Bring back the death penalty?

M

Malced

Guest
I would. For the most heinous crimes we need to be much tougher.

I’m sickened at the shooting of a little 9 year old girl. It’s on the back of other gun killings in Liverpool in the last few weeks.

Quite simply, in my opinion, the shooter of this girl no longer deserves to walk this planet. Recklessly shooting a gun indiscriminately in a strangers home is one of the most uncivilised criminal acts imaginable.

The public has to be protected. We have become a soft touch on crime and criminals.

So I’d welcome a debate on reintroducing the death penalty. Why should some evil criminal be allowed to live when they’ve taken the life of a little girl? I’d gladly buy a ticket to watch whoever did this be exterminated. Anyone aiding and abetting this offender as they try to evade justice should have all assets stripped off them and be incarcerated for a decade at least.

It’s time to get tough on these so called humans. I’d vote for the return of the death penalty and personally rejoice when these evil pondlife are extinguished. Good riddance to those who waste the privilege of life and use it to take another’s.
 
Malced said:
I would. For the most heinous crimes we need to be much tougher.

I’m sickened at the shooting of a little 9 year old girl. It’s on the back of other gun killings in Liverpool in the last few weeks.

Quite simply, in my opinion, the shooter of this girl no longer deserves to walk this planet. Recklessly shooting a gun indiscriminately in a strangers home is one of the most uncivilised criminal acts imaginable.

The public has to be protected. We have become a soft touch on crime and criminals.

So I’d welcome a debate on reintroducing the death penalty. Why should some evil criminal be allowed to live when they’ve taken the life of a little girl? I’d gladly buy a ticket to watch whoever did this be exterminated. Anyone aiding and abetting this offender as they try to evade justice should have all assets stripped off them and be incarcerated for a decade at least.

It’s time to get tough on these so called humans. I’d vote for the return of the death penalty and personally rejoice when these evil pondlife are extinguished. Good riddance to those who waste the privilege of life and use it to take another’s.
Click to expand...
NEVER

Over history there has been too many miscarriage of justices.

Life should mean life though.
 
Malced said:
I would. For the most heinous crimes we need to be much tougher.

I’m sickened at the shooting of a little 9 year old girl. It’s on the back of other gun killings in Liverpool in the last few weeks.

Quite simply, in my opinion, the shooter of this girl no longer deserves to walk this planet. Recklessly shooting a gun indiscriminately in a strangers home is one of the most uncivilised criminal acts imaginable.

The public has to be protected. We have become a soft touch on crime and criminals.

So I’d welcome a debate on reintroducing the death penalty. Why should some evil criminal be allowed to live when they’ve taken the life of a little girl? I’d gladly buy a ticket to watch whoever did this be exterminated. Anyone aiding and abetting this offender as they try to evade justice should have all assets stripped off them and be incarcerated for a decade at least.

It’s time to get tough on these so called humans. I’d vote for the return of the death penalty and personally rejoice when these evil pondlife are extinguished. Good riddance to those who waste the privilege of life and use it to take another’s.
Click to expand...

Malced

I always find your input very interesting regardless of the topic.

No different here although I have to say that I'm with seasideone in that there have just been far too many miscarriages of justice over the years and the likes of Stefan Kiszko and Stephen Downing who were both pardoned following being wrongfully imprisoned for offences they didn't commit would both have been six feet under before they were pardoned.

While there is no doubt that there have been significant technological advances since we did away with capital punishment, I am not sure that there has been the same improvement in the honesty of human beings.
 
Unfortunately the old bill still arrest and have convicted too many innocent people over the years.

The Irish lads convicted of the bombings would all have been put to death based on a pack of Police lies.
 
I agree that some crimes are so heinous they don’t deserve to live, but as others have said, there would have to be irrefutable evidence that they were guilty; clear cctv evidence, dna etc.

Then again, they have the death penalty in some states in America and I’m not sure it acts as a deterrent.

Hard Labour for the rest of their lives sounds good to me, and tougher living conditions than it seems they have these days.
 
Matesrates said:
I agree that some crimes are so heinous they don’t deserve to live, but as others have said, there would have to be irrefutable evidence that they were guilty; clear cctv evidence, dna etc.

Then again, they have the death penalty in some states in America and I’m not sure it acts as a deterrent.

Hard Labour for the rest of their lives sounds good to me, and tougher living conditions than it seems they have these days.
Click to expand...
Even clear CCTV can be made up - Hollywood do it all the time.

DNA has changed over the years as well, more accurate to be fair, but it can still be planted.
 
Malced said:
I would. For the most heinous crimes we need to be much tougher.

