Well we had a discussion in my Amnesty International group before about the Death penalty in America and how it differed from the death penalty in South Arabia. And it was brought to my attention that Britain doesn’t have the death penalty. I think that it would be a great idea for them to bring it back in a more updated way rather than the old guillotine. It would make people here stop and think before they committed murder or other crimes which could be punishable by death. What do you guys think?

Sure, bring back the death penalty if you want to live in a country where the government has the right to kill its own citizens.

People that commit murder generally do not stop and think aobut he consequences. That's why they are criminals. Criminals, for the most part, lack the ability to equate an action with a consequence.

Also, crimes of passion, by their very nature, do not involve forethought.

Those that commit premediated murder very often are desperate or hardened to the point where the death penatly is not a deturrant anyway.

And lastly, the numbers do not support the theory that the death penalty prevents crime.

guillotine? What century do you think we live in over here? We were on hanging when we banned it.


Anyway can't bring it back, we'd automatically be kicked out of the EU.

That said the EU should adopt the death penalty; not having it is a sign that a society is unwilling to protect its people. Think about it, 10% of criminals commit 75% of the crime, so if we killed those 10% the world would be a much better place.

The biggest problem with countries like the US is that they don't use it often enough. Killing murders and rapists is all well and good, but think of all the terrorist plotters, buglers, drug-dealing, arsonists, muggers etc who make people's lives misery yet weak democracies release again and again and again to harm others when a bullet through the head would end the insane levels of reoffending we have in the west.

Western democracies need not only to reintroduce the death penalty, but its needs to be extended to lesser crimes to truly rid the world of scum.



I disagree. I assure you killing someone is 100% effective in making sure they don't commit further crime.

Well i am here lol in other words i am British talon and i am tried of hearing ned’s killing people simply because they are drunk. You may have heard the latest news of 5 teenage boys being caught by the police for killing a man outside his home. One of the boys mother has to testify. I think this is becoming to regular with neds killing who ever they want knowing they will only get jailed for 20 years tops.

Ah, see because you didn't know the UK didn't have a death penalty and you refered to the UK as 'them' I just assumed you were American.




20 years? Your giving out system to much credit, we have cases of murders released after less than a decade.
Anyway I hate them too, thats why I advocate executing 10% of the criminal population who do nothing but reoffend and hurt others.

Everyone here, seems to be 'for' executing 'guilty' people. But wouldn't we then be just as guilty? I mean, wouldn't that make us murderers too??

I'm not. I'm against the dp.

You will never stop crime by executing the criminals. New criminals will always take their place.
Criminals generally do not reason cause and effect; the dp is not a deturrant
A gov't should not have the ability to kill its citizens
The dp simply cheapens life, and does not protect life

An argument for the dp is purely emotional. It is illogical to support the dp, as it does not deter crime.

Take a look at America, the Death Penalty isn't exactly the most successful deterrent over there, is it? Crime has done anything but drop over there.

Ah, but we're talking about Britain, aren't we? Yeah, well, in answer to the OP's question: No, Britain shouldn't have a Death Penalty. Instating a death penalty means that the government is inching just that little bit closer towards a totalitarian fascistic state, where the government seeks to quieten the masses by threatening them with a sharp stick. It wouldn't work.

I'm against the death penalty for one because get wrongly convicted. What do you do if they have been excecuted and evidence comes to light that they were innocent?

I suspect the death penalty would be a bad idea.

The best cure for crime is probably a good education.

Yes to the death penalty...
And other crimes should be dealt with like they do in iran or iraq, things like theft - cut one hand off etc.
This country is to liberal and to pink with crime in general.
If i was to be a drunk driver and i killed three people while under the influence, i would get 8 years, and probably serve 3 on good behaviour, thats with a nice cell three good meals a day TV, computer, tabs and a job to boot?
If i murdered someone i would get 25 years, the same 'if not more' privalages? and more than likely be out in 12 years, if i played the system.
IF YOU KILL SOMEONE THEN YOU DESERVE TO DIE FOR IT - IF YOUR PROOVED TO HAVE KILLED ACCIDENTALLY CUT THERE ARM OFF OR SOMETHING, NOT GIVE THEM A JOB AND LUXURIES...

Oh don’t give me this bleeding heart nonsense. Its people like you who’d have us living under the Nazis right now because you’d refuse to have fought WW2 against them on the basis ‘If we kill their soldiers, then we’d be just as bad as them for killing all those people in the occupied territories – far better to just surrender’.

For crying out loud there is nothing wrong with a society defending its people against predators.

If you love criminals so much why don’t you and them all go off to an island together, see how long it takes for them to turn on you despite your good-will towards them.




Yeah, but it’ll take time to repopulate their numbers. Considering 75% of crime is committed by the same 10% of criminals, I assure you crime would be cut dramatically crime.
Anyway, what are you suggesting? That just because there will always be crime we shouldn't do anything to stop the current criminals? Whats next 'You will never stop crime by locking up criminals. New criminals will always take their place'?





Who cares whether it’s a deterrent or not, it’s a punishment. That’s like saying jails aren’t a deterrent so don’t lock criminals up.




I assure you if someone is a serial murderer and we follow your plan to let them live, then there’s going to be a lot more deaths when he gets out of jail than if we just killed him when we have the chance.



Again, who cares if it deters crime, it’s a punishment. What’s illogical here is your argument that murders and rapists should be allowed to live and continue to prey on others – its goes against the very nature of our species to protect the group.





That’s probably because the Americans don’t use it enough. They use it on people who are nuts to begin with (I mean yuou have to be nuts to be a serial killer or rapist anyway), but if you started using it on burglars and muggers where there is a little more thought put into the crime then I bet you they’d be crime would drop.



