other country's inforce it so why don't we.maybe people will think twice before murder,child abuse,serial rapist's.as long as they can get away with such crimes there going to do it.you get life and only do eight years it's a joke.
2006-10-24 05:50:19 · 39 answers · asked by paul s 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Let's not. If it's such a wonderful deterrent why does the USA have such a high homicide rate?
2006-10-24 05:54:06 · answer #1 · answered by Huh? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think that we should (in the UK) for practical reasons more than anything else:
1. The experience in countries which have the death penalty tends to show that it is not a deterrent.
2. Most murders are domestic crimes of passion. Again, when the 'red mist' comes down then the penalty - any penalty - is the last thing in the offender's mind
3. There is the real risk that juries would be less likely to convict if they knew that their decision might condemn the offender to death. Better a live rapist locked away for a good long time than a live rapist not convicted / convicted of a lesser crime because the jury knew that conviction would lead to the death penalty.
A dear friend of mine was killed by a youth driving stolen car which ran him down as he tried to stop it (he was a police officer). The offender got 4 years at Court. I never considered the death penalty for him.
How would I feel if it were my daughter who was raped or murdered? I don't know and I hope that I never have to find out. But for the reasons above I do not believe that bringing back the death penalty is a good idea - and I haven't even mentioned miscarriages of justice......
2006-10-26 22:49:03 · answer #2 · answered by Hilary Y 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off, killing someone because of their crimes in not the answer. Using scare tactics is not going to stop others from killing. People who kill are not in the right frame of mind it they cannot rationalize penalties for such a crime. The urge is too great in them. If this country spent more research on mental illness and trying to help these people rather than screwing up the penal system and trying to fill their fat pockets, there would be less people committing such acts of atrocities. Correctional facilities are a joke. In no way to they 'correct' the problem. They're just big holding pens for human 'wild animals' waiting to be re-released back into the wild without rehabilitation.
2006-10-24 05:56:39 · answer #3 · answered by Maureen B 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why put a miserable person right to the end? I would say, do not bring back the death penalty but introduce the following laws:-
For child abuse and serial rapists - Revocation of Human Rights, Amputation of the Sexual Organ with a Tatoo on the fore head saying 'Sexual Offender'
For murderers and serial killers - Revocation of human rights. Amputation of both legs so they do not run away and commit further killings. Amputation of the fingers so they will not be able to grasp any weapons.
So if 8 yrs in jail are a joke, the rest of their life living in complete misery and disability will no longer be a joke.
And this will be Eye for an Eye
2006-10-25 07:38:55 · answer #4 · answered by ville009 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Let's not.
It isn't a deterrent and too many mistakes were made when it was used. People who commit such crimes don't think of the consequences, so the punishment is irrelevant to their decision.
And people who get away with such crimes, don't get any punishment!
Just a little test, can you reference a single case of a life prisoner getting out in 8 years? Name one? No, I thought not - you've just been listening to Sun readers ranting in the pub again.
2006-10-24 05:59:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is a joke. But that's the mistake made by government and the judiciary system, they are out of touch with reality over sentences. But they are under pressure not to send people to prison because of the overcrowding. Until they build secure prisons for the worst of society without the bleeding hearted liberals wanting these prisons to be on the doorsteps of the criminals relatives. Then we can address the problem properly. Where criminals are housed should not be dictated by their relatives who want to visit them. When someone is given a long term sentence they should forfeit human rights in many shapes and forms.
Prisons have excellent gym and library facilities, many of them are like hotels, but they are all short staffed. Lack of privacy is probably the biggest problem in prisons. A lot of prisons do a good job in rehabilitation, not everyone can be rehabilitated.
Taking their lives is the easy way out for them. Taking away their liberty, freedom, choice and ability to do the crime again is the punishment. Protection for society should be paramount, rehabilitation should not come second to public safety.
No to the death penalty.
Yes to secure lockup prisons where it would be impossible for drugs to get in, prisoners to harm each other or themselves.
2006-10-27 13:34:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well in the U.S the death penalty is alive and well. But allow me to vociferate. Anyone that thinks that people that get the death penalty cannot appreciate what they have done are either myopic or suffer from mild retardation. People who get the death penalty are sociopaths. A sociopath KNOWS the difference between right and wrong, but they do not CARE. Psychopaths do not know the difference between right and wrong hence that is why they are not executed. Very few crimes fit the death penalty statutes of most states. People need to educate themselves on what the death penalty means in their specific state. Most people are using their gut instead of research
Cheers, Scott
2006-10-24 06:21:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree where there is absolutely "no doubt" then capital punishment should be used. I know they have the death penalty in America, but they also have a long drawn out appeal system, thus allowing the condemned to sit on death row for years and years. I would suggest that if found guilty the execution should take place the next day. If they want any volunteers to administer the sentence, then call me. I"ll do it for free.
2006-10-24 06:17:01 · answer #8 · answered by researcher 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I doubt the reinstatement of the death penalty would reduce the number of murders etc being committed. History shows this to be the case.
As for the period of time an offender stays in prison...well we can thank our 'do gooders' in some way for this.
Having said that, if all offenders were kept in custody for as long as we as law abiding citizens would like (regardless of the offence committed)...we could rename the UK...we could call it Alcatraz!
2006-10-24 21:55:52 · answer #9 · answered by lippz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have the death penalty in the USA and crime statistics there are horrific. I don't think the death penalty is necessary a deterrent. I agree that sentences should be much longer. I even think we should follow other countries and give these criminals years if hard labour.
2006-10-24 05:53:08 · answer #10 · answered by Ally 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if we think about here in britain, bank robbery will get you 25 years, while the rape of a child might get you just a few, three or four or five.
recently the chief of enron in america was given 25 years for some sort of major fraud as we all know.
and someone who knocks down and kills a child while speeding in a car might get much less. that is disgusting, the taking of one's life is such a heinous crime that there is only one puinishment fit enough.
so bring back the death penalty hear hear
2006-10-24 06:01:20 · answer #11 · answered by troubled genius 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