I’m sickened at the shooting of a little 9 year old girl. It’s on the back of other gun killings in Liverpool in the last few weeks.

Quite simply, in my opinion, the shooter of this girl no longer deserves to walk this planet. Recklessly shooting a gun indiscriminately in a strangers home is one of the most uncivilised criminal acts imaginable.

The public has to be protected. We have become a soft touch on crime and criminals.

So I’d welcome a debate on reintroducing the death penalty. Why should some evil criminal be allowed to live when they’ve taken the life of a little girl? I’d gladly buy a ticket to watch whoever did this be exterminated. Anyone aiding and abetting this offender as they try to evade justice should have all assets stripped off them and be incarcerated for a decade at least.

It’s time to get tough on these so called humans. I’d vote for the return of the death penalty and personally rejoice when these evil pondlife are extinguished. Good riddance to those who waste the privilege of life and use it to take another’s.
Click to expand...
Sadly most of the country agree with you ,but the people that suppose to represent us , do their own thing to earn their large pay rises.
 
All the people that have talked about mistakes being made when it comes down to conviction possibly are not taking into consideration that a punishment is still a punishment . Would an innocent man want to serve the rest of his life in prison or he may even prefer the death penalty. There are more suicide attempts in prison then ever before and if you have wrongly been accused of a rape or murder that you did not do then prison can be hell especially if you are not intergraited into the criminal gangs. The likely hood of new evidence appearing is slim so there is little chance of appeal . I have already written that with modern methods it is unlikely that the wrong person will be convicted ,so lets bring back the death penalty and save some tax payers money.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Seeing and knowing some of things Ive seen, definitely.

The only caveat for me being irrefutable evidence or admission to the crime.
Click to expand...
The evidence being such as that with the knife man in London who killed the old chap in his disability scooter?

I remember in the 50's a lad being hanged whilst the perpetrator of the crime was only jailed. A Policeman was shot , as the two lads were cornered, telling the lad with the gun, give it to me, put it down, the hanged individual said to the one holding the gun, 'let him have it'. It was interpreted as meaning kill him. It has always been thought that he meant do as the Policeman has said and give him the gun.

Taking a life would have to be done, only, if the evidence was incontestable. Probably extremely hard to prove.
 
Curryman said:
The evidence being such as that with the knife man in London who killed the old chap in his disability scooter?

I remember in the 50's a lad being hanged whilst the perpetrator of the crime was only jailed. A Policeman was shot , as the two lads were cornered, telling the lad with the gun, give it to me, put it down, the hanged individual said to the one holding the gun, 'let him have it'. It was interpreted as meaning kill him. It has always been thought that he meant do as the Policeman has said and give him the gun.

Taking a life would have to be done, only, if the evidence was incontestable. Probably extremely hard to prove.
Click to expand...
Bentley and Craig.
 
Seasider3610 said:
Unfortunately the old bill still arrest and have convicted too many innocent people over the years.

The Irish lads convicted of the bombings would all have been put to death based on a pack of Police lies.
Click to expand...
Maybe first in line for capital punishment should be that copper who murdered Sarah Everard.
There are many serious crimes where it is beyond reasonable doubt esp with DNA advances, and I would be happy if they were to be a life for a life rather than a cost to society.for years to come.
No idea how much Sutcliffe cost during his time in prison but suspect it ran into the millions and that money could have be used to benefit society rather than wasted keeping a monster alive for over 30 years.
 
Curryman said:
The evidence being such as that with the knife man in London who killed the old chap in his disability scooter?

I remember in the 50's a lad being hanged whilst the perpetrator of the crime was only jailed. A Policeman was shot , as the two lads were cornered, telling the lad with the gun, give it to me, put it down, the hanged individual said to the one holding the gun, 'let him have it'. It was interpreted as meaning kill him. It has always been thought that he meant do as the Policeman has said and give him the gun.

Taking a life would have to be done, only, if the evidence was incontestable. Probably extremely hard to prove.
Click to expand...
Wilf, I know the example you gave, and there was always doubt about his involvement. Hes since been pardoned I think.

Yes, the tw@t who stabbed the guy in Greenford, terrorists etc would qualify for me.
 
In 1955, my dad felt so strongly that he wrote to the then, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, asking for clemency for Ruth Ellis. He thought her hanging was a travesty and it obviously had an impact because he’s mentioned it a few times over the years. I don’t think we should even consider bringing back the death penalty.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
The trouble is the justice system is then admitting that some verdicts aren't as safe as others.