This is the problem with bleeding hearts like yourself, you can’t tell the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy defending itself.

For the record rhyknow, since you clearly don't know, introducing the death penalty would not mean an end to elections, nor would it mean the government would threaten the law abiding with it - any party with such a policy would not be elected here despite... although since you beleive such a party might, I thinks its your entire beleif in democracy thats a concern not just the death penalty. What it would mean is all these murderers and rapists out there who people like yourself in power allow out of jail all the time on the basis of 'human rights', would not have the opportunity to commit further rapes and murders – which given the rate of reoffence, they often do.

The issue here isn’t just about the death penalty, its about whose side your on – the law-abiding citizen or the sub-human who wants to kill, rape, steal, assault them. I’m side with the former, you the later.




Except you ignore that middle and higher classes can be criminals also. Beleive it or not, you don't have to working class to be a criminals

Well I seriously doubt that they would get “wrongly convicted” as most death cases last for months and have lots of evidence and witnesses. In America most criminals are on death row for about 2 years before anyone gets executed.

"The best cure for crime is probably a good education."

Yes your very right but if education fails and keeps on failing them more serious actions have to be taken.

do you really want to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia? Is that really the type of government you want?

I'm willing to get robbed or mugged or even killed if it means preserving our liberty.



Oh good Lord, don't give me that bullsiht.



Wow, you're pulling out ALL the conservative illogical bullsiht, aren't you?

You think that because I don't believe a government should have the right to kill its own citizens, and I am educated about the actual effects of the dp, that I "love criminals?"
do you think you can put forth a point and attack our argument instead of slandering us?





No, I'm suggesting that
1-you will never end crime unless you attack the causes of crimanility. and even then, you will NEVER end crime completely.
2- no society, even the most brutal and corporal, has been free of crime. There is still crime in places where they cut your hand off for stealing. And those societies, not coincidentally, produce the same people that strap bombs to themselves and blow up civilians. It cheapens life for all that society and makes savages out of that society.
3- I am willing to live with the current crime rate if it means freedom from a government that cuts limbs off offenders and kills citizens. We value due process. Many, many of my countrymen have died to preserve due process of our law and a freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not going to disgrace their sacrafices because I'm an angry and emotional person with poor logic reasoning ability.



Who said anything about letting a serial murderer out of jail? Ah, I see, the same mind that thinks people like me would rather be Nazi's makes that illogical conclusion as well.



Think this out. Right now, you do not get the dp for mugging someone. But if you did, what's to keep a common street thug from killing you when the penalty for stealing your wallet is the same for bashing your head open repeatedly with a tire iron? Why run out of the house when confronted by a homeowner during a burglary if you are already going to get the dp? Now you have the ability to kill his family and him without any further punishment.

or do you want to perscribe a list of torture for each crime as well before the execution?

It doesn't matter anyway....criminals do not reason cause and effect like normal people. If they did, they would go to school and/or get a job. but the don't, and so they become criminals.




OVERWHELMINGLY non violent, however.

A criminal is still a person and not a sub-human. Though they need to be kept away from society for the sake of society, I am proud to live in a society that still upholds the dignity of human beings, even those that break societies laws.

I think you’re a bit to harsh there belial. I mean accidents do happen and if it was a genuine accident and you are genuinely sorry you shouldn’t get your arm cut off. A big fine and 7 maybe 8 years in prison should sort you out. Amnesty International wouldn’t approve of Britain copping peoples hands and legs off.

So you are trying to say that its ok for evil citizens to kill innocent citizens, but its not ok for the government trying to protect those who are innocent by eliminating and making an example of the evil citizens in fact murders. I think that’s a bit unjust. If you have it your way we’d have mayhem over here!

8 years for an accident?

For an ACCIDENT? do you mean something other than an "accident" involving drugs and/or alcohol and driving?

I will have to side with Talon on this one. Talon did not say that a guy who stole your wallet would get the dp so that argument is shot. Murders,rapists and violent criminals you know, the the ones that beat you so bad your in the hospital for a month recovering would be the one's on death row and no 10 years wait either. The dp is to stop re-offenders and I'm for it. I'm sick of these guys with rap sheet a mile long getting out over and over. How many times muders are caught and it's there first crime? How many rapists are caught that wouldn't re-offend? no one knows but if I had a daughter and she was raped and killed by a repeat offender hmmm I might become the killer.

Did I ever say it was OK for citizens to kill each other? DID I EVER SAY THAT?

I am saying that it is not OK for the government to "protect" those who are innocent by eliminating and making an example...blah blah blah.

Yes, that's wrong. A government should not have the right to kill it's own citizens.

I have my way over here in NY, and it's not mayhem. And I think that currently, in Britian it's my way too, and look...no mayhem. Let's see, where else in Europe is there no death penalty and yet there is not mayhem?

Try to read what I post instead of what you have been miseducated to believe I will post.

So why should a guy who originally wanted to mug me and take my wallet stop from killing me? The penalty is the same, and now i might be able to identify him.


It doesn't matter anyway, criminals do not reason cause and effect like normal people. Talon's logic is wrong.

So no due process of law either? Nice. Who's unpatriotic now?

well, if someone took or tried to take my wallet, unfortunately for them...they would be in extreme danger..

I don't believe in British Justice..

Where did I say stealing a wallet warrented the dp?

You say " criminals do not reason cause and effect like normal people" so way put them in jail for a few years and let them out?

The courts are clogged with apeal after apeal. I see no reason as to why it takes so long sometime 20 yrs for a sentence to be carried out.
I would just want a more efficient court system, whats wrong with that.

rolling eyes...

