Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

Support for Death Penalty falls below 50%

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/03/ndeath03.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/03/ixnewstop.html

I think you might need to register to view. However according to a YouGov poll in the Tele support for the death penalty is now 49% which is the lowest its ever been. Even though there are still more supporters than abolionists support seems likely to fall still further as the younger you are the less likely you are to support the death penalty.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And if there was to be a full national debate followed by an official referendum, instead of populist newspaper polls, I'm quite sure the pro-death penalty vote would be much, much lower.

    Such practice is an atrocity that belongs in the past. And in the past it shall remain.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Aladdin wrote:
    Such practice is an atrocity that belongs in the past. And in the past it shall remain.

    Hell No! I want Glitter shot, damnit! :lol:

    Erm, I think the US use the death penalty too much. But I think in some cases it is ok. As for China... well... they seem to use it for ANYTHING.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    But I think in some cases it is ok.

    I reckon any attempt at logical defense of the death penalty is self-defeating. Either killing someone is wrong or it isn't.

    "Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder." [Shelley]
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Either killing someone is wrong or it isn't.

    And fan of absolutes? Heh... you sure are wrong. Surley you can see the stupidity of that position?

    A man is going to kill 100 people unless you kill him. How is killing him wrong? It is right.

    A man has NO REGRET for what he has done, and is willing to do it again. Therefore, jailing him is pointless. He won't change. I'd rather kill him and free up a jail cell for someone who could change. Our jails are overcrowded anyway.

    Only for use in cases where we know he is guilty. If it is under debate, the death penalty is wrong. Myra Hindley should have been shot. :mad: Evil, evil, woman.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have to admit I am totally shocked that the support for it was so high. I would have guessed it was a lot lower.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    A man is going to kill 100 people unless you kill him. How is killing him wrong? It is right.

    First of all, that wasn't my argument. Secondly, you can still argue that it is wrong for *you* to kill the man regardless of the ends you may be serving. I'm not going to bother however - too much abstract philosophy.
    A man has NO REGRET for what he has done, and is willing to do it again. Therefore, jailing him is pointless. He won't change. I'd rather kill him and free up a jail cell for someone who could change. Our jails are overcrowded anyway.

    This is a different argument. Jails are full? Build more jails. Your argument is an economic one. This man's life is worth x amount. There doesn't need to be a "point" in jailing him - that's just our fall-back option because we know that killing is wrong.
    Only for use in cases where we know he is guilty.

    You will never, ever be sure enough to pull that trigger.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:

    A man is going to kill 100 people unless you kill him. How is killing him wrong? It is right.

    Have you ever seen the film A Clockwork Orange?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    A man is going to kill 100 people unless you kill him. How is killing him wrong? It is right.

    So, at the point you kill him he hasn't actually done anything wrong. Now unless your mind reading skills are fantastic, you have just comitted murder.

    Seriously, you'd need some pretty damning evidence.

    Oh, and I think the reference was to using death as a punishment, which is slightly different. If the state belives killing someone is wrong, then why does it support it as a penalty?
    Myra Hindley should have been shot. :mad: Evil, evil, woman.

    The fact that she, and Ian Brady, hated the incarceration just undermines your case. That Ian Brady wants to die, is just another reason why he should be kept alive. That man is now in Dante's Seventh Level and that's fine by me...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    BlackArab wrote:
    Have to admit I am totally shocked that the support for it was so high. I would have guessed it was a lot lower.
    That's YouGov for you...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A man is going to kill 100 people unless you kill him. How is killing him wrong? It is right.

    No, it's still wrong. Even if he had killed those hundred people, killing him would still be wrong.

    You are mistaking the least bad option as being somehow good. In such a situation there can only be loss. So you try to minimise it as best you can that loss.
    A man has NO REGRET for what he has done, and is willing to do it again. Therefore, jailing him is pointless. He won't change. I'd rather kill him and free up a jail cell for someone who could change. Our jails are overcrowded anyway.