'You've been found guilty but we can't give you a death sentence because you might not be guilty'
Click to expand...
That in itself Lytham is a problem, and I don't see the Justice system having the resolution and determination to do it
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
The trouble is the justice system is then admitting that some verdicts aren't as safe as others.

'You've been found guilty but we can't give you a death sentence because you might not be guilty'
Click to expand...
You're introducing an element of doubt, for a jury to convict there should be no element of doubt.
 
The State should not cheapen life by using execution as a punishment. It has also been shown time and again not to act as a deterent. We need to support the rule of law with a properly funded judiciary, an adequately funded, professional police force and meaningful social policies that value all citizens. We need a harmonious society where divides are minimised: rich from poor, North from South and black from white. A society where ghettos are opened up and wither away. Where the drugs peddled by gangs have few customers and where there is no culture of "not grassing" for the gangs to hide behind.

To change our country in that direction demands a lot of work. Reintroduction of the death penalty would turn us further away from such aspirations. It would be a backwards step.
 
Some excellent comments. It’s a very tricky one because if the wrong person is sentenced to death then it’s irreversible. The mistake can’t be undone.
However, though no system is ever perfect we do have great advancements in technology as some have said eg cctv, DNA etc etc.

I’m not calling for the death penalty willy nilly. This would only be for the most heinous crimes and would be subject to incredible levels of check and balances.

It’s a difficult one because I accept that there’s always going to be some that try to fabricate evidence or do whatever they can to ensure their main suspect fits the bill. (Or is fitted up by the Bill🤣🤔).

But for me, as a deterrent and to ensure the bereaved get real justice, I’d support the death penalty. Nothing less. No more soft justice.

By the way, the book called An Innocent Man by John Grisham is a great read. It’s a non-fiction account of two innocent men sentenced to death after the murder of a girl. There’s a shocked angry community that want instant justice and there’s a police chief and mayor under political pressure to be seen to be tough on crime ahead of re-elections campaigns. The system fails the men badly. The police get their main suspect and do everything to convince the public they’ve got the right people. They fit them up. They stick to their guns despite new evidence etc. The men are euthanised. And then it all comes out that they were actually innocent. 😮

It’s a shocking story. But it’s a story set in the past. Can it still happen in this modern world? Yes. But the likelihood is incredibly low given technology.
 
Malced said:
Some excellent comments. It’s a very tricky one because if the wrong person is sentenced to death then it’s irreversible. The mistake can’t be undone.
However, though no system is ever perfect we do have great advancements in technology as some have said eg cctv, DNA etc etc.

I’m not calling for the death penalty willy nilly. This would only be for the most heinous crimes and would be subject to incredible levels of check and balances.

It’s a difficult one because I accept that there’s always going to be some that try to fabricate evidence or do whatever they can to ensure their main suspect fits the bill. (Or is fitted up by the Bill🤣🤔).

But for me, as a deterrent and to ensure the bereaved get real justice, I’d support the death penalty. Nothing less. No more soft justice.

By the way, the book called An Innocent Man by John Grisham is a great read. It’s a non-fiction account of two innocent men sentenced to death after the murder of a girl. There’s a shocked angry community that want instant justice and there’s a police chief and mayor under political pressure to be seen to be tough on crime ahead of re-elections campaigns. The system fails the men badly. The police get their main suspect and do everything to convince the public they’ve got the right people. They fit them up. They stick to their guns despite new evidence etc. The men are euthanised. And then it all comes out that they were actually innocent. 😮

It’s a shocking story. But it’s a story set in the past. Can it still happen in this modern world? Yes. But the likelihood is incredibly low given technology.
Click to expand...
I think you also have to ask if the death penalty would be enough of a deterrent, it isn't in the US for example, if it doesn't actually save lives then it's just mob justice.
 
Let’s take this shooting of the poor girl in Liverpool as an example.

With technology and witnesses there could eventually be:-

1. Cctv tracking the movement of the murderer
2. A doorbell camera
3. An identification by the mother and other witnesses
4. Gun found in the suspects possession matched to the bullets
5. Gun powder residue on clothes and hands of suspect
6. DNA evidence in the house.
7. Matching fingerprint evidence on the gun, door and inside the house
8. A confession by the suspect

Could there be a miscarriage of justice if all the above were in place? Is it conclusive or do we still err on the side of caution because there’s always an infinitesimally small chance we’ve got it wrong? If it were my child shot dead I’d want the killer to face the death penalty. It would unbearable to think of them playing pool or tucking into a nice meal whilst looking forward to Love Island or whatever drivel they enjoy.
 
Malced said:
Some excellent comments. It’s a very tricky one because if the wrong person is sentenced to death then it’s irreversible. The mistake can’t be undone.
However, though no system is ever perfect we do have great advancements in technology as some have said eg cctv, DNA etc etc.