Actually Britain still retains the death penalty for treason and for witchcraft. If getting the death penalty for witchcraft makes you laugh the last person to be executed for it was inear the end of WW2.

As for the death penalty for other crimes I'm all for it. I dont believe in this Liberal nonsence of not executing them because it causes suffering to the criminal. In fact Im all for state sponsored torturing of criminals.

If that sounds barbaric then good. The scum of the Earth should be given the treatment they deserve. Get them hung drawn and quatered.

I have to say I am 50/50 on this.

One of the main problems here in the UK is the sentences people are given, its an absolute joke.

There are some crimes that I just don't think ANY sentence would mean justice has been served. My biggest gripe with the UK is the way that Paedophiles get such short sentences when its been proven time and time again that the crime they have been convicted of and sent to jail for isn't their first of that nature and other offenders come out and reoffend more or less straight away. I would have no problem in saying let all Paedophiles and child molesters get the Death Penalty...forget all this human rights tripe, offering them counselling or chemical castration etc...that doesn't help anything, their twisted thoughts will still be there and although they couldn't fully act on it they could still get access to child porn etc.

Let those people die an awful death while their surviving victims still suffer on a daily basis. No guilt there from me.

As many have said, others will always be there to replace the criminals but getting rid of every filthy piece of scum who has ever abused a child seems the only sure fire way of making sure they can't REOFFEND.

I don't know whether I would agree to the death penalty for other crimes. Simply make prison a punishment. Take away their every day comforts...forget Playstations and Xbox's and the like. Make prison the most miserable place on earth.

I know someone who served 7 years in prison when he was young and foolish for drug dealing (he was an heroin addict too) and although he regrets what he did and is now a law abiding citizen with a home, wife and child etc, he said those 7 years were the easiest of his life, a walk in the park, just at times a little boring...poor him.

Incidently, a man who lived next door but one to me abused 5 of my friends (one of them his niece who's family he lived with) over a period of 5 years got a 4 year sentence and was able to write letters to every girl he abused asking for forgiveness as part of his therapy....WTF??

The British justice system is a joke and adding the death penalty to it would only make matters worse, because those people who deserve it (molesters and rapists) would probably slip through the net.

Rant over.

It also denigrates life in general and cheapens the society in which it occurs. It devalues life and leads to a more violent society.



I can't believe they still make that model any longer. LONG thought obsolete.




Yea? But he's a a low abiding citizen with a wife, home, child, etc. And you find fault with the system that turned him into this? UNBELIEVABLE. How full of hate and vengence are YOU?



So then what? You'll have to keep minor offenders locked up for life, becasue what do you imagine someone who goes to prison for three years and doesn't learn anything and is put through hell is going to do when they get out? do you think they will be a model member of society after that? Or do you think that someone who goes to prison and then is let out without any skills or education on how to be a good citizen will just be angry, violent, bitter, and most likely reoffend?

Think this out, everyone. Use your heads, not your emotions. What do you think the goal of prison should be? To build a good citizen, or just to punish and do harm, then releasing a broken and bitter, skill less person out onto the street? Which do you think is better?

I dont think the DP is the way forward. For starters if you want to make somone suffer for their crime you dont humanely execute them, making it a quick and clean. Might as well employ torturers if its suffering you want to inflict!

Though I suspect you'd be reluctant to actually impartially inflict it yourself. Should the executioner be allowed to know what the criminal did? Or is that as bad as having a biased jury that have already made their decision prior to hearing the evidence?

The law is there to take dishonest citizens and one way or another to turn them into honest citizens. The process doesnt have to painless or easy but it needs to work, and you cant do that to somone if you've cut their bloody head off!

Education is where it starts. If its used well enough it could be all you need.

BTW Where do you see the greatest crime? The countries with the DP and bad education, or the ones with good education and no DP?

I dont see why I should pay taxes to keep scum locked up in a prison cell. Prisons should be abolished and prisoners should be punished more effectively not to mention cheaply. Locking them up in prison doesn't work anyway as so many reoffend.

What I believe should happen
If its a petty crime then (after being found guilty) the court police should take the criminal outside to the town centre and beat the lving **** out of them. Then they are free and by free I mean free to go to hospital.

If its a moderate crime it should be more than just a beating. They should be tortured in the town centre. The torture should be bad and painful but not life threatening or likely to leave any lasting damage.

If its a serious crime then the court police should pull out all the stops for the criminal. The scum should have to endure the most horrific and agonising tortures possible designed to last several days before they are finally tortured to death. After a set period of this horrific torturing mercy could be granted by the family/relatives/friends of the victim but only when they have seen the scum suffer so much that they have gained their closure. Obviously if the crime was sickening they aint going to ge their mercy.

Do this and I bet crime drops away like nothing especially if it is televised

Oh dear, oh dear.... well, maybe it'll come true..
There's a natural sort of justice in which the criminals prefer to go for the 'perfect liberal victim.'
Sorta like, Natural Karma.

Because you belong to a society that prizes human dignity, even for our criminals.



do you think that will make someone a better citizen, or do you think it will make them angry and violent and more desperate?



You want to live in a society where torture is used on the citizens who break the law? Think about what you are saying. Are you an American? Because that is very much the antithesis of the ideals america was founded upon.




I wager the opposite happens and the society becomes a very violent society. In what way do you think condoning torture is going to get people to respect life and law?
It has not worked in other civilizations. It will have the opposite effect on ours.

All I can do is be thankful that people that think like you do are in the extreme minority.

