Capital punishment?

luv them horse's

YES, YES YES,,, If some one takes some one else's life especially children? I say yes... why should they live when the person they KILLED is dead, And we have to pay for them to live No way man Not fair
so I believe in CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Peter R

No, I don't agree. If an innocent person is executed, that wrong can never be rectified. If somebody has committed premeditated murder, they must face the consequences of that crime with a lengthy if not whole life sentence.

Miss.Ella.Jeffo

I definitely disagree but I don't think that simply stating my disapproval is what you want to hear. However I will ask you to consider the following points:

If capital punishment is bought back to the UK and somebody is wrongly convicted and sentenced to capital punishment there is no chance of retrospective hindsight if new evidence comes into light a few years later.

Many would be appealing continously right up to the European Court of Human Rights so that court time would be used even more dramatically than at it's current state.

Is not capital punishment itself murder? The killing of another human being. And if this is so then would we not be practicing what we preach against?

And if you are really set in the belief that there must be ultimate punishment with no space for a second chance then have you questioned which is worse, a life sentence living with the guilt which your crime has created or a comparatively quick and easy death?

M.E.J

roger.williams20@btinternet.com

No one has the right to take the life of another person, even the state. I truly believe that convicted killers should spend a life of " hell on earth" in prison and should be refused the human rights, which they took away from the person or persons they murdered.

daz365

The death penalty is barbaric, racist, arbitrary & costly in every way.
It doesn't deter, it doesn't prevent and it makes mistakes

In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 population, 44 per cent lower than in 1975 and the lowest rate in three decades. Although this increased to 2.0 in 2005, it remains over one-third lower than when the death penalty was abolished.

If capital punishment deters how can the murder rate drop by nearly half after abolition?

What sort of person do you have to be, to feel good at the death of anyone?

I think the worst kind

LONDONER Â©

no I disagree, I don't believe in 'eye for an eye'

Samwise

The problem with capital punishment is that its availability tends to corrupt the fairness of trials. Here in the U.S., we've seen that problem repeatedly. Try finding the documentary "The Thin Blue Line" for an examination of a case.

The state of Illinois suspended executions once when the governor realized that of the people tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in the state, as many were being exonerated (that is, PROVEN innocent) as were being executed.

Capital punishment automatically carries with it acceptance of the execution of innocent individuals. No court system is good enough. If you keep someone in prison for twenty years and then prove him innocent, you can at least release him; what do you do if you've killed him? It's a way to magnify injustice.

One of the worst mass murderers in recent U.S. history was Timothy McVeigh. I have no doubt that he was guilty. I have no doubt he deserved to be executed. But precisely because we had the death penalty, and politicians with an appetite for it, he wound up being deprived of a fair trial. When it was revealed that, in their zeal to obtain a conviction, law enforcement agents had withheld piles of evidence from the defense, a court ruled that his lawyers could be allowed time to examine that evidence only if they could state exactly what they would find, before they were allowed to look.

On a more philosophical note, one favorite author changed my view of the subject forever. See Source.

Rozzy

No - I don't think there is much evidence that it has the desired effect. In states in the USA where there is still a death penalty, there are hundreds of people on death row - it didn't stop them from committing serious crimes.

The question will always remain, what about those who have been wrongly convicted?

bob m

No. Because jury's would find more people not guilty even if they thought they were. However, more appropriate sentences - yes.

Susan S

Before you and others make up your minds about this, take a look at the American experience with the death penalty and see what we have found out. Sources below.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states regions that have it than in those that donâ€™t. Homicide rates in the UK are much lower than in most states in the US.

We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs (before and during the initial trial) of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

127 people on death rows released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, canâ€™t guarantee we wonâ€™t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Sources:

Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.

FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html

The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive
http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-survivor.html for statements of victimsâ€™ families

Jabba_da_hut_07

No....

We've moved on in our evolution, next you'll want the stocks back and burning at the stake !!!!

A big NO !!!! A stupid idea.

Andi C

No.

arch0049

No. I do not live in the UK, but I disagree.

sinkys

yes when prov-en without a doubt that he is guilty it might just make people aware of what lies ahead ,in some countries they cut off thieves hands off,it would make me think a hell of a lot before i done anything wrong . we can not go on plodding about like nothing has happened,we have to do something. now.....................

Tony A

I would bring it back for murder but I wouldn't make it a mandatory sentence.I would give it to the judge as an option. He can decide on the merits of the case whether a capitol sentence is warranted.

oldgrumpy

Whatever people say, it must be the ultimate deterent.
With the world already well over-populated, let's get rid of the ones who are not fit to live in it.