do you think we should introduce the Death penalty?

Question

With the crowding of prisons coming into the public eye do you think we should give murderers and paedophiles an easy life in prison or should we have the death penalty for SERIOUS crimes that have been committed

Answer 1

There is always a chance that someone convicted MIGHT be innocent. However, in cases where people are caught red handed and with current DNA capabilities in rape and child molestation cases I think particularly pedophiles and child killers should be executed with absolute proof of guilt. I also think they should have only two appeals available to them. The state and national supreme courts then waste them. The same for serial killers, Arsonists whose crimes result in a death and other serious, viscious crimes. We can build more prisons for the cases in which most of the evidence was circumstantial but we can't build more children to replace the lost.

Answer 2

No way - it doesn't work. America has the death penalty and they have a way bigger problem with serious crime than the UK.

Plus - do we really think our police and justice system are so good that they couldn't possibly make a mistake (bearing in mind that hardly a week goes by without another major re-trial)? What about those ladies who were put into prison for murdering their own babies, simply because an expert said that it was unlikely that 2 children would die of cot death in the same family? These poor women were released when it became clear that the causes of some cot deaths can be heriditary.... and therefore REALLY likely to happen twice to one family. Those poor women would be dead by now if we had the death penalty for murder.

Secondly - what makes us better than them if we do decide to take a life for a life? Our legal system is based on protecting the public and rehabilitating offenders - the idea that people can have a second chance. If our legal system is about revenge then its nothing better than a lynch-mob.

Have you ever done anything in your life for which you were sorry? Broke your sister's favourite doll, nicked the sweets off your birthday cake, kicked a football through the greenhouse....? Weren't you glad that it was forgotten? What would the punishment for that be in your hyper-disciplinary world? OK, it's not a serious crime, but do we all agree what is and what isn't?

Two hundred years ago you would have been hanged for stealing a pig. People were hanged for stealing the bread to feed their families - I'm not exaggerating, its absolutely true. After a while our society finally saw that this was inhumane. Who would want to drag us back in that direction?

Answer 3

No, the death penalty should never be reintroduced to this country. For such criminals as paedophiles, a life in prison is far worse than a quick death. They thrive on notoriety and would get off on the furore surrounding their death.

Who would determine whether a crime was serious enough to warrant execution? Would we not be lowering ourselves to their standards in killing them? What about if there was some way in which they were actually innocent?

If the death penalty was really a deterrent then there would be no serious crimes committed in the US, for example, where some states still have the death penalty. Criminals there still commit crime even though they know that in being found guilty they will be executed. Arguably, more criminals may go that extra step further and kill their victim thinking that they are going to be executed anyway, they might as well go down all guns blazing, so to speak.

Answer 4

Use of the dealth penalty (dp) is a contentious issue. In arabic states there is little crime, which may be partly use to the strict Shia laws which include use of the dp. In the US, which also uses the (dp) there is still a high crime rate. The dp does not allow for human error, or the uncovering of new evidence. Sentences cannot really be reviewed. Also convicts have to be housed whilst waiting for the dp which negates the idea of reducing the number of inmates. Therefore building more prisons, maybe with a harsher regime and life sentances to mean life is the way discussions about prison policy should go.

Answer 5

Everyone has a story to tell. One commits crime or does good things for a reason. Both are prompted by either a good or bad reason. And when someone commits a heinous crime, I believe the justice system of humanity is inadequate to judge any human being's actions. We all commit crimes. We all sin. whether you agree or not. The only difference is that others are caught and others are not. Perhaps, our crimes also differ in degrees according to the human eye. But the fact remains that we all do wrong. What we should do is to address the problem without eliminating life. Who knows? You may have done something bad that pushed the other to do worse? Killing the killer only creates another sin. The process of solving the problem without killing may be costly but we are gifted with minds to face any challenge. And that makes life interesting! Life, whoever has it, is precious. Each life has a purpose. We, with our limitations, have no right to order someone's death.

Answer 6

NEVER. If the state kills a person, no matter how evil they are, does that make the state a killer too?? The death penalty exists is some US states, but does it stop killers from killing... no.
Prison crowding is a big issue so why don't we sent some offenders to the Falkland isles and do a bit of quarrying or something?? Or even some free national service for less serious offenders therefore keeping prisons free for killers and rapists.

Answer 7

The only problem with the death penalty, as far as I can see, is the potential of making a mistake. However, I would say if you're 99% certain you've got the right man/woman then hang them.

As for the other 1%, chances are they're a bad person anyway. After all, what are the chances of a perfectly respectable and honest person ending up being accused of a serious crime?

It's much more likely that a person who's been in trouble before is charged with a crime they didn't commit, in which case that'll be a lesson for them won't it :)

Answer 8

Personally I would say yes for serious crimes[murder, child abuse, terrorism etc]. These days we have DNA to rely on which wasnt available in the past when mistakes were made and innocent people were condemned to the death penalty. So yes if someone is definately guilty without question the death penalty should be introduced. it would save the taxpayer a fortune and ease the overcrowding.

Answer 9

Are an easy life or death really the only two options? Why not make prison the punishment its supposed to be.

Anyway, many kiddy fiddlers get beaten up by prisoners who seem to think that their crimes are not worthy of a good beating.

I think we should let the paedophiles beat up the murderers and armed criminals for a change.

Answer 10

Technically we still have the death penalty on the statute book for a few offences (arson in her majesty's dockyard and all that). But we can never ever impose it as it's outlawed under EU human rights law.

In answer to your question. No. Absolutely not. Just look at that miscarriages of justice over the last decade. In almost all cases where the conviction has been quashed the poor guy/woman would've been hung if we'd used the death penalty.