Neognosis,

Yea? But he's a a low abiding citizen with a wife, home, child, etc. And you find fault with the system that turned him into this? UNBELIEVABLE. How full of hate and vengence are YOU?


I am not full of vengeance. He happens to be a close friend of my family now. I met him after his prison sentence. He is now with my best friend.

He actually lives right now off of the money that he made while drug dealing and works as and when he chooses ( he hid it in many places, in bank accounts under his family members names etc) My point is he said prison was EASY. He has since said if things got tough he knows he could always go back to dealing as its an easy way to make money and the punishment isn't that bad!!!. It hasn't deterred him that much. Although he is happy in his life now...he probably more wealthy than alot of people who work long hard hours at work.

The changes he has made were made after prison ( he didn't get clean until AFTER he got out of prison- he said it was too easy to score drugs in there...and drugs helped with the boredom). He has said himself that prison did nothing to turn him into what he is now...THATS MY POINT.

My point is not actually about my friends boyfriend...I am just using an example of someone I know and the FACTS that he has told me. I know that doesn't mean everyone is the same, but thats the only side I have heard first hand seeing as I dont know any other people with a criminal past.


So then what? You'll have to keep minor offenders locked up for life, becasue what do you imagine someone who goes to prison for three years and doesn't learn anything and is put through hell is going to do when they get out? do you think they will be a model member of society after that? Or do you think that someone who goes to prison and then is let out without any skills or education on how to be a good citizen will just be angry, violent, bitter, and most likely reoffend?

Think this out, everyone. Use your heads, not your emotions. What do you think the goal of prison should be? To build a good citizen, or just to punish and do harm, then releasing a broken and bitter, skill less person out onto the street? Which do you think is better?

I don't believe I ever said to keep minor offenders locked up for life. I never said to NOT teach them skills to be a better or reformed person when they get out...I just didn't state thats what they should do. I am a firm believer in giving people the skills to have something to aim for when they have carried out their sentence. When I said make prison the most miserable place on earth, I wasn't talking torture or anything...You've read alot into what I haven't said. I just don't see why people have committed a crime should have the luxuries like games consoles etc. Help them fill their time doing something constructive, finding out why they committed the crimes in the first place etc, giving them the tools or ability to let the release from prison to be the start of a better life.

Apart from of course Paedophiles...if I am being too emotional then tough. 19 years on one of my friends is still suffering from the sexual abuse she suffered at the hand of her uncle( I don't know about the other 3, I say that because one of them committed suicide 3 years later at the age of 14), where as he is roaming the streets. I have every right to be emotional on that one.

But yes, I see your point, and I don't think prison should be miserable in the way you thought I had mean't. If the time people spend in prison can reform people great, thats justice served for all and a better life for the person in prison once they're out. I just dont want to pay my taxes helping criminals have an easy time like my friends boyfriend did. Use that time to make a difference thats all I am saying.

Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.

That means that freedom isn't free, and to live in a society that values freedom and liberty, one must be prepared to pay the price.

Freedom costs so much because it is worth every drop of blood. Far better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to suffer unjustly. This is what my country based it's entire justice system upon, and as an American I stand by it.

If freedom from an oppressive government that tortures it's citizens means I might have to pay by having property stolen or my life take, that's the price of freedom. LIVE FREE OR DIE.

I agree completely.

*Irony Alert!* Becouse reinforcing the image people have of the police being just another gang of thugs is a such a good idea...

(and in case you dont get my meaning..)

...NOT!

There would be riots in the streets, disorder would rule, life would come down to survival of the strongest, and what chance would you stand against the muderers and rapists in such a world? You'd be breakfast mate.

In answer to the original question I say yes it should. People love to drag out the old chestnut that it is not a deterrent to crime. I put it to them that NOTHING is a deterrent to a criminal. If prison were a deterrent to crime they would be empty and we would be crime free. Face it, crime pays and usually pays well for those who dont get caught (I suspect the majority of criminals). Justice is about the punishment fittng the crime... note the word "punishment", NOT vengance. Even when the death penalty was in force, how many judges would willingly sentence someone to death rather than life in prison? Only the most overt or heinous murderers get the death sentence

Is that true in Canada? Because it's not true in the states in the US that have the dp. Here, you most likely get the dp if you are a black murderer and you usually get life if you are white for the same crime. Granted, there are fewer white murderers, but the numbers bear my point out in proportionately.



But don't you think that damage having state sanctioned killing does to society is in itself too high a cost for the death penalty?

See, there's this idea in the West that vengeance is somehow uncivilized- and unjust.
But in many cultures vengeance is actually seen to be honorable. It may not be fashionable..or maybe it is...but I happen to agree.
Imo I don't have a problem with vengeance.

In the UK there's been too many miscarriages of Justice, where a offender has been released early from a (pretty lame prison sentence) only to go on and commit another crime.
Yet, no one's is ever held accountable... not the lawyers.. or the parole board or the rich..upper class..lost the score pompous Judges



I'm a nerd and I'm a freak

Not really. If I was President I would firstly declare martial law.

Then all serious criminals, both the inmates and ex-offenders, would be rounded up and executed. The military would then dish out beatings to minor and moderate criminals and ex-convicts. The army would be given free reign to crush and terrorise all that opposed me to prevent any uprising from the criminal class's.

Then you would all be made to go to Church on Sunday and live good happy lives. Of course you would be secretely watched in the secret Big Brother state that I would create and at the slightest glimer of you turning into a rotten egg you would mysteriously disappear of to one of my secret torture camps.

Almost over night thanks to my ruthless crack down and brainwashing I would reprogramme the state so they don't even know what a criminal is because they cease to exist along with all other distastful types of people.

