Capital Punishment should be used in the UK
Repeat offender murderers. "Life sentence" convicts released after six years. There is little deterrent for severe crime in the UK, this has to change.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Prisons in the UK are overcrowded
Our prisons are full and it's no suprise why, with a catering service and sky TV prison gets more and more like a hotel every day. Prison spending totals £1.5 billion and is to be increased by £1.2 billion, wouldn't this money be far better spent elsewhere?
If someone near and dear to you was killed, and the killer served a six year life sentence and was released to potentially kill again, would you feel justice was done? Would you feel peace of mind?
You don't have to look far to find the statistics, murderers kill again, it's a fact, and not getting rid of these people on religious grounds or otherwise is illogical and immoral to everybody else in the UK. We don't live in a theocracy, so why is the law affected by religious moral? Although this issue is not directly concerning religion, there is a large majority of agnostic/atheist individuals who think indipendantly and realise that change is inevitable.
UK law is ineffective in general, and the worst instance of this is an individual who kills another not being dealt with accordingly.
Our prisons are full granted, but that does not mean we should kill every tom, Dick and harry to clear up our over-crowed prisons. This is wrong. The number of people punished by capital punishment each year has never and would never justify any means of 'reducing the over crowding'.
The money arguement you use is not viable, simply because to execute someone costs alot more then keeping someone in prison. In the USA people are on deathrow for up to 20 years, appeals run into the millions there, outwieghing even keeping them imprisioned even for LIFE.
Yes murderers do offend, but not all, nearly half do, but over half do not, and they feel genuine guilt and forgiveness.
Also it is foolish to assume every family would want someone killed, the feeble "Eye for an EYE" arguement coming in to play here.
I have looked at it from an entierly unmoral and reglious viewpoint as most people these days do. Capital punishment can not be justifed in todays moder society. Innocent people would be at threat. And the arguement kill one innocent to catch 10 guilty is pathetic.
It's the ultimate deterrent, we can't stop a murder in progress, but we can prevent it.
Not much explanation needed here, for example Saudi Arabia has a very low murder rate, they use Capital Punishment, doesn't take a genius...
The USA also uses capital punishment, and has a high murder rate showing that capital punishment is not always an effective deterrent.Similar trends in other countries show inverse correlation between murder rates and capital punishment.
It doesn't take a genius to draw wide conclusions from a small study. It takes a more intelligent person to look at ALL of the countries that use the death penalty. Would you agree with the implication of the following statement, "the day I was born the First Gulf War broke out. Doesn't take a genius..."? Because then I'm responsible for the Gulf War. (Hint: I'm not).
You cannot prevent the crime by killing them, as it has already happened and this is simply a punishment.
The use of Capital punishment may be a strong deterrent, but it has also been shown to increase the the violence after a capitally punishable crime has been comitted - for example if you know you will be sentenced to death for the crime you have just committed, you would be more willing to commit more serious crimes in order to avoid being caught - unlike a prison sentence there is no no second chance when sentenced to death. (this effect has been widely documented in the USAs 'three strike system')
Value On Life
When a sentance is given in the court of law to a capital crime, it is said that the suspect is given a life sentance of which six years must be served, however, when you say six years must be served, you are valueing life to six years. A life is a life, it isn't six years. If you commit murder if proven guilty you must be willing to give your own life. However, where do you draw the line, if you commit man slaughter then you've taken a life but should you be sentanced to death, the answer is a simple no. If you have set out determined to take a persons life, then it is organised murder. Therefore they have willingly taken the life of another person. Although not a religious person myself, going to a methodist school and having christian friends, having talked about it there are some things I agree with. For Instance, In the days of moses, when the ten commandments were written, one of them wat "you shall not kill", if one of these commandments were broken by the community, the punishment was death, mostly carried out by the stoning of the suspect. God said, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand and foot for foot. This section of Christianity i believe in. But god didn't say, life for six years, it was life for life. If you are willing to take another persons life for whatever reason you should be willing to give your own.
Firstly, I believe that it is exceptionally rare for a murderer to be given a sentence of six years.
Secondly, you're right - the Ten Commandments do say "Thou shalt not kill". Surely this in itself is justification for not using capital punishment; even the life of a sinner has some value. To argue that killing him would even the score is a classic example of "two wrongs don't make a right" - this is something that Jesus explained when he said "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.'" [Matthew 5:38-40]]
I accept that the punishment for murder, particularly for repeat offenders, can be seen as too lenient, but if you want to use a moral argument, you have to be prepared for the deontological stance that killing is always wrong.
