If so why and fo which sort of crimes? Murder only or do other crimes deserve death?
If not, why not?
2006-10-25 22:00:46 · 32 answers · asked by abluebobcat 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It makes no difference what anybody thinks. Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/114.htm
There is no possibility of Britain renouncing the Convention. Virtually ALL European countries are members of its sponsoring Council of Europe (Strasbourg) and signatories to the Convention.
Britain could not remain in the European Union and not be a signatory to the Convention. To leave the EU would destroy the British economy and upend its politics. Whatever the UKIP thinks.
But the following might give you pause for thought, although it, too, is impossible:
A couple of months ago a Y! Q/A participant on the French list asked the following: "Qui, au 19° siècle, avait proposé d'abolir la peine de mort, et, à la place, de crever les yeux du condamné ?" ("Who, in the 19th Century, proposed abolishing the death penalty and, in its place, plucking out the eyes of the condemned?")
The Asker, a secondary school teacher in France, got no replies and so he gave his answer: Jules Ferry. Ferry was French minister of education in the 19th Century, and a lot of streets and schools are named after him -- after all he instituted free, secular education for all. I haven't been able to track down such a proposal on any site, French or otherwise, and I note that the Asker has since deleted his question. Still, plucking out eyes isn't so final as the guillotine, is it?
2006-10-25 23:18:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I do not think the death penalty should be brought back to Britain for a number of reasons. I think killing anyone is wrong and we as humans do not have the right to take away lives. I think the death penalty is somewhat hypocritical in that by sentancing a murderer to death we are in effect saying what you did was wrong so now we are going to do teh same to you. What kind of message does this give to people? We should practice what we are preaching. you cannot condemn one crime an then because it suits use the very same 'crime' as 'law.
I am however very aware of the feelings of those families who have been victims of a crime and have to live with the sadness of such a thing but i also feel that no amoutnt of punishment will ever replace their loved ones. On some level i also feel that death is an easy way out for them. Why should they simply be put to sleep? Why not making them suffer the guilt of their actions?
On a more practical note the death penalty s actually more expensive than imprisonment. Appeals have to be done etc and this process takes a long time (10-15 years) after this there is the cost of all the things needed to kill some one in a 'humane' way, so even in terms of this the death penalty should never be brought back.
2006-10-25 22:16:52 · answer #2 · answered by shug A 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
A difficult, somewhat emotive issue, but I don't believe the death penalty should exist. People say it should for murderers, but if you think killing someone is wrong, why are you prepared to kill someone who has committed that crime? Killing someone is either wrong or it's not, if you agree with the death penalty, then you're saying it's ok to kill people in certain circumstances. If that's the case, why isn't ok for murderers in certain circumstances? Ok for the state, but not everyday people? Doesn't sound right to me. Anyway, many killings are done in the spur of the moment, crimes of passion, drunken fights etc, a deterrent won't stop these from happening. And if someone's cold enough to commit premeditated murder, they're probably going to try and not get caught anyway. And for terrorists? How does one define a terrorist? Death penalty for suicide bombers, hmmm don't think that'll stop 'em! And who defines a terrorist? Seems that terrorism is being used to describe virtually anyone who challenges the great American way of life, and let's not forget why we've got 'terrorists' in the first place. Sorry, but I don't agree with the taking of any life, for any reason, whether you're a criminal, terrorist, government, army or anyone. Let's deal with the causes, not the symptoms!
Oh, and by above, drug trafficking??? As serious as murder? Get out of here!!! I'm assuming that you're only about 12 though, so you're forgiven. I mean, it's not as though they'd really differentiate between the really dangerous drugs, and more purely recreational ones, is it? Look at the facts, cannabis is still illegal isn't it?
2006-10-25 22:21:20 · answer #3 · answered by punkrockdreadlock 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Being a Law student my opinion is that it should, with overwhelming evidence that the accused perpetrated the said crime. The existence of the human rights act though provides for every human to be given the same rights, article 2 states the right to life?!!! the death penalty is in direct conflict with such law. there are also provisions that provide for 'no person shall be subject to degrading, torture or humiliating treatment. is there an argument for a person being on death row being tortured - in the sense that he does not no when his end will be?.....
i personally think a life for a life, it would free up the cells reduce the tax payers charge. Most mass murders try commit suicide anyway.... Shipman, Fred West etc.....
an interesting question though.
just a funny for you........ 400 yrs ago stealing a sheep was death sentence punishment!
2006-10-26 02:56:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are many crimes that I feel deserve the death penalty.
What if somebody has committed several heinous crimes (The Yorkshire Ripper, Moors murderers, Fred West, perpetrators of serious gang crime?), has pleaded guilty and there is overwhelming evidence of all types?
What if it can be proved that someone plotted to and had the means to kill 1000s of innocent civilians? Recent airline bomb plotters. Do they deserve to live? To be released in 15 years time?
And the argument that it would not deter suicide bombers is correct in itself, but the masterminds behind these schemes do not go around blowing themselves up (on purpose).
Advances in DNA technology and general forensics mean that it is much less likely that an innocent person would be killed.
2006-10-26 21:25:54 · answer #5 · answered by RobMGS 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The UK still has the Death Penalty for two crimes.Treason and setting fire to Her Majesty's Docks.
I personally agree with the Death Penalty for other crimes such as Terrorism,child murder,pre-meditated murder and killing Police Officers.
I would not agree with other crimes being given this sentence because too many mistakes have been made in the past.
2006-10-25 22:21:34 · answer #6 · answered by mentor 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes
The whole system need a kick up the ***. Crime against children certainly needs addressing. But as for capital punishment - Murder Only - It would clear some cells if we started now. Eye for an Eye an all that.
2006-10-26 04:35:19 · answer #7 · answered by dcukldon 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
as a penalty for the most serious crimes (murder and drug trafficking etc) I would support it in principle
The only thing that I have reservations about is the ability of the police to get the right man. After all it's not unknown for them to shoot and kill the wrong person.
2006-10-25 22:16:01 · answer #8 · answered by bw_r005t3r 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No as you could kill the wrong person and anyway,dosen't murder count as a crime?
Two wrongs don't make a right!
Anyway, didn't a kid get hung for stealing a tin of paint?
People will be killed for petty crimes like this if the government re-introduces the death penalty.
2006-10-26 07:25:50 · answer #9 · answered by catlover1995 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, I don't believe in the death penalty.
Killing someone 'legally' is still murder, there is no wasy to justify it. We need to portray we are a humane soceity and the death penaly is inhumane.I also think it is the easy way out for people who have committed a crime, they should be left to sit in jail forever.. with no hope of release. I think that can be worse than death. Some people argue that it is a waste of tax payers money to keep someone in death for life, but actually they are wrong. The cost of the appeals and all that go us up leading to an execution that takes many many years, is far more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life. You also have to think of the family of the criminal, they have done nothing wrong and yet they still have to suffer if one of their family members die. Imagine it was someone if your family that had done something wrong, you would still love them unconditionally. Also, there might be a chance that the person on death row is actually innocent, and what if he is proven innocent after his execution. A innocent man's blood will be on the hands of Britain.
2006-10-25 22:09:18 · answer #10 · answered by amzalama 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