Gee wiz man cool it will you. I think its you who should read things properly, as I clearly said is that what you are TRYING to say. I meant that as in is that what your are trying to put across? At no point did I say that’s exactly what you said. So please chill ok.

Goblin i think you're very right

No death penalty in Canada since Pierre Tuudeau's time. Not likely to return given the current mindset of Canadians. I know that in the US there are severe issues with the entire justice system and that alone would make me halt the death penalty imposition until these inequities can be fixed (if ever)



Nope. The state sanctions killing whenever it goes to war or whenever a police officer shoots a criminal or whenever anyone kills to defend themselves. You could argue that this is not murder inasmuch as there was no premeditation (in the latter two cases anyway) but dead is dead isnt it? A state which truly was against the death penalty would abolish its armed forces and rely on the goodwill of its neighbours for security. I think a Central American country tried that a while back (Honduras?). Didnt work.
Why is it better to kill someone slowly (life in prison) than quickly? Thats what life in prison is... you DIE in there at the states pleasure and expense. Isnt it more cruel to have someone die a long slow death knowing they will never be free? Wouldnt they be more prone to get violent or commit criminal acts knowing that they have no hope? Wana be a guard in a lifers prison? Of course life means no conjugal visits, no TV, no internet etc. It is not a 1 star hotel... it is supposed to be a replacement for the death penalty. In Canada federal time is what many criminals push for over Provincial time because Federal prisons are sucha huge step above Provincial ones. Dont ask me to defend the Canadian "justice" system please. I cant. On the plus side we do have Bernardo in solitary 23 1/2 hours a day to protect him from the general populace. They would kill him VERY slowly if they got their hands on him

This is where you lose me, you say "Far better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to suffer unjustly"

What you don't get is that you let out 100 guilty men to quite possibly victimise and kill possibly a hundred more innocent people. What kind of freedom is that for the innocent, to be forced to live with known and dangerous criminals. Your statement and claim puts alot more innocents at risk then having a very small percentage of innocents killed on death row.

1. I believe swearing against forum rules, please follow them. Swearing is the act of the ill-educated when they can’t think of anything better to say.
2. It’s a sensible conclusion since you’re against violence, you must be also against war – even those in self defence. You can’t have it both ways; you can’t say killing murders would ‘make us murderers too’ and then say ‘oh wait, in some situations killing murderers like killing Nazis is different’. By your argument, every Allied soldier who killed a Nazi is a murderer – that’s what your argument on a grander scale is saying.

Like it or not, just wars like WW2 are clear examples were violence is needed to defend people, and killing murders is justified.
Now the fact you seemed upset by this summery of your views seemed to imply that you views aren’t are strong as you originally claimed. Question is, if your willing to admit that killing Nazis is okay, why isn’t killing murders and rapists who prey on the innocent and law-abiding okay?

Why is killing a Nazi any different than killing a serial murderer?




Again, swearing is the refugee of those not intelligent enough to form sensible argument and is against forum rules.

Also, I’m not a conservative, I’m a Socialist… the conservatives all hate me for being a lefty.



You’ll actually find you’re the one you is swearing at people who don’t agree with your opinion and wrote off some else’s entire argument as illogical first, while I’m just making natural conclusions based on your stated view points. So you’re the one slandering others – not me.
I’m sitting here trying to have a civil debate on the implications of pacifism in dealing with criminals, you seem to want to turn this is a swear-fest.

Fact: You said DP shouldn’t be used because its murder to kill without exception. Therefore I’m quite justified to assume you mean this in reference to our soldiers fighting the Nazis, as nowhere did you says ‘sometimes its okay to kill’.

Fact: You said DP shouldn’t be used as a deterrent. Now since this is an attack on using forms of punishment that don’t deter crime, I’m quite right to point out that if deterrent is all your interested in that you might as well not support jails since they don’t deter criminals.




Yes, I recognise your saying that, but my point is just because you can’t end crime doesn’t have any impact on whether we should use the death penalty. Jail, Asbos, Fines and House arrest haven’t stopped crime and never will, but we use them – so why not the death penalty?





Again, all societies having crime doesn’t really have any impact on the DP. As I said, if your arguing against the DP on the bases of it not being a good deterrent you might as well demand we stop issuing fines and locking people in Jail since they don’t deter criminals either. Jail, fines and DP are all about punishments, not deterrents – and trust me, killing someone is a great punishment.

Also the terrorist bombs are due to religion, not the death penalty. Also I’m not advocating cutting criminals hands off, as they’ll just bleed the system dry on welfare – I’m advocating cutting their heads off to make sure they don’t reoffend.




You again miss the point. The death penalty is about killing criminals not cutting off their limbs – so your argument about limbs isn’t justified. So you don’t have to worry, if you live in a society that kills child rapists, is doesn’t have to be one that cuts off hands.

Again, your claim I’m slandering you, but its you whose insulting everyone who disagrees with you calling them an “angry and emotional person with poor logic reasoning ability”. Notice that while I don’t agree with anything you’ve said and attacked your views, I’ve at least shown basic manners and courtesy and not insulted you personally. I mean ultimately maybe my parents just raised me better or something and so being courteous to others and not swearing at them is just part of my nature – but you could at least try to do the same.




Actually it’s the same mind that watches the news and reads papers. You have seen the jail sentences people serve in this country? We have a 20-something year old who raped a 97 year old woman, got 3 years in jail, came out and within a month had raped a 2 year old in her home. The “law’s an a**” is an old saying, because its fact – the law in this country loves to let people out early.

Please, if your going to argue about this, at least check the news to see what kind of joke sentences some of our worst criminals are getting away with here.
If murders and rapists were locked away for life, maybe I wouldn’t be pro-death penalty, but the fact is there are always pro-lifers and human rights –legislation ready to get them out.