I’m not calling for the death penalty willy nilly. This would only be for the most heinous crimes and would be subject to incredible levels of check and balances.

It’s a difficult one because I accept that there’s always going to be some that try to fabricate evidence or do whatever they can to ensure their main suspect fits the bill. (Or is fitted up by the Bill🤣🤔).

But for me, as a deterrent and to ensure the bereaved get real justice, I’d support the death penalty. Nothing less. No more soft justice.

By the way, the book called An Innocent Man by John Grisham is a great read. It’s a non-fiction account of two innocent men sentenced to death after the murder of a girl. There’s a shocked angry community that want instant justice and there’s a police chief and mayor under political pressure to be seen to be tough on crime ahead of re-elections campaigns. The system fails the men badly. The police get their main suspect and do everything to convince the public they’ve got the right people. They fit them up. They stick to their guns despite new evidence etc. The men are euthanised. And then it all comes out that they were actually innocent. 😮

It’s a shocking story. But it’s a story set in the past. Can it still happen in this modern world? Yes. But the likelihood is incredibly low given technology.
Click to expand...
Serious question, you talk about deterrence but what evidence do you have that it's effective at deterring capital crimes?

It certainly wasn't a deterrent to Brady and Hindley.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
I think you also have to ask if the death penalty would be enough of a deterrent, it isn't in the US for example, if it doesn't actually save lives then it's just mob justice.
Click to expand...

With respect I don't agree with the characterisation of mob justice. This would be an investigation and prosecution through the courts done over time in a very carefully controlled and invigilated way.

Yes there would be a public wanting justice. But they wouldn’t be a baying mob. Rather it would be justice for the bereaved and society as a whole. We’re not talking about hunting someone down and dragging them to the gallows.
 
Walthamstow_Seasider said:
Serious question, you talk about deterrence but what evidence do you have that it's effective at deterring capital crimes?

It certainly wasn't a deterrent to Brady and Hindley.
Click to expand...

Yes whether it’s a deterrent or not is questionable. Everyone is different. There’s perpetrators that would think twice and there’s perpetrators that wouldn’t.

There’s law and order with various sentences for various crimes. Those sentences are set with a deterrent element because generally more people would steal a car for example if the punishment was to clean cars for a day. I know that’s a bit silly and extreme but it’s highlighting the logic of the point. So if you accept that such an extremely soft punishment would serve a no/little deterrent then it follows that a severe punishment would conversely serve as a deterrent for some people.

For example, if a criminal were to get an automatic life sentence for stealing a car we’d likely see car theft become a thing of the past.

I’m no expert on this but logically there must be a deterrent aspect with very harsh punishments.
 
Malced said:
Yes whether it’s a deterrent or not is questionable. Everyone is different. There’s perpetrators that would think twice and there’s perpetrators that wouldn’t.

There’s law and order with various sentences for various crimes. Those sentences are set with a deterrent element because generally more people would steal a car for example if the punishment was to clean cars for a day. I know that’s a bit silly and extreme but it’s highlighting the logic of the point. So if you accept that such an extremely soft punishment would serve a no/little deterrent then it follows that a severe punishment would conversely serve as a deterrent for some people.

For example, if a criminal were to get an automatic life sentence for stealing a car we’d likely see car theft become a thing of the past.

I’m no expert on this but logically there must be a deterrent aspect with very harsh punishments.
Click to expand...
The proof for harsh punishments and lack of crime is where I live.

Very little crime with very harsh punishments, but deterrents will not stop everyone.

The problem is with the ultimate deterrent is you will at some point execute someone innocent.

….and that cannot and should not ever be allowed.
 
Malced said:
Some excellent comments. It’s a very tricky one because if the wrong person is sentenced to death then it’s irreversible. The mistake can’t be undone.
However, though no system is ever perfect we do have great advancements in technology as some have said eg cctv, DNA etc etc.

I’m not calling for the death penalty willy nilly. This would only be for the most heinous crimes and would be subject to incredible levels of check and balances.

It’s a difficult one because I accept that there’s always going to be some that try to fabricate evidence or do whatever they can to ensure their main suspect fits the bill. (Or is fitted up by the Bill🤣🤔).

But for me, as a deterrent and to ensure the bereaved get real justice, I’d support the death penalty. Nothing less. No more soft justice.

