The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[BloodyHeretic]

In what sense is capital punishment actually punishment? It achieves none of the aims of punishment, deterrent or correction. They'll be dead for one, with no time to learn the error of their ways as it were, and it doesn't deter, given people are still being executed by the state. It's simply the state exacting revenge on behalf of the victims. Must agree with bozo here.

[Napoléon]

A lot of points have been made since I last posted, and a lot of good ones too.

I get that innocent people will be charged for murder and other crimes etc, if the death penalty was introduced into the UK believe me I'd want it to be done only in certain circumstances. People will always disagree on what constitutes the death penalty but that's where I think people should vote. And hell people have already voted no to the death penalty haven't they? So why are we arguing?

The question in the poll was simply are you for or against the death penalty and why.
I've answered that.
Not my problem if you disagree which you are more than entitled to do.

And people say that punishment is so that people come to understand what they've done is wrong. Sure that works if you're planning on releasing prisoners back into the world, but what's the point if they're going to be rotting in a cell for the rest of their life? I really don't see it.

I don't see the point in a criminal who is going to be in prison for life "learning the errors of his ways". So wait, he figures out when he's 90 that he was wrong to kill 20 people and we all clearly see he's repented or whatever. Are we then suggesting we let him back out? Because he's learned the errors of his ways right?
It just seems pointless to me. Completely and utterly pointless.

As I said, why should upstanding people in society look after people who want to destroy society? Keeping them alive for the purpose of keeping them alive to help keep our consciences clear achieves nothing. Getting rid of waste in society is I think a very good fucking arguement. Again i'm not talking about killing someone for shoplifting, I'm talking about mass murder, mass rape etc. Things which we'd ALL agree were very very bad for the progression of the human race.

[bozo]

Nap, you still avoid answering my main question! Do you still favour c.p. even though innocent people will be put to death?

[Napoléon]

Nap, you still avoid answering my main question! Do you still favour c.p. even though innocent people will be put to death?

Didn't realise that was a question, I thought you were using it as your main point for not wanting the death penalty.

I would like to re-iterate that I only think the DP should be used for the most horrendous criminals, and ones who are certainly convicted with the evidence to back it up. I know what you'll say next... "well how can we tell if this person or that person is definitely the criminal and not innocent?". Well frankly I don't know, it's not really my concern. That would be something for whoever reintroduces the DP to think about, and for whoever is convicting these criminals and people in the first place.

To answer your question in it's simplest form, I think we can introduce the penalty and that innocents don't have to die at all. You seem to think that the death penalty will definitely lead to innocent deaths? I disagree.

I am most certainly not in favor of the death penalty if it is going to be half arsed. Putting people to death is very serious, and I don't take it lightly. If the death penalty was introduced and every precaution was taken (I don't know what these would be, I'm not a politician nor do I make the rules) so that innocents weren't killed then I'm in favor.

[bozo]

Nap, we will have to disagree. Based on the history of crime and punishment, miscarriages of justice continue to this day.
Were the death penalty reintroduced where it has been abolished, innocent people would be executed.
Just google " miscarriages of justice murder " and see what I mean.
You might also watch a fine film called " Let him have it ", which deals with the case of Derek Bentley, hanged for using words unwisely then granted a posthumous pardon 45 years later. Like many victims, Bentley was of low intelligence.
Or consider Stephen Downing's case, a 17 year-old with a mental age of 11, served 27 years for a murder he didn't commit ( had the death penalty been around he wouldn't have been ).
Or Stefan Kisyko, another vulnerable type, served 16 years for murder then released only to die of a heart attack within a year. ( again, he would have hanged ).
Or very famously, Timothy Evans, again of low intelligence, hanged 1953 for a murder he didn't commit, granted posthumous pardon 1998.
I deal here with the UK ,I am sure America has more than its share of similar events.

[martin02]

I'd like to sound a further contra note here. Despite the claims to accuracy DNA testing brings, it merely allows one to be wrong with authority. Eventually one of the many Innocence Projects around the world will strike a false positive; they will free a guilty party. Experts couch DNA hits in terms of duplicate matches occurring 1:1 in a world with a certain multiple population of our own, or likelihood ratio. Ditto apparent evidence leading to a DNA mismatch, but caused through contamination or similar circumstance, which has already occurred.

Fallibility cuts both ways. We can error on the side of caution or recklessness, but we will error.

[Napoléon]

Bozo I get it I really do. You think I want innocents to die?
I voted in the poll and gave my reasons. I'm not arguing to have the death penalty implemented all over the world, i'm just saying i'd rather have it than not have it if given the choice.

[Minimalist]

We can error on the side of caution or recklessness, but we will error.

But then an innocent person is not killed by the state.

[Violet]

Every non-target destroyed in an assault is collateral. It amounts to very little in most cases, and in even more it is well worth the price of neutralizing the target warranting the force used.

The question regarding resources on the 'death penalty' is not whether there will be collateral. It is whether the targets are worth neutralizing.

I'm rather partial to the idea of locking the 'penalized' into a cell which they cannot get out of, and being left there to die. Costs less than a bullet, puts no wear on a fine axe. Sometimes too slow when one has many to 'penalize'.

[Napoléon]

We can error on the side of caution or recklessness, but we will error.

But then an innocent person is not killed by the state.

That makes a difference how?