I think your missing the point of just how many criminals who mug someone or break into someone’s house if they knew they were going to be killed for it? Answer is those ones who are already far gone enough to kill the person they mug in the first place.
Fact is most perpetrators of this type of crime are not as mentally imbalanced as a murderer or rapist, particularly for burglary. Someone who is so far gone they can kill another human being in cold blood or rape something won’t care about the threat of punishment – but someone thinking about breaking into a house for money might think twice if they know they’ll be executed for it.
Anyway, I made it pretty clear I’m after career criminals. I’m quite willing to let the first burglary off with a jail time, its if you continue to reoffend again and again that I think your use to society has come to and end.




Torturing terrorist for information is fine, but torture before an execution just seems a waste of time. If you want to advocate it that’s okay, but personally seems overkill to me.




Again your making judgements without doing any research. This is second time you’ve claimed only the non-educated commit crimes, however there are plenty of well educated and wealthy individuals who have committed a range of crimes including murder – in fact so that you know for future here’s a link to a wiki article about White Collar Crime – it’s the name under which we pin just some of the crimes committed by well educated people (a group you seem to believe are incapable of committing such acts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime






Still crime however, and thus destroys your argument that only working classes can commit crime. While working class are more likely indeed to mug or burglary because of poverty, the educated are indeed capable or murder and rape. So no, education does not end crime.




Depends what you classify as human. A human is a sociable animal that lives in groups for mutual protection and comfort. A criminal is indeed a member of our species, however they do not seek protection and comfort from society, but rather prey on it – not very human. Therefore I think I’m justified in calling them sub-human, since they do not share all the traits of our species.



Well you can be proud of that if you wish; personally I’m sickened that my society does its best to protect criminals who prey on dignity and lives of other human beings.



Ultimately it all comes down to scum like this


This is Ian Huntley



In his long career as a criminal he committed

… one act of burglary

… one act of indecent assault

… four acts of rape on little girls

… three acts of rape on adult woman


All known to the police but all ignored.


… finally he murdered two 10 year old girls - Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in a rape attempt

Since finally being sent to prison he’s attempted to kill himself twice and our pathetic system has twice wasted tax-payers money to save him because of its belief his is a valuable human life.

The question is, how can anyone look at people like this and state without hesitation that its society’s duty to uphold his “dignity [as a] human” and that he doesn’t deserve to die.

Whoah Talon easy... I don't think there's anything left of Neogosis...
I guess that's why you're called Talon!

You hurt me, I hurt you, you kill me, my brother kills you, your brother kills my brother, my son kills your brother, your son kills my son, my daughter kills......

Wonderful.




Sounds like a problem with your prison sentences and justice system that is not necessarily solved by the death penalty.



That's just patently false and, quite franky, silly. The death penalty has nothing to do with national defense. A government reserves the right to defend itself against foreign dangers, but should not be able to killi t's OWN CITIXENS.



That is the price of liberty. Freedom from an oppressive government is worth every drop of blood in my veins.




As for you, I'm only going to take the time to adress one point from each post. I simply don't have time. So I'll start with the first ridiculous thing you said.

After WWI ended, the allies wanted to punish germany, rather than build Germany back up. The result was the meteoric rise of hitler to power and the mobilization of an entire bitter and humiliated nation. Since you are fond of drawing illogical conclusions based on nothing and bringing out the typical Nazi bullsiht that some ignoramous always parades out whenever someone is against the death penalty or any war (your logis is: if I don't want to kill my neighbor, therefore I must never think killing anyone is ok, and that's fallacious), I'll play the "nazi" game and point out that punishment for the sake of punishment based on emotions and not on logic created the Nazi's in the first place.

As for your criminal who comitted all those crimes, the Police ignored his crimes? Keeping him in jail would have prevented the further crimes just as long as executing him, and we would get to keep our respect for human life and not denigrate our society into a cult of bloodthristy vengence killers with a government that kills its own citizens.

Except the DP isn’t about eye for an eye. It’s the state that will kill the sub-human scum after a trial, not a mob.





Actually you’ll find the death penalty does indeed solve the problem of released criminals committing more crimes… unless you know how someone can rape and murder from across the grave.






Why? What’s the difference between killing someone outside the country who wants to kill your people and killing someone within the country who wants to kill your people?





You say that, but I doubt very much you’d be so willing if your parents, wife, children etc were killed by a serial murderer who was released from prison.





Again, you whine that I’m slandering you, but once again you can’t even find the manners to make a post with out making an insult. If you honestly think swearing and insulting people makes your post gain credibility, your sadly mistaken, all it shows is a sad lack of vocabulary, manners, and possibility a bad family background.





… again with the swearing, the biggest joke being you swear at me in the same paragraph you accuse me of being ‘slanderous’ towards you. Dude, please, I don’t honestly care if you swear at me I find it funny you can’t think of anything better to say, but for your own sake and that of any children you might one day have, please wash out your mouth.


Also your history lesson is quite crude and misses out most of pre-war history, including your neglect to mention that the Nazis were actually a tiny party during the 1920s immediately after the war and it was the hardships of the collapse of the western economy (WW1 victories and losers all) that allowed them to finally get power. You also miss out that America ploughed massive amounts of money into the German economy after the war to rebuild, practically meaning they were paying off Germany’s tab for the war.
Your analogy is also pretty poor. My logic is actually ‘If my neighbour wants to kill me, I should expect my government to protect me’.

