Does 2007 Britian need the death penalty?

Question

Is the increasse in murder and rape a sign that we need a stronger deterrent than a ten year prision sentence or have we moved on, and it now no longer has a place in our society? What do you think?

Answer 1

yes.
but the only way this will successfully work is if we remove their human rights, first.
the criminal now has more rights than their victims, in some cases, for example a paedophile care-taker is allowed to stay in the tied cottage in the grounds of the school where he abused children!

& the chances of re-reintroducing the death penalty is in direct conflict with Human Rights, so don't build your hopes up.
but i agree we need to do something & soon.
the scum of society is walking over our human rights so what can we do other than put these revolting people out of their misery?
i dread to think about it but if they don't do something soon, vigilante gangs will form & make the whole darn system worse!

Answer 2

No - it doesn't need the death penalty.

It does not act as a deterrent, as any State which authorises capital punishment can confirm.

The only purpose for the death penalty is that it performs the Old Testament "an eye for an eye" aspect of punishment. I'd like to think we've moved on from that, although it has alot of support from the populist-minded, who seem to think it would somehow stop people committing murder.

The funniest (or saddest?) argument that I've heard recently on here is that it would deter suicide bombers...not quite the most thought-out argument, perhaps...


p.s. And just read through the above and seen what Yer Acker I be wrote - Exhibit 'A', my Lord. By the way,

(1) The Maastricht Treary has nothing to do with the end of capital punishment. Go read up before spouting off your ill-informed rhetoric and try starting with the European of Convention Rights Protocols...

(2) I notice you mentioned nothing about the Middle East nations having the death penalty - doesn't supporting the Islam stance go in your favour for once, here?

(3) The United States has the death penalty. Does it have many incidents of rape or murder, do you think?

(4) Being anti-death penalty is not the preserve of "mincing lefties".

Answer 3

it may be introduced back, as different human beings have reported in this positioned up proper to the advances of DNA. i can verify the ingredient of veiw from the guy who had reported the dying penalty for anyone elderly 17 or over, yet in the eyes of the regulation, babies 14 and over are classed as adults and can be tried in an person courtroom... so my own opinion could be for the age of 14, while for sure a 14 year previous could desire to be attentive to the version between suited and incorrect. it may additionally act as a deterrant to any vicious homicide.

Answer 4

There are smarter and less expensive alternatives to the death penalty. Before people in Britain make up their minds, they should look at the experience of the US with the death penalty. Here are a few facts about the American death penalty system and alternatives. The sources are listed below.

The death penalty risks executing innocent people (124 already exonerated) and DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

No reputable study has shown the death penalty to be a deterrent. In fact, homicide rates are higher in states (and nations) with the death penalty.

Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Supermax prisons are terrible places to spend the rest of your life.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison.

The death penalty can be very hard on families of murder victims. Many murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn- out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

The death penalty does not apply to the worst of the worst. It applies to defendants with the worst lawyers.

48% of Americans prefer life without parole and 47% prefer the death penalty. We are learning. I hope we will catch up with countries like Britain.

Answer 5

No absolutely not. It does not act as a deterrent as you can see if you look at the crime rate in countries with the death penalty. Anyway, thanks to the Human Rights Act it is illegal and very likely to remain so. There have been enough miscarriages of justices in Britain in modern times. Imagine how much more unjust those mistakes would have been with capital punishment. It doesn't bare thinking about.

Very well put Gilders. Couldn't agree more.

Answer 6

Nope.

Look at the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4,. Look at Stefan Kizko.

Look at the murder rates in the USA, it doesn't work, Nobody commits a felony expecting to be caught.


extract

At the trial, Kiszko said correctly that he never had met [Lesley] Moleseed and therefore could never have murdered her. His denials of murder were not believed, nor were his claims that the confession was bullied out of him by the police. The teenage girls who made the exposure claims were commended by the trial Judge, Mr (Later Sir) Hugh Park, for their "Bravery and honesty" and "Sharp observations" after the conviction was secured by a 10-2 majority jury verdict on 21 July 1976 at Leeds Crown Court. The mother of one of the teenage girls said that "Children are a lot safer now this monster has been put away" after Kiszko's conviction. She also attacked the police for not arresting him earlier and called for Kiszko to be executed.

The "Bravery and Honesty" commendation was to later ring bitterly ironic, as all three girls later admitted in 1991, during the investigation of Kiszko's conviction, that what they said was false and what they said in 1975 and 1976 was done for "A laugh".

Answer 7

When the death penalty was abolished it was supposed to be replaced by life sentences. Life no longer means life - it can be as little as 3 or 4 years. The public has been cheated and our lives are no longer safe. I don't like the death penalty but murderers and terrorists should serve life.

Answer 8

It has no place.

For a deterrent to be effective a person must
1) believe that they'll be caught
2) believe they have something to loose
3) believe they are doing something wrong
4) understand that there are consequences to their actions
5) be able to overcome immediate gratification

Effectively, deterrents only deter those who wouldn't do it in the first place.

Answer 9

ABSO-BLOODY-LUTELY!

High time we had hangings back again. And make em public to, what's what.
Love to see them conspiring bastards of 7/7 hang for their crimes, I would.

Hanging and Birching has massive public support. When the Maastricht Treaty was signed- we British lost not just our national dignity- we lost our thick dangly rope too. The fool below obviously is not aware that there were several Maastricht Treaties ((1994) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe), was the straw that broke the proverbial's back and I submit it to you as proof:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/cig1996/03832en7.pdf

I know of only one political party who would re-introduce it and it's not the pompous mincers of either Labour or Tories.

Singapore has hangings and canings- why can't we?
Most of East and South East Asia has the death penalty- and everyone who visits comments favourably on how peaceable the people are.
Japan still has hangings- and it's the 2nd largest world economy- what are the people like there?

In Singapore- there is almost NO graffiti, no litter and kids are rarely kidnapped and raped. Girls can walk streets safely on their way home from school and not be molested- no matter what they wear.

Only mincing Lefties will bang on about how it's not a deterrent-
you hang 7/7's bomber's carcasses out in front of a mosque and we'll see how many new bombings we'll be getting.

Edit:
Per'aps what I should have said is stuff the 7/7 bastards in a nice Somerset sow- then hang em!

That's complete bollocks about the length and cost of death penalties- Singapore has proven a long drop and a short stop are much cheaper than subsidising the partasites of society.

The issue is purely because American judiciary is too poorly equipped and administered to adequately enforce it. Juris Prudence Britannae has a much shorter appeals process- the American one is almost a continuous loop!

Notice the mincing left have not yet discredited the case for either Japan or Singapore yet.

Nor have they for Iran nor Saudi Arabia- where it is a gruesome public affair- ye4t what are are their murder rates especially in comparison to the land where freedom- means not taking personal responsibility and impinging freely upon the rights of others and play the race card at every opportunity

America is an extremely poor role model for any form of comparison, especially with its' well-known pay-for-justice system and it's extreme lack of due diligence in pursuing white-collar crime such as Enron.

How safe were the streets of England in the 1950's I ask? Compare to nowadays Leftists' "respeck" society and their beloved panacea of multi-culturalism. Interesting how it seems to correspond well with increased crime?

Mincing bleeding-heart Lefties to a one of them. Prove me wrong on Singapore and Japan.

Answer 10

Definitely not. We are supposed to becoming more civilised, not less.
Long mandatory sentences with no chance of early release are the way to go in punishing criminals such as rapists, murderers and child molesters.