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
Should The Death Penalty Be Brought Back?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
this thread has probably been brought up countless times but i thought i'd bring it up again
i think it should. i'd even go as far as questioning whether or not to sentence petty thieves to death. surely it would stop crime altogether wouldn't it?
i think it should. i'd even go as far as questioning whether or not to sentence petty thieves to death. surely it would stop crime altogether wouldn't it?
0
Comments
How can a petty thief and a serial killer be treated the same? Sure they've both broken a law, but murder is in a different league to stealing something from a shop or whatever.
it wouldnt and doesnt stop crime 'alltogether'
??? Are you serious? Ok there may be dispute around the death penalty, but the idea someone ought to swing for stealing a Mars Bar is a bit barking...
The US, China and Pakistan have the highest number of death penalties but there is no obvious drop in murder.
They can't be ompared, imo.
I'm unsure about this. Part of me thinks that if we did bing back the death penalty, that would make the state as bad as the killer. It may also seem 'an easy way out' for some people. Some people may feel that they've not got justice.
However, it would stop certain killers from killing other people.
I understand that it is often argued for in financial terms (i.e. it costs so much to "keep" prisoners that lifers should just be shot up with chemicals and had done with) which I think is a cover up for more barbaric motivation. There is not a crime on this earth that I think justifies the death penalty and for me it boils down to the very basic concept which we are [supposed to be] taught in childhood - if someone does you wrong that's not justification to wreak revenge or have your day. I think we have to maintain what is - or should be - our basic human morals, and keep perspective. Live and let live. Obviously the backchat to that is that the murderer or the terrorist (or whomever is being talked about in rhetoric) didn't let their victims live, but the oft-wheeled-out Gandhi quote is never more germane than when talking about the death penalty "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
If the death penalty was effective then countries that employ it would have seen momentous decreases in incidencts of murder, drug running and other crimes which are able to draw the maximum penalty. I haven't seen any evidence of that happening, whatsoever. Far from doing any good, the death penalty is a blight on society, it leaves no room for error of judgement and as the old adage goes - "to err is human". We are not able to disprove without a shadow of a doubt (and none of this "reasonable doubt" crap please, who feels reasonable when hearing of murders and rapes and other crimes) and therefore we are not justified in handing down that sentence. The very second that one innocent person was executed for a crime they did not commit then - in my view - the death penalty became indefensible. As countless further innocents are put to death around the world, it becomes more and more of an abomination. Disgusting and barbaric. I suppose that the death penalty is just super-duper for communities and societies that get a lift and a feeling of righteousness and justice out of some supposed achievement of revenge. If occasionally it is at the expense of the wrong person, well that is just too bad I suppose. The DP's supposed purpose of minimising the rates of perpetration of particular crimes does not seem to have worked all that well (if at all) in the USA, China or elsewhere. So, putting people to death after a few legal eagles get the chance to flex their muscles/have a pissing contest serves no other purpose than to produce a damn fine display of intolerance, ignorance of rehabilitation and supreme governance over human life and death - by those who feel a need to put such attributes on display.
[As an aside, I have never really understood how death can never be a "penalty", as it's something that comes to us all. People who want criminals to suffer endlessly as their victims may have done would surely be better served lobbying for longer sentences and for prisoners to serve their sentences rather than slipping out through loopholes or on early release/parole. As it is, threatening death at an precedented time is tantamount to judicial and "state"-condoned terrorism.]
So yes, I am absolutely, unequivocally anti-death penalty. Death to the death penalty everywhere! The long and short of my view being that there isn't a crime in this world or a person alive that I feel deserves the death penalty as punishment. Nothing... nothing could allow me to feel vindicated in taking another person's life, even (or especially) through legal and controlled channels. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is one. If it tries to justify a life for a life and an eye for an eye and state-sanctioned murder then it's probably an absolute crock. Not something to re-introduce, ever.
No way. Its barbaric.
Also look at the United States. They have the death sentance there and theres lots of crime...
:yes: And it's not as if they're a danger to the public in the same way a serial killer would be.
:thumb:
What the fuck are you on about?
So you agree that Blair & Bush should be executed?
But deyz not tewowists. Deyz just bwinging democwacy to da world.
Innit blud, lol!
Else there'd be no crime in any countries which have it.
Hurray! Its sensible and thought out comments like these which do more to change peoples opinions than anything else.
Well said MOK :thumb:
Well how about you a do a search and find out instead of posting?
soooo the french resistance and the ANC in apartheid SA sghould have all got the death penalty?
Are you serious?
Were they paedophiles ?
To reitterate Thundy's remark, why paedophiles ?
bet there weren't any muslim terrorists there
just muslim armies invading
They were seen as "terrorists" by the people they were fighting.
i meant, why 'terroists' what seperates them from murderers?
Then there is the problem of wrongful conviction. With the death penalty, what's done is done. What about people who are wrongfully convicted and then pardoned years later when fresh evidence turns up? If even one innocent person died it would be too many.
Besides, spending the rest of your life in prison is a worse punishment than death i think.
And as for whether murderers should be executed, or people should be executed in the most extreme cases, I say no. For lots of reasons. They may reform - in America they have executed minors who have their whole life to change their behaviour, and that guy Stanley Williams who was executed even though he'd become an anti-gang activist. They may be wrongly convicted, look at America again - plenty of people have been wrongly convicted. In the last 30 years 130 people have been released from death row after they were found to be innocent. What about the ones who didn't win their appeals but were also innocent? It is inneffectual - in fact America has a much higher murder rate than in the UK. I don't know the figures for China. A culture of violence can not be stopped by using the ultimate violence. Also, who are we to say someone deserves to die? Of course, punish them, but death is not even that - it's a complete termination of their being.
Also bear in mind execution is a desperate act. In world war I / II, British executions were common, even for things such as stealing (I think) as rations were scarce, or even for cowardice as they wanted to set an example. But we don't live in desperate times, we live a life of luxury really, so we have the time and hopefully the patience to not execute people.