Neither do you answer the issue I’m raising about killing being needed in many occasions. Yes or No, do you oppose killing in self defence? If you don’t like the WW2 example then use one such as a lunatic comes at you with a knife and leaves you no option but to kill him or be killed.
And if you answer yes, then how is that any different from the government killing someone who has shown they are determined to continue killing and raping for as long as society is willing to let them?






Except you ignore that they didn’t keep him in jail, in fact they never even sent him there to begin with they let him go on technicalities… many many times, and so his crimes where not prevented. And either way, why should the tax-payer pay millions of pounds every year to keep him alive, let alone clog up the NHS with his constant attempts to kill himself.
Personally I find your talk about the need to respect human life even if that person rapes and murders children quite disturbing. I wonder how long your values would hold if someone like Huntley was released from jail and raped and murdered your daughter – of course I fully expect you to reply ‘I’ll never loose my faith that his life and dignity is important’, however I’m thinking that smugness would end instantly if it did happen and you’d be like the rest of us outside the courtroom demanding he be shot.


In the end, this is not about what a perfect society would do, in case you haven’t noticed, this isn’t a perfect society. Yes, it would probably be best to have society were we didn’t need to kill criminals to stop them preying upon us – but the fact is we don’t live in that type of society. We live in a very dark, violent and scary world were there are men and women out there who wouldn’t think twice about coming up behind you and stabbing you thirty times for your wallet, for fun, or just because they didn’t like your face.
You might see someone like that as a human being whose life is just as precious as anyone else’s, heck for all I know you’d argue that Stalin’s life was just as precious as anyone else’s – however, it’s nothing but a self destructive dream that’s letting parasites and predators kill us and our children.

I believe in the dignity of the human being, even murderers. I don't think someone loses their humanity when they commit a crime, even one as bad as rape or murder.



Because one is a citizen, and a government should never be able to kill its own citizens.




I would lobby for life sentences that actually mean life in prison. I would not feel like killing that person was just or that it would bring my loved one back. I also realize that I might be making illogical decisions based on emotion if that happened, much as some of you are doing now, and not based on logic. And, perhaps most difficult of all to accept...that is sometimes the price for the liberty and freedom from government that we enjoy in the US.




Not true. It was the taking of German land in "punnishment" that provided the justification for militarization and mobilation, and for invading neighboring countries that had been given slivers of german land, on which german people lived.



No. The death penalty is NOT killing in self defense. It's killing after the fact. The argument that it prevents the criminal from further killing is weak when one considers that a real life sentence is as effective, without the negative effects of having state sanctioned killing of their own citizens, the general disrespect for human life and dignity, and the lack of any tangible data that shows the dp is any kind of deturrant at all.



That's a problem with your justice system, not a reason for the dp. In the US, we hold such a high regard for individual freedom that we will not do away with our due process. And in the US, executing someone who is defending themselves using the full extent of our due process is more costly than warehousing them for life.




Yes, and the dp is not going to change that. In fact, it will just cheapen human life more. Your own country (I'll assume Britian, based on the "pounds" it takes to keep someone in jail) had the death penalty and you still had crime, in fact more crime than you have now, I'll wager.


So, I've called your rhetoric bullsiht when you bring out the old conservative standy,--the Nazis and WWII and try to paint dissenters as "Nazi friendly" and you find that offensive and you worry about my kids...but you don't seem to have a problem with reducing human beings to "subhuman, scum, parasite, etc."

Interesting what you choose to find offensive.

See, I find villifying someone and falsly attemting to put them into a catagory with Nazis because they don't agree with your opinion to be FAR more vile and offensive than a combination of consonants and vowels. I also find the characterization of a human being as "sub human scum" to be much more offensive than a word as well.

But guess it shouldn't surprise me that such venom is necessary if one wants to support the death penalty. We can't be murdering PEOPLE, right? So they must be dehumanized for the rationalization that what you want to do is right.

Well ultimately that’s something we’re never going to agree on. But at least you aren’t insulting people who disagree with you on that issue now.




I still don’t see why though its okay for the government to kill one set of murders and not the other though. I understand what your saying, as long as their foreign murderers its okay cause their not one of us. But I have to admit, I just see a killer no matter his nationality and I feel the government should protect us.




Major issue to remember here; this is about the UK, not the US. While I understand that many US citizens fear their government and that’s why they feel they need to bear arms in case Bush or some other democratically elected leader decides to make himself dictator, European democracies are far more trusting of the system. Don’t get me wrong, I think the current system is weak and pathetic, but I don’t believe European democracy is so week it’ll collapse into a dictatorship like American’s such as yourself fear your democracy will. EU democracy could just be stronger than American democracy and thats why we don't have this fear, so this could be an European vs American issue, and how American leaders can’t be trusted to be corrupt and turn on their people, while Europeans can’t even trust our leaders to turn on criminals.





ER, please make up your mind on what you’re arguing. You were not arguing what justification Hitler used to invade other countries. You argued that Versailles was the reason he was elected. However, Versailles was not the reason he was elected, it was due to economic problems. As for Germany land, you’ll find Alsace-Lorraine indeed went to the French, however, please remember the German’s took it from France in the 1871 war between the two. Also in relation to the Polish Corridor, most of that population was Polish. Also considering how much of Russia was signed over to the German’s when Russia withdrew from the war – you can’t use the German’s as an example of a party being hard done too. Hitler indeed used this territorial loss as an excuse to invade other countries, however please remember he also attacked countries that he had no territorial claims on – and the master race issue didn’t come from Versailles. Also the Austro-Hungarian Empire lost even more than Germany and it didn’t vote for Hitler – he occupied it at a later date. In the end, if it had not been for the economic turmoil of the Wall Street Crash Hitler would never have seen power.







