If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Support for Death Penalty falls below 50%
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 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.
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.
0
Comments
Such practice is an atrocity that belongs in the past. And in the past it shall remain.
Hell No! I want Glitter shot, damnit!
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
You will never, ever be sure enough to pull that trigger.
Have you ever seen the film A Clockwork Orange?
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?
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...
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.
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.
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!!!!
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?
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.
Otherwise, I think you'll find that population density in prisons is higher than most places outside of London.
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.
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.
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.
Seems emminently logical to me.
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.
And yet the death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent.
I am quite sure they are not a threat dead, too.
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.
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?
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.
What, none?! Medical trials? Technological reports?
Experts - what do they know?
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.
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
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.
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.
Fair enough. You carry on endorsing theft, I'l say no more.
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.
Quite. They told us Iraq had WMD's. They told us ECT was a good treatment. They told us Smoking was good for you!
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.
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.
The death penalty is useful?! Remind me not to live in your utopia where lives are only valued if they are useful enough.
Had they done a proper study, these wouldn't have been a problem.
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.
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.
Ok, I'll remind you if I ever make one. 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.
But, they claimed they had. The said there was concrete evidence. They lied.
I don't think they should. They sacrificed their rights when they broke those of others. They should pay it back, for free.