Death sentence?

Birdie2006

I personally believe that there should be a death penalty. For the big three crimes Murder, Rape and Child Abuse most of those released recommit the offence. It is well known that a rapist or a child abuser is not rehabilitate-able, they will re offend regardless of the progress made in prison. These people cannot be allowed back in to society when they cannot be trusted. Nor should they be a massive draw on the state when the system in place cannot make them safe.
How can a lose of freedom be punishment for a crime as awful as murder, rape or child abuse? The punishment does not justify the crime, it is not enough.
If it is brought back it could only ever be used in cases were there is absolutely no doubt that the person facing the accusation is guilty.

My apologies if I have offended anyone, it was not my intention these are just my opinions.

roger.williams20@btinternet.com

I do not believe capital punishment should return. I do believe however that some types of murder deserve harsher punishment than other crimes and that such killers should lose their human rights when it comes to imprisonment. Premeditated murder and other violent killings involving the use of the boot and killings by swarms of violent thugs deserve a special punishment, one that will be so harsh on a daily basis as to make them wish they have not carried out their heinous crimes.

Chelsea Paul

LIFE FOR A LIFE THAT'S WHAT I SAY !!!!!!!!!

lion of judah

no no no no no

it's not a deterent

Susan S

About the US death penalty system--- You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid terrible punishments for terrible crimes to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime, to look at alternatives and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is too important for sound bites.

126 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isnâ€™t a guarantee we wonâ€™t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that donâ€™t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue 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. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Alan A

If you bring it back for a 'Good' reason, it will be a matter of time before it's used for 'Bad' reasons. Look at how that old man who heckled Jack Straw was arrested under the Terrorism Act. If we had the death penalty for terrorism, dissent would be a capital offence, and that should never be allowed to happen.

buggerlugs

my opinion? no never

Steph

I disagree with the death penalty as I think it is hipocritical. If someone committed a murder and he was sentenced to death, it would be the equivilent of saying 'You killed someone and took their life so we are going to kill you and take your life'. We are told not to kill so why kill someone for killing, hehe, sorry thats a little confusing to read but I hope you understand what I mean!

Tabatha

Mistress B

I think we should.
Murderers like Myra Hindley and Ian Brady should have died years ago for their evil acts.
Paedophiles who persistently keep being caught abusing children.
We should give someone 15 years to prove their innocence, and if they cannot be proved innocent, they should be executed.
We pay far too much tax to keep prisoners nice and cosy.
I could rant and rave for ages about this, but there are far too many do gooders out there trying to make the world a 'better place'.

second only to trollalalala

Killing any human that has been detained and poses no threat is barbaric, end of. Western society has done away with it, we're civilised - bar one notable exception that has higher murder rates than all the rest.

You also have to consider the effects on society; the death penalty only sends a message to people that the state endorses revenge. Our justice system is suppose to work on the principle of rehabilitation and reform, even if that does mean life imprisonment.

It doesn't work as a deterrent either because all the people who commit these crimes 'worthy' of the death penalty are screwed up. I doubt they wouldn't be able to sleep at night pre-crime because of fear of dying.

Mistress B: prisons aren't overpopulated with murderers, rapists and child molesters. They're full of people in for crimes that can fluctuate due to current temperament of the country. They'll always be a select band of sickos that you will not be able to lower, and will rarely grow in numbers just because of the vast atrocities of these crimes.

Of course, these are all hypothetical. What about miscarriages of justice as well? It's better to have one innocent man alive than a hundred guilty men dead, could at least compromise on?

cara

yes they should bring back the death penalty a life for a life, Britain is to soft on crime, we need the sentences they give out in America

pooled08

We should mandate the death penalty for the following crimes:

-any type of murder (unless the suspect can prove he was doing it out of self defense)
-all crimes involving rape
-all crimes involving child molestation
-anything else that may be classified as a "first degree crime."

David W

1. We can't say that it's 'not a deterrent'. It may well deter some and it's a matter of basic logic that once sentence has been applied the crime cannot possibly be committed again.

Which crimes? Murder in the furtherance of theft. Racial and/or cultural hate murder.

Checks: Only when the precise nature of the crime is established and the guilt of the accused is certain beyond any - not reasonable- doubt. I have to admit I would hate to be on a jury considering such crimes.

Bardic

No, in my view. Personally I'm concerned about some of the miscarriages of justice which keep coming up, where in some cases people have spent years in jail for offences they didn't after all commit. What would we do if that happened to someone we'd put to death? A bit late to say "sorry", isn't it?

Things tend to sort themselves out in the slammer - look at that bas*ard Harold Shipman who managed to top himself. I suspect that not too much effort was put into finding out how he managed to do it . . .

The Ghost

no its bad enough having it for treason!

confucious says

lizzielou

its got to be yes , the way the world is now , especially for terrorists and child murderers .

Christina K

No. There is no rational or ethical reason for the death penalty. By putting someone to death we are sinking to the level of the worst kinds of humanity. We should, though, make prisons more uncomfortable, less like holiday camps, get prisoners doing some form of productive and profitable work, (to pay for their keep), educate them if necessary and make them much more secure from the ingrained drug culture, so prisoners leave as better citizens rather than better criminals.

KandyMan

no. apart for proven phedos

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: