one reason people give agaist it is that the wrong person could be killed, but advances in dna ect must make a difference from 40 years ago,is it time for a vote to use it on child killers, cop killers, serial murderers, and mass murderers terorists ect
2007-02-27 05:13:32 · 18 answers · asked by bruce m 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If a political party put it foreword, together with leaving Europe etc then I think the majority would vote for them
Also how many of the long term prisoners would prefer to be executed rather than be in prison for the rest of there lives
2007-02-27 06:58:09 · answer #1 · answered by ste53 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to say that there are no levels of murder. I would be equally upset by the Murder of a policeman as a I would the murder of a mother out for a walk or tramp dossing under the arches. Murder is murder.
Referendums are for the people to feel that they have some say over the control of the government when we are in fact all under the control of an elected dictatorship....sounds terrible but is it?
A government is voted in because we believe their manifestos that they promise to fix the trains, provide OAPs with free gas, fix the health service etc. This is rubbish of course, the real power of the country lies in the Quangos and Think Tanks that are actually 'thinking' and advising the government about the state of this country now and how it will be in 50 years time and with increasing populations this is particularly true regarding Social Control
People are too emotional to have a say about how the country should be run. After the Bulger case, were you to have had a referendum regarding the hanging of child murderers, the answers would probably have been yes. I would expect a similar decision returned if a referendum were taken after the Soham murders.
I feel very insecure thinking that a government feels it has to ask the people what it should do. I try to think positively that most civil servants are very educated people with jobs requiring them to think about solutions to hard often unpalatable problems rather than pleasing the populace as a politician would do.
Some decisions, such as tax are never put to the people as we would most likely say no and I think this should be the same for a vote on Capital punishment. I voted for the government to do the job of deciding for me. If I don't like their decision then I and everyone else can take it to the booths on polling day.
2007-02-27 21:21:53 · answer #2 · answered by newlb4u 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
DNA is fantastic for excluding people from an enquiry (your DNA doesn't match - you weren't there) but cannot prove that a person is guilty. It is too easy for DNA to be innocently transferred to a scene where the person never set foot (e.g. a single hair). Besides, the rate of false positive samples (samples where the lab says its a match, but it isn't) is about 1 in 200. People get wow-ed by CSI and Silent Witness into thinking DNA is this magic infallible tool.
Capital punisment is just wrong. You're taking a life to say that taking a life is wrong. It devalues life itself. It has no deterrant value and many studies have shown that the murder rate goes UP after the death penalty is introduced. It is disproportionately imposed on the poor and ethnic minorities. It punished innocent people i.e. the friends and family of the person being killed - they haven't committed a crime. It is an act of revenge - revenge can never have a place in a civilised justice system.
2007-02-27 13:32:43 · answer #3 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Before there can be a vote on capital punishment, the UK would have to opt out of Europe since capital punishment is illegal under the European Court of Human Rights Article 1 - The right to life.
2007-02-27 13:25:17 · answer #4 · answered by nemesis 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no need there have been numerous polls over the years and the vast majority are in favour but the politicians say they know better than the people who vote them in and cant just do something because the majority want it .If you think about it if that was the case than we wouldn't need a government.
2007-02-27 14:16:21 · answer #5 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Again the government will not as the Political Correct lobby will have their say. Bring the cane back into schools as well and Borstal and National service. If we not take action soon we will have anarchy on the streets.
2007-02-27 18:51:15 · answer #6 · answered by deadly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Last time I checked up on this there was a vote being held ANNUALLY!!
This was being done, of course, within Westminster Houses of Parliament in London. As far as I know this has not changed. Therefore, you already have your answer. If you feel strong enough, lobby your member of Parliament and request that he/she takes note of the view of the constituents.
2007-02-27 13:26:39 · answer #7 · answered by lochbapt 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, because we now conform to a wider set of regulations for human rights, controlled by no nation in particular and held by the U.N.
The reason for this is to prevent individual countries from heading down the path of reducing human rights in order to appease a rabid voting public.
2007-02-27 13:23:05 · answer #8 · answered by singlecell_amoeba 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
there should be but of course in this dictatorship theres no likleyhood of that. Its all against EU laws.
I am personaly in favour of it when there is near as damn 100% proof that the crime was commited by the accused.
2007-02-27 13:33:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
this question is a hoary old chestnut
it will never happen
dont waste time thinking about it
civilised countries dont execute people
2007-02-27 13:28:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