    How is killing someone just because of utility less evil than killing them because you are a sadist, or a psychopath? I would say it was worse, because it's not a product of pschological forces, or mental instability it's a cold hard decision made in frosty blood.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, at the point you kill him he hasn't actually done anything wrong. Now unless your mind reading skills are fantastic, you have just comitted murder.

    Hi MoK,

    think we need to get some of those PreCogs like in Minority Report. That way we'll know when someone is gonna kill someone!!!! :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah, but you know how that film finished... ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can not keep building jails for ever, certainly in an overcrowded tiny island country. Maybe in a big ass country like Russia more jails is a standard idea, but even they release criminals early because they can not afforrd to pay the guards, just like they can not afford to pay the military. Sometimes purely economic arguments are the right ones. Secondly, Jailing the Nazis found guilty at Nuremberg rather then the death penality would have been disgraceful! It was bad enough so many Nazi got freedom and no punishment because they could help fight the communists!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    You can not keep building jails for ever, certainly in an overcrowded tiny island country. Maybe in a big ass country like Russia more jails is a standard idea, but even they release criminals early because they can not afforrd to pay the guards, just like they can not afford to pay the military. Sometimes purely economic arguments are the right ones. Secondly, Jailing the Nazis found guilty at Nuremberg rather then the death penality would have been disgraceful! It was bad enough so many Nazi got freedom and no punishment because they could help fight the communists!

    Britain is not an overcrowded tiny country countrary to popular belief, it's densly populated alright but there's plenty of space.

    No countries like to imprison people, it does cost money. Some countries however are better at monitoring offenders than others. Britain is quite bad at this.

    I'm going to play Devils Advocate here, why sohuld the Nazis have been executed, was it because they were evil men or because they were following orders. Was it because they were sadists or was it because they were fighting a war? Should Sadam Hussein be executed, Slobodan Milosovic, George Bush?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    And fan of absolutes? Heh... you sure are wrong. Surley you can see the stupidity of that position?

    A man is going to kill 100 people unless you kill him. How is killing him wrong? It is right.

    A man has NO REGRET for what he has done, and is willing to do it again. Therefore, jailing him is pointless. He won't change. I'd rather kill him and free up a jail cell for someone who could change. Our jails are overcrowded anyway.

    Only for use in cases where we know he is guilty. If it is under debate, the death penalty is wrong. Myra Hindley should have been shot. :mad: Evil, evil, woman.

    Isn't there two things getting muddled here. A man jumps onto a crowded bus and brandishes a bomb. I'd have no problem with the police slotting him - greater good and all that. If he's blown up the boss and a policeman is sitting on his head and handcuffing him he's no longer a threat and its morally wrong to execute him.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    You can not keep building jails for ever, certainly in an overcrowded tiny island country
    It seems that you think the death penalty would be usefull as a population control measure. Only if we applied it to drink/drivers, people who smoke in public places, and those who drop gum on the pavement.

    Otherwise, I think you'll find that population density in prisons is higher than most places outside of London.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually my point about not building jails for ever was an attempt to say we need alternative forms of punishment for criminals. Not a pro-death penalty stance!!!

    In the case of the Nazis, it was one of those occurances with the Nazi leadership where killing them would not lead to martyrs been made of them. Of course if Hitler hadnt been a coward and committed suicide, it would have been a different situation altogether.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Ok, just wondering here - what good is keeping someone in a (proper) life sentece alive doing? As far as I see, its a waste of a jail cell. :/ they'll never get out... so... why? Sure, they might not feel good, but, what is it doing?

    Yes, we should build more jails. By why should we build more because the current ones are full of people who will never get out anyway? Seems illogical.

    As for preventing a man shooting 100 people or so - lets say he runs into a shopping mall with an assualt rifle, ammo, and is shouting "I will kill all you evil consumerist scum, buying into this evil system!" and you have a way of killing him - say you have a pistol. He hasn't done anything yet, so erm, you should wait until he has shot someone, right? It is a dangerous argument - agreed, but i'd rahter not take the risk.

