Re: death penalty?
 

yes maybe Mike but how i see it is its an eye for an eye, everyone has differing opinions on different things in life, if we didnt the world would just be madder than it already is

Re: death penalty?
 

I am a little undecided on this issue. I can see the argument for both sides of the question and I can also see the pitfalls. If our system of justice was a little more thorough and less prone to the undue influence of the bleeding heart liberal tendency, then a sentence for "life" would mean just that; the rest of a person's natural life.

As it is at the moment, if you are canny enough to convince the parole board that you are truly contrite and remorseful and keep your nose clean while in prison you can be out and free within eight years. I can well understand why the relatives of victims of murder feel that justice has not been done. The justice system appears to be weighted too far in favour of the accused. Prison life should be unpleasant and not, as it appears to be; a state sponsored holiday camp.

As long as politicians are arrogant enough to believe that they can use the prison system as a social engineering tool there will be continued calls for the return of the death penalty.

Re: death penalty?
 

well then please enlighten me on these "plenty of things" you can think of, i myself am undecided,only for the reason,that if they convict someone "bang to rights" "without question" then top em for me, plus i think there should be "differant" degrees of murder,its a complex issue n without strict boundaries then i stay undecided.

Re: death penalty?
 

Personally, I've no moral qualms about the death penalty. If someone's killed in cold blood, then they've forfeited their right to live, in my eyes. Don't know whether it's a deterrent or not, but even if it could be proved that it isn't, it still wouldn't change my views, as I believe in retributive justice.

However, I still wouldn't be in favour of restoring the death penalty, simply because of the risk of wrongful convictions. A posthumous pardon is no use to anybody! I believe that life should mean life and I would rather keep all cold-blooded murderers in prison for the rest of their lives, with all the attendant expense, than risk one innocent person being sent to the gallows. Therefore, I would be against the death penalty.

Re: death penalty?
 

I am undecided too. However, I do believe that prison life should be such that it deters people from criminal acts.......which, I don't think is the case at present.
Not to have to worry how you are going to keep warm, or where your next meal is coming from, or how to pay the bills that are necessary, must seem like a free ride.
OK, I know these folk are not free to do as they like, so their freedom is taken away....but in some cases it isn't taken away completely.

And the justice system seems crazy sometimes with embezzlers being given tougher sentences than rapists and murderers.

If I had my way I would transport the criminals to some uninhabited island and let them fend for themselves.....they could then work out their own hierarchy of justice, they would have to hunt for food, build their own shelter etc. Best of all they would be away from the society that needs protection from them.

Re: death penalty?
 

I think hard labour should be introduced, make them earn their keep in prison, and life should mean 40+ years not 12 or 15. You'll get an heavier sentence for robbing a Post Office or bank, than you would for a callous murder.

Re: death penalty?
 

It's too easy to convict someone of a horribe crime and eliminate their existence, but for an execution to be carried out someone must commit the exact same act that the criminal is being executed for.

I believe that we CANT have the death penalty because somewhere there is a law that says not to create laws that individualise people, they should be kept aimed towards everyone.
Allowing the death penalty would make it legal to murder a certain type of person, in other words criminals, and so it would have gone against this principle.

Also the risk of wrongful convictions, pain for the criminals innocent family, stuff like that. I just think its wrong in general basically.

I dont care how many people someone has killed, even if it was my own family member I would not want death upon someone. Human compassion is dangerous and should never be given authority.

Re: death penalty?
 

Can you explain what you mean by the phrase 'Human compassion is dangerous'......I can't really see how it fits in with the rest of your post.
Maybe I am having a 'grey moment'.

Re: death penalty?
 

i think a more apt word would have been emotion.....

Re: death penalty?
 

If you believe in karma, you'll get what you give and shouldn't need a punishment, they will be paid back naturally. If you believe in giving to people what they give to you, that's flawd because the person will be dead. If you believe in giving to people what they give to others why are you still friends with people and chat to people that do wrong to others. You'll all deny it to yourselves of course, but most people are of the attitude 'as long as its not me they can get on with it' until that is something brings it to the public eye, then they get all moralistic.

Death is not a punishment, there is no loss, no pain, no suffering.
Prison or hard labour is, they lose their freedom, their rights.
As for paying for them, I'd rather pay to keep a dangerous criminal in jail to do his punishment than keep some normally law abiding citizen that got desperate and stole some money. Money that's got to pay back anyway. A car thief, no matter how many cars they've stolen, I don't see how that warrants jail, community service yes, but what good will jail do, they're not dangerous.

You see what the problem is? yes the jails aren't being used for what they're meant to be used for. You want the death sentence because you don't see our jails as a sever enough punishment, so you want something more, which you see as an eye for an eye.

Re: death penalty?
 

Thats what i was trying to say. lol

Re: death penalty?
 

I was only sixteen when the death penalty was abolished, but I do know that the death penalty was only used in cases of premeditated murder, known as first degree murder, other cases were second degree murder, with a tariff of life imprisonment, then manslaughter tariff at the judges discretion. Personally I think that people like Peter Suttcliffe Ian Huntley, Ian Bradey and Hindley were pure evil and should have been hanged. There is no chance of the death penalty being brought back because Jack Straw signed away our right on matters like this With the EU, but I doubt if ever it would have been brought back anyway because we now have to many dogooders and the bleeding heart brigade.

Re: death penalty?
 

Doogooders lol yes ok, If you go to many castles you'll see how people used to be dealt with, If they were killed they were made to suffer first, but mostly they were just made to suffer.
I'd say a doogeder is someone who wants them not to suffer.

Ok put it like this, if a horse falls and is in agony and won't recover what do we do. What do we say.
shoot it and put it of it's misery. You're being kind to it.

You want to kill people so they don't suffer, so you're being kind, therefore you're the dogooder not us

Re: death penalty?
 

sorry but killers should be executed!!

no 'buts' of 'ifs', pure and simple.

Re: death penalty?
 

Against ... for reasons I have expressed before several times. If you advance the argument that it deters murder, then all the evidence defies your argument. Look at the one western democracy that routinely executes murderers and you will see that it has one of the highest crime rates and murder rates in the world. If you leave out the deterrent argument you are left with positions that I personally would be ashamed to hold.