The Death Penalty

in my county, the death penalty is legal whilst if someone tries to commit suicide, its illegal and so the state has a monopoly on who lives and who dies

 

Theoretically, though I think they would mean it's illegal to try and commit suicide and fail.

 

As Britain doesn't support the Death penalty, I find it amazing how Blair was happy with the outcome. I don't think Saddam should have been hanged but at the same time I don't think he should have had his life spared. After all Saddam didn't show mercy to those he hanged. Death penalty is wrong and have to say two wrongs don't make a right. america has a Death Row thing where everyone can watch someone being murdered by the state. It is like Gladiator except for the lions.

 

Most of the European political leaders have made a point of condemning the death penalty in their reaction to the Hussein case. I think Margaret Beckett's statement did mention Britain's opposition to the death penalty but it would put Blair in an awkward position condemning the death penalty when it's one of his buddy Bush's favourite hobbies, and its use in this case was almost certainly an American decision...

 

Some would like to believe as it supports a certain viewpoint regarding the new administration, but the opposite opinion can carry just as much weight if you choose to let it.

 

Put it this way: if the Americans had been against the use of the death penalty for Saddam, it most certainly would not have been used.

 

I believe the new administration made their own decision about what to do about it.

Curiously, the death penalty for serious crimes is probably the only area that the USA and Islamic countries agree over.

 

If you believe the Iraqi judicial system, government and constitution at the time this trial was set up was anything other than directly a US puppet... you're wrong.

 

Yes For Terrorism Definitely.

 

or even, if you allow armed police to roam the streets - remember Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

Why is politically motivated murder worse than any other kind of murder? In some ways, it would at least seem more understandable (though no less unpleasant) than a random child killer. Also, should we have the death penalty for fighter pilots who kill dozens, often hundreds of civillians in an attack? The intent might not have been there, but the result is always much, much worse than terrorism. Terror comitted by the state under the name of war is always far deadlier, far more costly....

 

No we shouldn't have the Death Penalty, but we should have less leniency with sentencing. Some of the things people get away with or get not much time for are shocking.

 

Aye, I agree, if someone is a proven danger to society, and releasing them would mean putting the public at risk, I'd say they should be imprisoned indefinitely. Prison is not a particularly effective reformative device. Most people who are sent to prison reoffend. Some are made much worse by their experience inside. Where people are not a danger to society, I would advocate measures aimed at reforming behaviour, not keeping them off the streets. Prison should only be used in cases where the individual's behaviour is beyond reform. It should be used primarily as a tool to separate the public from dangers....

 

I say no. There has been cases in America where they later found out that the person executed was inocent. If there was no death penalty this would never happen, fair enough you would never get to see revenge on the real guilty, but I dont think seeing revenge on hundreds of guilty people is worth one inocent life taken by mistake.

 

Aye, very well put....

 

The overall attitude toward any convict by the public is usually severe and brutal. In the eyes of many British citizens, being locked up for 23 hours a day, being kicked and beaten by the screws at random and being given food that the third world countries would have turned down. And of course eternal damnation and no reconcilliation or support for rehabilitation- is righteous justice. Infact 99% of the public would welcome the death penalty in its cruelest form. Electric chair. In some American jails who lawfully kill condemned prisoners, they practise killing them by testing on animals. I suppose they have to do it right, making sure the terminated prisoner dies without dignity in front of a gladiatorially minded audience.

Jesus said in the Holy Bible- He who casts the first stone.

 

In fact public support for the death penalty is rapidly shrinking in this country, this 2006 poll showed 49% in favour and 43% opposed. In the sixties it was abolished despite strong support for its retention (about 70% in favour), perhaps a good example of the government going against the will of its people towards a more progressive society, and the values of society slowly catching up...

 

I think the shrinking votes for electric chair have more to do with political issues. I believe that the UK are against becoming Little America and would prefer to adopt a more traditional 12th century ye olde England method. You know, Richard the third and Guido Falkes and his posse.

 

I think the undamental problem - and the reason capital punishment will not be reintroduced here anytime soon - is that we all know how many bent, dodgy and stupid judges/cops/witnesses etc there are out there.

We no longer live in the largely honest and genuine UK of the 1950s; people are prepared to lie and scam their way out of trouble these days, and incriminate others ion their place.

Too many potential Hanratty's; that's why we aren't allowed to hang. And rightly so, IMO.

Most people committing serious violent or sexually violent offences are mentally ill; to lock them up for evermore is already sending a pretty negative message. To hang them would be like declaring open season on every mental patient in the country.

The way forward is research, and rehabilitation; neither of which we are currently doing anywhere near enough of.

 

I don't think we should have the death penalty for crimes in place, even if it starts off for murder.

I couldn't stop thinking about the stoning scene in the 'Life of Brian' when I was reading some of the posts; a bunch of repressed old woman dressed as men eager to stone a blasphemer. Not that I'm saying the people who made these posts are repressed old woman. It's the lust for killing that seems to come over and 'eye for an eye' thing.

It's hard not to believe that certain crimes can only be just with the killing of the murderer. For me this would be for child murders and sex offenders. But again not only for reasons of cost and morality; once such a law is in place we begin to accept it's process. This acceptance then allows for ammendments that encompass other reasons why certain crimes should be included in the guilty being sent to death. This probably would never happen, but it would be a step in the direction of crimes we may feel less emotive about being feed into the mixing bowl/debate.