    Russia has lots of jails but no money to pay their guards etc, because their economy collapsed. FFS. Anyone knows that - they used to have a great legal system, efficiency wise (brutality wise, it's still pretty bad.) but it was run a different way entirley. Jail was meant to be a REALLY bad detereant there - hence it was practically hell. People were scared of jail.

    The Nazi's, as with Saddam, should not be killed - they'll only be Martyrs to their nuts followers. Like Osama, like Kim Jong Il, etc. You kill a nut like that, his followers just claim he's now a martyr and shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Ok, just wondering here - what good is keeping someone in a (proper) life sentece alive doing? As far as I see, its a waste of a jail cell. :/ they'll never get out... so... why? Sure, they might not feel good, but, what is it doing?

    Are you serious?! You think that "a waste of a jail cell" is a good reason to start executing people?! What jailing people does, is protect society from them.
    Yes, we should build more jails. By why should we build more because the current ones are full of people who will never get out anyway? Seems illogical.

    Seems emminently logical to me.
    As for preventing a man shooting 100 people or so - lets say he runs into a shopping mall with an assualt rifle, ammo, and is shouting "I will kill all you evil consumerist scum, buying into this evil system!" and you have a way of killing him - say you have a pistol. He hasn't done anything yet, so erm, you should wait until he has shot someone, right? It is a dangerous argument - agreed, but i'd rahter not take the risk.

    It's irrelevant to the argument in hand. Police marksmen already have the power to shoot someone under these circumstances. With the death penalty, we're talking about taking someone into custody (ie no longer a threat) and then cold-bloodedly killing them.
    Jail was meant to be a REALLY bad detereant there - hence it was practically hell. People were scared of jail.

    And yet the death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Are you serious?! You think that "a waste of a jail cell" is a good reason to start executing people?! What jailing people does, is protect society from them.

    I am quite sure they are not a threat dead, too.
    It's irrelevant to the argument in hand. Police marksmen already have the power to shoot someone under these circumstances. With the death penalty, we're talking about taking someone into custody (ie no longer a threat) and then cold-bloodedly killing them.

    I was actually addressing an argument furthur back, which said you needed good evidence to kill someone like that, and another saying you shouldn't as it gets into crime prevention teritory, etc etc. I agree, this is not related to the death penalty.
    And yet the death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent.

    There have been x,y, and z studies, showing it has and hasnt. I never trust studies anyway. I just think what I think - and please. tell me why someone should sit in a jail cell, doing nothing until they die - what purpose does it serve?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I am quite sure they are not a threat dead, too.

    That's not an argument for the death penalty. The majority here are saying that it is the killing, itself, which is wrong. Merely showing other ways in which a person can be rendered a threat is not useful.
    There have been x,y, and z studies, showing it has and hasnt. I never trust studies anyway.

    What, none?! Medical trials? Technological reports?
    I just think what I think - and please.

    Experts - what do they know?
    tell me why someone should sit in a jail cell, doing nothing until they die - what purpose does it serve?

    It serves the purpose of removing their threat to society. Criminals generally aren't useful. Make them sew mailbags if you want them to be useful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    There have been x,y, and z studies, showing it has and hasnt. I never trust studies anyway. I just think what I think - and please. tell me why someone should sit in a jail cell, doing nothing until they die - what purpose does it serve?


    so you're saying some people have no right to live?

    means murder should be legal then :|


    prison protects society from them, and allows them to actually be punished for what they've done other than forcing them to cease to exist
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How about restitution?

    Make people pay for their crimes. As things stand, if I steal your handbag/wallet/whatever, you lose that stuff. If I am later caught and imprisoned then not only did you lose your stuff, but some other twat is going to come steal from you in order to pay for my food and board.