Except that there is no such thing as a real life sentence. Life is about 7-15 years in the UK, we have rapists and murderers released after 2-3 years for good behaviour. Even if we introduced a proper system where someone it locked up for life, it never changes the fact that one election is all it takes for another party to come in a lower the sentences again.
Another note, we don’t have enough jails for our prison population. Nowhere to put them means we can’t lock them all up for life – it isn’t an option.




You know there is an irony that you say talk about the US’s high regard for individual freedom as if its above everyone else’s, yet it’s the UK and the rest of the EU that lack the death penalty which you claim means a country doesn’t have any regards for individual freedoms. Essentially by your own argument, since the US has the death penalty it doesn’t have any regard for human life.
Still your lucky to have it.




Actually for the record we have more crime now than when we had the death penalty

“The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The principal methods of homicide were fights involving fists and feet, poisoning, strangling, firearms and cutting by glass or a broken bottle. 72% of the victims were male with young men being most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. The figure for 2005 is 280. There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of “life in prison” for murder.
Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings, however, drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have done something as minor as arguing with someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in most Western countries, greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries (e.g. Josie Russell). Careful analysis of the situation in Britain between 1900 and the outbreak of the second World War in 1939 seems to point to the death penalty being a strong deterrent to what one might call criminal murders, i.e. those committed in the furtherance of theft, but a very poor deterrent to domestic murders, i.e. those committed in the heat of the moment. A very large proportion of the victims of those hanged during this period were wives and girlfriends, with a small number of husbands and boyfriends. So where a crime was thought about in advance the criminal had time to consider the consequences of their action and plan differently. For instance they may decide to rob a bank at the weekend to avoid coming into contact with the staff and to do so without carrying firearms.”
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/thoughts.html




You have no idea how ironic it is that once again you choose to break the rules and display a rather rude vocabulary by once again fall back on swearing to make up an argument and then actually have the nerve to ask what people find insulting. I give up, obviously you were raised in a poor household were swearing was commonplace and you’ve been raised to think its sociably acceptable and that’s why your so insistent on it. Fine go ahead swear all you want, teach your children to swear, swear at people in the street in daily conversation, do what you like I don’t care.

Anyway, ‘subhuman, scum, and parasite’ are not swear words, neither did I ever call you any of them. You your claims that me not liking murders and rapists very much accounts to the same as you swearing and calling people stupid all the time really doesn’t cut it.

Also dude, I’ve told you already I’m a left-winger i.e. a Socialist. The conservatives hate me, one of them I’m not.






I don’t see anywhere were I called you a Nazi. I asked how you can support killing Nazis but not murderers, but I don’t see anywhere were I said ‘You’re a Nazi because you don’t support the death penalty’. But that’s the problem with people like yourself, you exaggerate what people say/make up what they say.
Also if you think asking someone ‘do you think WW2 was justified’ is vile compared to swearing, you need to sort out your priorities. Seriously, I don’t mean that in a hostile way, just really concerned that you get so worked up about debates you think swearing at your fellow human is more justifiable than someone raising an issue about how far you take your pacifism.

In fact, considering all the insults you throw at people just because they don’t support your view point, I have to say that you should be the last person to have the right to talk about human dignity and decency towards your fellow man. Serious – kettle, pot, black.

Know what helps - breathing. Before reverting to your desire to swear and insult others, you should take some deep breaths and then write. Trust me it helps.




This coming from the only person on the thread openly swearing at fellow debaters despite of forum rules.

Dude, throughout this conversation I’ve attacked your arguments against the death penalty – but the only attack I’ve made personally on you is your use of bad language. I have tried to remain as civil as possible despite all the abuse you've thrown at me. You have absolutely no right to moan about other people ‘venom’. The high ground you have not.

We don't fear our government BECAUSE we have the right to bear arms and we hold freedom from an oppressive government in extremely high esteem.



that is HIGHLY debatable. German nationalism was fueled by what...economic collapse made humiliating and even more difficult to bear because of Verasilles. Germany forced to pay back the Allies in punishment? We didn't make the same mistake twice. We didn't try to "punish" germany post WWII, and look what happened.




Then change THAT, no bring back the death penalty.



I find that hard to believe. your entire island has such a HUGE criminal population that there is just not enough real estate to house them? So your solution is to start killing them?


In the states that have the death penalty (and not all states do) life is cheapened. Witness the guy in Texas (death penalty central) who killed two men who were robbing his neighbors house. The police operator specifically told him to stay in his own house. But he wanted to kill someone so badly, he went out and shot them in the BACK. Over possessions. He took two lives over replacable possessions. i would call that a cheapening of and disregard for life, yes.



Then why do we still have a high crime rate in states with it? Just not killing enough people, I suppose? not televising it? The DP doesn't detur crime.





that's consistant with rise in crime here too, including states where we have the death penalty.




The use of a combination of vowels and consanants is far less offensive than the reduction of a human being to sub-human status. NOt liking murderers and rapists? don't make me laugh. Nobody likes murderers and rapists. But it is reprehensible to reduce a human being to "scum" or "sub-human" (irnoically, very "nazi," wouldn't you say?).





I would say that's far more insulting than calling that very argument bullsiht, and it's a very cheap tactic.

The fact is, the dp does not detur crime and a government should never have the ability to kill its own citizens. The dp creates a disregard for human life on the part of the courts that can only lower society's same regard, thus actually increasing violence in that same society.

Ehh well guys I think you should stop referring to the death penalty as murder since when you really think about it its not its justice. Killing innocent people that’s murder but killing repetitive murderess and rapists is justice. ...................Yes it is