committing murder. You could legalise rape as a punishment for rapists and it'd still be rape - i.e. not the kind of thing that a civilised society should be indulging in. If you lower yourself to the level of the criminal, then from what moral highground do you act?

Does this understanding of right or wrong extend to Sharia Law?

 

[steveo]

How would a dead man be compensated?

He wouldnt. But as he wouldnt know he was due compensation the question is rather irrelevant.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

He wouldnt. But as he wouldnt know he was due compensation the question is rather irrelevant.

Maybe the question should be..........how should his young wife and 2 year old little girl be compensated for the loss of a husband and a father?????