Do unto others or stop them by deterring the animals.
Eight murders so far recorded over the Christmas period,how sad. As a teddy boy in the 60s my mates and I didn't carry knives due to the fact we may get carried away during a fight and use it and HANG for it. With todays wonderfull technology no mistake would occur to punish the wrong person. Prison is a laugh and a badge of honour with the sicko's so what else is there ?. We wont do it if the punishment is severe and justifiable to the offence. If it was one of yours who was murdered ?, nobody was born to be murdered. Extra police is no answer,they cannot do anything whatsoever.And apart from that they are too busy with all the car chase and police programmes on the tv.
Yes do it to them.
One of the no's said we teach not to kill. We are not teaching anybody not to kill, one cannot teach without a deterent in place because that is all they can perceive to be a punishment. The dolts are bombarded with the softness in jail its a joke. 10 murders across the uk over the Christmas holidays, who is teaching what ?. Let them know they will be killed if they kill, its a known fact it will deter. Prior to the demise of capital punishment everybody could remember the murders and their names, we cannot remember now because there are too many too frequently.
That there has been an increase in homicide does not mean that the cause was the abolition of capital punishment or that the solution is its reintroduction. The United States which has capital punishment has a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people compared to the UK's 1.23. Japan on the other hand, which does have capital punishment, has a lower rate of 0.83.[used the 2010 table as the most up to date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate%5D%5D
Yes I would
undoudtedly kill anyone who kills another. I would kill someone who killed one of mine, and I know prison is no hardship its quite clubby if one is of the sad mentality who continue to frequent them,,they need a deterent. I would be killing someone who killed an innocent.
And you should then be killed in turn? Why should I be killed in turn ? I would only be killing a low life who took it upon him/herself to kill an innocent, I would not be killing an innocent.
Cheaper than prison
It is far cheaper than keeping the morons in a cushy prison which is not a deterent today. Kill one killer to stop others from thinking about it.
Really? The experience from the US is that it is a lot more expensive to have people on death row than in prison - admittedly this is not intrinsically the case, but for a country that claims to have a just and fair justice system there needs to be absolute certainty before a death sentence is carried out. This leads to a very long appeals process. The costs vary - in some cases they may be a bit less but the NY times gives some expensive examples
Time has proved it.
In Britain the people who were about since the 60s have seen the vast amount of murders increase yearly. Prior to the abolishion we could remember a murder but not now, they are too frequent. It was and would still be a deterent and with todays technology there would be no chance of the wrong one being punished.
The logic behind capital punishment is flawed.
As a society we teach people to believe that killing other people is wrong. How can we still maintain this when the state itself sanctions executions. You can't kill someone to show people that killing people is wrong.?????????????? of course you can silly person. If you knew someone WAS gonna kill you if you kill someone else then you would'nt do it would you ????? barmy.
As a society we teach that killing other people is wrong. Wrong actions have consequences. Consequences should fit the crime. Also, by killing these people, lives may well be saved, directly or indirectly. Executing the very worst convicts will create spaces in prison for people who are dangerous to society, saving distress and, possibly other peoples lives.
Besides, the state must always accept some double standards to operate. It protects us from those who would rob us, then forcibly dips into our pockets to pay for it. It has a monopoly on preventing monopolies etc.
Miscarrages of justice
There have been numerous example of miscarages of justice, where the real culprite has been caught after someone has been convicted for the crime. If the death penalty was allowed this could well mean that someone who was innocent was executed - essentially murdered as s/he was innocent - by the state. When someone is in prision he can be freed and compensated, we cant bring someone back to life.
for example three people who have been executed in the UK since 1945 have been pardoned.
Yes there have been numerous example of miscarages of justice, where the real culprite has been caught after someone has been wrongly accused. However, three people who have been executed in the UK scince 1945, that's three, and when you think, how many havn't been miscarrages, thats three in the great number of correct executions.
Capital Punishment is immoral
It's very basic. Do you think murdering is immoral? Then by common sense, you shouldn't murder anyone, even a murderer unless it's in self defense.?????? so de poor child or weaker person can defend demself ?. Eye for an eye
Theft is also immoral and the state must steal a large quantity of it's citizen's money to keep a felon caged for many years. Restricting people's freedom is immoral, so we should not keep them behind bars. Slavery is also immoral, so we cannot give them community service either. We might therefore conclude from your logic that the moral approach is to do nothing about serious criminals at all.
What do you think?