I am against the death penalty to the max. It's inhumane and some of them dont work causing pain to the victim and a waste of tax payers money.
For crimes such as rape, murder, ect, yes. Britains prisons are currently very very crowded, which is obviously a problem. That isn't the most important reason though. We need it because the public have to pay to keep these bastards fed, clothed, and entertained! Why should we pay to keep these people in a safe place with a roof over their heads, when we have homeless people, out there on the streets. That's where our priorities should lie. When I'm paying taxes, I WON'T be happy to know that some of it is being spent on the likes of Ian Huntley (brits should know who), who apparently has a playstation 2 in his cell. Also, there's the whole issue of repeat offenders. Some of these sick minded people, when they get out, will kill/rape again. Whilst this time around it would be much easier to catch them, wouldn't it be better if the crime had been prevented in the first place? For minor crimes, no. I think I'll tackle some of the argments against Capital Punishment now. It's murder, everyone has a right to live: Yes, everybody DOES have a right to live. But which lives would you place more value on? Those of criminals, or the public? Don't forget that after someone has been raped, they're probably going to be scarred for life. And after commiting serious crimes, do they deserve to have roofs over their heads? What if you get it wrong?: Obviously, a full trial would be needed to determine if the person was guilty or not. It's the easy way out: True, but they aren't really going to be around to care, are they? I think that either the punishments for serious crimes need to be harsher, or capital punishment needs to be introduced. I mean, come on! I've seen tougher conditions on reality TV! Edit: Ousiders point: If they don't work, do it again. It's not as huge a waste of money as keeping someone alive for 20 odd years. I say we just get a guillotine and behead them all. Messy, but fairly cheap and can be used over and over again. That sounds a bit inhumane. I'm tempted to go on about how the medieval people used to go watch the beheadings, but no.
It's just killing more that don't need to be killed. No matter what someone has done, there is no way they deserve death. Killing them won't make up for their crimes. In fact, it would put them out of their embarassment or other guilt if they're sane enough. It's wrong.
Maybe. I think that all crimes that would land you in jail you should get executed for. It would stop crime. All the criminals would be released from jail. They are told,you commit a crime- you havin' yo' had blasted off mutha fucka (not really like that )They wont commit crime again.
So, if someone goes on a killing spree, even if they kill 150+ people (it's been done before, but the guy who did it hanged himself in prison), they still deserve to live? Why, may I ask?
I only support it when it can be proven 100% that the person is guilty....DNA evidence, security camera footage, confession, something like that. But when there's not enough evidence to prove them 100% guilty, then they should be acquited. But, typically, they aren't and juries convict without solid proof. In those cases, I'm against the death penalty since there's still a chance they're innocent
Under no terms do I support the death penalty. Firstly, one of the main arguments FOR the death penalty is that it is a negative incentive for potential violent criminals. This seems to make sense, but statistical evidence (Freakonomics by Steve Levitt has a nice summary) has proven that no such incentive is noticable with the types of numbers being recorded. Secondly, murdering a murder is purely hypocritical, and doesn't take any strides in attempting to find out why people truly commit these crimes. If it is a physcological deficiency, they may prove useful test subjects to find out what they hell is going on in their heads. If they have no such problems, then yes, they deserve to be punished for violating a person's rights, but two wrongs don't make a right, to be horridly cliche. Thirdly, it costs a load of money to carry out the types of capital punishment they offer. And in retort to something someone else said about a full trial, just because something's done legally doesn't mean it's done fairly, truthfully, or correctly.
It depends on the crime but I think it would be better if the person had to suffer for the rest of their life in jail. There are problems with that though. Like someone said above, jails are over-crowded with people already. I think people who have killed others or have done similar crimes deserve the death penalty but some crimes don't.
1) if jail won't put people off crimes, neither will death. this doesn't really change, they just have different things that they are(nt) getting worried over. 2) You don't have to use 10000+ people for mental investigation, noly about 100. 3) I agree, a cheaper alternative should be used, like I said above 4) Yes, accidents have happened in the past, but it isn't like they happen left right and centre. I do think that it should be completely clear that the person is guilty before death.
1) if jail won't put people off crimes, neither will death. this doesn't really change, they just have different things that they are(nt) getting worried over. 2) You don't have to use 10000+ people for mental investigation, noly about 100. 3) I agree, a cheaper alternative should be used, like I said above 4) Yes, accidents have happened in the past, but it isn't like they happen left right and centre. I do think that it should be completely clear that the person is guilty before death. [/b][/quote] 1) Well, death is more frightening than jail, most people would probably say. However, it's most likely that the people that do commit these crimes simply aren't swayed by either, for whatever reason. If that's the case, then what's the point of capital punishment? 2) And where do you pull that figure from? 3) The guillotine, you mean? Surely you aren't serious. What's the difference? Injecting someone with an expensive toxin and beheading them with a weighted blade achieves the same end. I don't think that end is in any way productive to reducing crime or stopping crime. 4) And what is completely clear? Most of the time, the series of appeals a criminal goes through prolongs to the process to a mind-numbing extent. A lot of the time, the decision is so final that people leave cases open at the risk of finding new evidence. I know it isn't terribly likely, but it occurs, and therefore deserves consideration.
You aren't killing to "show" that it's wrong, you're doing it to get rid of scum. Link: 1)The point of killing them is so that we can sleep easy in our beds at night, knowing there is no possibility they can escape, nor that they will kill again when they are let out. what I don't like about prison is that life sentences are not life sentences, they're about 15 years max, I'd say. 2) It's what always happens. They'll test about 80 women using a new shampoo, and say that "60% of women notice they have less split ends, blah blah." I know the numbers aren't accurate, it was just an example. 3) The emphasis was on cheaper. 4) Of course, every case is different, but what you don't mention is that in some cases, it IS crystal clear who's the killer, you're just referring to a small handful of crimes where people have been found innocent.
You aren't killing to "show" that it's wrong, you're doing it to get rid of scum. Link: 1)The point of killing them is so that we can sleep easy in our beds at night, knowing there is no possibility they can escape, nor that they will kill again when they are let out. what I don't like about prison is that life sentences are not life sentences, they're about 15 years max, I'd say. 2) It's what always happens. They'll test about 80 women using a new shampoo, and say that "60% of women notice they have less split ends, blah blah." I know the numbers aren't accurate, it was just an example. 3) The emphasis was on cheaper. 4) Of course, every case is different, but what you don't mention is that in some cases, it IS crystal clear who's the killer, you're just referring to a small handful of crimes where people have been found innocent. [/b][/quote] You should agree with me Kill everyone who could have a prison sentence for their crimes. Including stealing more than however many times.
How so? No one would commit crime And execute people with asbo's :angry: [/b][/quote] All chavs should be executed, full stop. I think everyone commits a crime at some point in their life, surely you can't say you haven't stolen at least 1 penny sweet?