What are your ideas about Capital Punishment been re-introduced in Britain?

Question

Everyday, we hear on the news about people being killed and so on. Especially in London, people are killed every now and then. Is Capital Punishment really the solution to this issue? What are your suggestions? Should it be re-introduced or not?

Answer 1

I believe that the reintroduction of a death penalty is a step backwards socially. The fact that it was abolished in the first place is evident that 50 years ago people thought it archaic. No one human being or community has the right to decide who lives and who dies. Bestowing this power on society has not led to good things - it instills governments and nations with a dangerous sense of power and I think actually contributes to the breakdown of lawfullness. Can you think of a country which advocates the death penalty that you would consider to be socially advanced?

An eye for an eye? Yes I can understand why people retaliate in the heat of the moment - you punch me, chances are I'll punch you back. But to premeditate the end of a life? Murder, plain and simple.

In my humble opinion of course!

Answer 2

You will have many answers saying that the death penalty doesn't work. Statistically they are wrong - there is not a single case of ANYONE who has been executed EVER committing another crime. It is 100% effective.

BUT: there are two answers to this question. The first is that, were there a referendum, the population would vote overwhelmingly in favour of the death penalty for some crimes.

Unfortunately, that matters not one jot - the death penalty is against European Law and the question will NEVER arise again as long as we remain members of the EU.

That's democracy. The figures for homicide BEFORE abolition in 1965 and today make very sorry reading. There were 80 homicides in the UK 1965 - last year there were 800. And in London alone, 24 TEENAGERS have already been murdered this year.

Well done the liberals.

(Incidentally Ron, the Guildford 4 were found (eventually, on appeal) Not Guilty. That was on technicalities and the Appeal Court Judges took great pain to explain that the success of the appeal did NOT mean that they had not committed the offence - merely that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory. You will find very few people who were involved closely with all of the IRA trials that ended with the convicted men and women being successful on appeal who are anything other than 100% CERTAIN of their guilt. You will remember the "George Davies is Innocent" campaign. He was successful on appeal, only to be caught yet again committing another robbery.

Very, very few trials end with anything other than the right verdict: I will conced that some do, but forget that with the high profile cases that are always quoted. They had huge financial resources behind their legal teams (US money).

The police at the time saw the crimes up close and personal. There is no way - NO WAY AT ALL - when you see what they did that you want to convict anyone other than the inhuman monsters who did it. No satisfaction is EVER gained by convicting the wrong people.

You will be telling us that Martin McGuinness is innocent next - He was convicted by the Republic of Ireland's Special Criminal Court in 1973, after being caught with a car containing 250 lb (113 kg) of explosives and nearly 5,000 rounds of ammunition. He refused to recognize the court, and was sentenced to six months imprisonment.)

Answer 3

Perhaps you should institute life without parole. But in any case, please take a look at the way the death penalty is being implemented in the United States. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is much too important to settle on the basis of sound bites or without answers to these.

125 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 4

You can not teach people not to kill by killing them - the old "do as I say not as I do" hypocrisy just doesn't deter anyone, and 1 innocent life taken through judicial error just negates the entire process and argument. So be honest here; how long do you think before the first innocent was hung by mistake? Personally I think the first 1, even if guilty, would be a colossal mistake.

Answer 5

In America, they execute people and crime is highher so it doesn't act as a deterent.

Also, if you take into account all the appeals and legalities associated with an execution, it actually costs around 7 times as much to execute than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives.

So, it doesn't act as a deterrent and costs much more money.

I see no other reasons other than vengence, I do not like the idea of a venegful state.

Finally, if you use the arguement that its for only those that are definitely guilty, you are then suggesting we have 3 verdicts:

Not guilty
Guilty
Really guilty

It makes a mockery of the whole system as in law you should be either guilty or not.

Answer 6

Capital Punishment is what it says a PUNISHMENT. It is not a deterrent, this is the argument used by the airy fairy PC brigade to cloud the issue. Some crimes are so abhorrent to ordinary people that the perpetrator deserves to forfeit life.

Answer 7

Regardless of public opinion to the contrary (I think most want vengeance not justice) Capital Punishment will never be re-introduced into this country.

Despite technological advances in DNA etc. mistakes are still being made.

Probably the biggest nail in the coffin (no pun intended) of the re-introduction brigade, was the comment of the judge in the famous Guilford Four trial (IRA atrocity), when he sentenced them all to life imprisonment.

He said. " I have no doubt that if capital punishment was still available to me, you would have all hanged".

They were later freed as innocents.

Answer 8

No never. I believe it is not a deterrent, hard labour and I stress this would be for remainder of their usefull life,could be of some use and value to the community and might be a deterrent for the workshy gangs of bored ,young men, who think a gun is a toy and do not really understand death is final for the victim and paying the legal penalty would also be the absolute end of themselves. There would be no glory for the gumman or woman just disgust that life is so cheap.

Answer 9

If this happened, Britain would be forced to leave the EU, which would be bad for the country. Also, most British people do not support the death penalty and any government that reintroduced it would be certain to lose votes at the next election.

Answer 10

The English can be quite ruthless when they wan't to be....so it is no suprise capital punishment is being talked about as a possible solution. next complete control from Brussels!!