By the way, the book called An Innocent Man by John Grisham is a great read. It’s a non-fiction account of two innocent men sentenced to death after the murder of a girl. There’s a shocked angry community that want instant justice and there’s a police chief and mayor under political pressure to be seen to be tough on crime ahead of re-elections campaigns. The system fails the men badly. The police get their main suspect and do everything to convince the public they’ve got the right people. They fit them up. They stick to their guns despite new evidence etc. The men are euthanised. And then it all comes out that they were actually innocent. 😮

It’s a shocking story. But it’s a story set in the past. Can it still happen in this modern world? Yes. But the likelihood is incredibly low given technology.
Click to expand...
Read the book, very Emotional
 
seasideone said:
You can disagree as much as you like, but if it’s challenged and no doubt the defence lawyer would challenge it, it is not irrefutable.
Click to expand...
Of course it can be challenged..thats the law of the land.

If I as a Police Officere and a colleague stand 3 feet away from an assailant who guns down a colleague standing next to us, it is recorded on 3 body cams including the victims, not to mention if there are other eye witnesses and CCTV. There is DNA evidence too. Its irrefutable, so I will disagree as much as I like as there will be instances that would go to Court.

They murder of Lee Rigby had irrefutable evidence etc
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Of course it can be challenged..thats the law of the land.

If I as a Police Officere and a colleague stand 3 feet away from an assailant who guns down a colleague standing next to us, it is recorded on 3 body cams including the victims, not to mention if there are other eye witnesses and CCTV. There is DNA evidence too. Its irrefutable, so I will disagree as much as I like as there will be instances that would go to Court.

They murder of Lee Rigby had irrefutable evidence etc
Click to expand...
They could have made the body cam images up and lied in court, plus planted the dna.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
Over history there was no finger prints ,ear prints ,DNA , and cameras everywhere . I think you'd be very unlucky to be convicted of a serious crime in this day and age.
Click to expand...
It's all very convenient DNA and finger print evidence. I watched a documentary where someone was convicted on fingerprints which subsequently was overuled as the fingerprint "experts" were completely wrong. I was shocked at how vague fingerprints can be, it's nothing like an exact science but juries love that kind of stuff as it gives them "certainty".
 
seasideone said:
The proof for harsh punishments and lack of crime is where I live.

Very little crime with very harsh punishments, but deterrents will not stop everyone.

The problem is with the ultimate deterrent is you will at some point execute someone innocent.

….and that cannot and should not ever be allowed.
Click to expand...

I disagree that someone innocent would be executed. That’s not inevitable.
In the example of the terrorist stabbing the police officer to death - he was jumped on and disarmed and taken to jail. I struggle to see where the wrongful conviction would be in that case.
As I say, the bar would have to be set incredibly high. This would be for exceptional cases. The most heinous. And the most watertight.
 
Malced said:
I would. For the most heinous crimes we need to be much tougher.

I’m sickened at the shooting of a little 9 year old girl. It’s on the back of other gun killings in Liverpool in the last few weeks.

Quite simply, in my opinion, the shooter of this girl no longer deserves to walk this planet. Recklessly shooting a gun indiscriminately in a strangers home is one of the most uncivilised criminal acts imaginable.

The public has to be protected. We have become a soft touch on crime and criminals.

So I’d welcome a debate on reintroducing the death penalty. Why should some evil criminal be allowed to live when they’ve taken the life of a little girl? I’d gladly buy a ticket to watch whoever did this be exterminated. Anyone aiding and abetting this offender as they try to evade justice should have all assets stripped off them and be incarcerated for a decade at least.

It’s time to get tough on these so called humans. I’d vote for the return of the death penalty and personally rejoice when these evil pondlife are extinguished. Good riddance to those who waste the privilege of life and use it to take another’s.
Click to expand...
The ian Hislop/Patel exchange is a classic. Its a deterrent shouts Patel (another slogan moron)
 
Malced said:
I disagree that someone innocent would be executed. That’s not inevitable.
In the example of the terrorist stabbing the police officer to death - he was jumped on and disarmed and taken to jail. I struggle to see where the wrongful conviction would be in that case.
As I say, the bar would have to be set incredibly high. This would be for exceptional cases. The most heinous. And the most watertight.
Click to expand...
Somebody at some point would be executed who was innocent.

As already mentioned on here you can’t have two levels of burden of proof.

If you did and there was any doubt on the higher burden, it brings into question everything.

You are either guilty or not beyond reasonable doubt and that is about the right level for me.
 
I generally get the arguments for & against capital punishment. But I don’t believe it is a good deterrent. Consider an armed criminal who’s committed murder being cornered, are they going to give up their arms & go quietly, knowing they face execution, more likely they would try to escape by shooting anyone who got in their way. Nothing to lose so a blaze of glory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top