    For more serious crimes this couldn't be done, but for all those that are financial in nature (most crime) it would be relatively easy. Paying back double would be a good deterrant.
    our energies would be better spent looking at alternative solutions for perpetrators of non-violent crimes who do not pose a physical threat to the rest of the community, such as tax evaders and shoplifters.

    I am sorry? You equate making sure that you are not stolen from with shoplifting? Why is this!

    Not giving Tony Blair your money is one of the most moral things you can do. He'll only waste it on bombs or cars for prezza.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But that's getting off the subject of the death penalty, sorry.

    Fair enough. You carry on endorsing theft, I'l say no more.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    That's not an argument for the death penalty. The majority here are saying that it is the killing, itself, which is wrong. Merely showing other ways in which a person can be rendered a threat is not useful.

    So killing is wrong - that is blatantly the stupidest statement I've ever heard - I thought the world was past this primitive stage. Infact, let's all go back to mud huts and worship the bible. Killing is not wrong. Absolutes don't work.
    The Death Penalty is useful - so a person is locked up. For the rest of their life. I just think there are some people who we would be better off without existing.
    Experts - what do they know?

    Quite. They told us Iraq had WMD's. They told us ECT was a good treatment. They told us Smoking was good for you!
    It serves the purpose of removing their threat to society. Criminals generally aren't useful. Make them sew mailbags if you want them to be useful.

    But forced labour is an evil thing, apparently. I mean, im all for forced labour. But it doesn't seem acceptable in this day and age. So, rather than have them sitting around, shoot them, if we can't make them work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    So killing is wrong - that is blatantly the stupidest statement I've ever heard

    Really? I stand by it.
    - I thought the world was past this primitive stage. Infact, let's all go back to mud huts and worship the bible.

    a) Lots of people do still follow the Bible. Who are you to say they're wrong. Killing is not wrong? b)that is blatantly the stupidest statement I've ever heard.

    It's not an absolute. It's an internal contradiction. If I was wrong to kill him, then they are wrong to kill me. Otherwise, I wasn't wrong to kill in the first place.

    The death penalty is useful?! Remind me not to live in your utopia where lives are only valued if they are useful enough.
    Quite. They told us Iraq had WMD's. They told us ECT was a good treatment. They told us Smoking was good for you!

    Had they done a proper study, these wouldn't have been a problem.
    But forced labour is an evil thing, apparently. I mean, im all for forced labour. But it doesn't seem acceptable in this day and age. So, rather than have them sitting around, shoot them, if we can't make them work.

    The way it's done in prisons, it's not forced. You get payed a nominal sum for your work, with which you can buy cigs or whatever.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Really? I stand by it.



    a) Lots of people do still follow the Bible. Who are you to say they're wrong. Killing is not wrong? b)that is blatantly the stupidest statement I've ever heard.

    It's not an absolute. It's an internal contradiction. If I was wrong to kill him, then they are wrong to kill me. Otherwise, I wasn't wrong to kill in the first place.

    Killing is not wrong is the correct circumstances. There. Obviously that makes me a monster of somesort, right? So I shouldn't kill that man who is about to kill 100 people, as it is wrong to kill. Right. Tell that to the mothers of the dead. You cannot make Moral absolutes, sorry.
    The death penalty is useful?! Remind me not to live in your utopia where lives are only valued if they are useful enough.

    Ok, I'll remind you if I ever make one. :D No probs... if you don't want to serve any purpose, and have no valid reason to do so, you won't be welcome anyway.

    And the death penalty is useful. It serves a purpose. You sacrificed your right to live when you broke the laws of our society is such a servere way as judged to be done so. You infringe on others rights in such a bad way - you get your own taken.
    Had they done a proper study, these wouldn't have been a problem.

    But, they claimed they had. The said there was concrete evidence. They lied.
    The way it's done in prisons, it's not forced. You get payed a nominal sum for your work, with which you can buy cigs or whatever.

    I don't think they should. They sacrificed their rights when they broke those of others. They should pay it back, for free.
Sign In or Register to comment.