Capital Punishment Pro Or Con?

[Mosha]

I like the economic argument. In the UK his/her family are most likely on state benefit. Have a state employed social worker taking care of them. Prisoners are better cared for than some OAPs.

[jetjock]

Since the average stay on death row before execution here is the US is now somewhere around 10 to 12 years, I do not see much point in the death penalty due to the very long length of time between the crime and punishment not making it much sense. I would have no problem with killing someone for their crimes if they are caught in the act and punishment is exacted on the spot but those days are now long gone except sometimes in the case when police find a cop killer.

[ClaytonSeymour]

In primitive societies the penal system is also primitive: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is not "justice", it's revenge, perhaps some sadism and mostly just utter inability to understand human nature.

As society evolved, so did the penal system. And since we believe that we can educate people, we also believe we can re-educate them, show them what they did wrong and make them change their behavior. In an even more evolved society we start to recognize that each human being has some inalienable right, in particular a right to his life and bodily integrity. It is beyond me how a civilized society can on the one side put human rights on its flag, and on the other side take the most fundamental right away from people by capital punishment.

I do understand the emotions a victim of a crime has and that he/she cries out for revenge, but don't call that "justice", it's not. A victim wants the criminal to suffer as much as he/she did, but that's not what the penal system of a civilized society should do.

Today's penal system should more concentrate on re-socialization with a view to release the convicted into a normal life where he will not repeat his behavior. That's why the penal system has basically two components: a general prevention (to keep others fro doing it) and a special prevention (to keep the perpetrator from doing it again).

Some have argued that capital punishment serves a good general prevention. If this is true, i wonder why in countries with capital punishment are so many murders.

Some say that capital punishment will avoid the murderer to repeat his act. But suppose you have killed someone and you know, capital punishment is awaiting you. So you might as well kill a couple more, your are toast anyway.

So in my opinion, capital punishment has absolutely no justification at all. It's barbaric, inhuman and useless.

And a final note, in a Buddhist society, taking a life is certainly not permissible.

Your post is utter drivel!

Why shouldn't victims have revenge? If one of my family members was murdered then I want the offender to die. I don't want them re-educated; they've forfeited all their rights.

I even believe that in certain cases a quick death is wrong; they should suffer a much more terrible death than their victims. Barbaric? Yes & so it should be.

If they must keep them in prison, I'd advocate using them for testing new medicines; these b******s have forfeited every right they had & I no longer consider them human beings.

I've said this previously on here but, the party that promises to restore capital and corporal punishment in the UK gets my vote any day.

The death penalty is vastly underused; there are far too many criminals in jail who have no right to life.

My Wife's a Buddhist and she firmly believes in the death penalty.

I can see you think deeply about these trhings

I doubt you will be voting for anyone then as I doubt any party will ever put that on its manifesto unless its some right wing looney party and if so your wife will not be in the country with you! As I don't intend staying in the UK for the rest of my life I'll be more than happy to vote for the "looney right wing".

As for testing new medicines on them - you really show your knowledge here of the procedures and total ignorance may I add

Lets forget the fact that using prisoners for clinical trials is totally aganst GCP and the Helsinky Agreement but why do you think testing on prisoners would do them any harm as you obviously wish?

I never said I wished them harm (it wouldn't concern me obviously) but, why use primates when you can have the real thing. Why let these bastards sit in a comfy en-suite cell doing nothing?

Lets guess - you reached CSE level then you left school?

Actually, I reached A level. I'd like to win the lotto - unlikely. Still unlikely but, I suspect I've better odds on seeing the restoration of capital punishment.

Liberals have destroyed society.

Edited December 1, 2007 by ClaytonSeymour

[Mosha]

In primitive societies the penal system is also primitive: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is not "justice", it's revenge, perhaps some sadism and mostly just utter inability to understand human nature.

As society evolved, so did the penal system. And since we believe that we can educate people, we also believe we can re-educate them, show them what they did wrong and make them change their behavior. In an even more evolved society we start to recognize that each human being has some inalienable right, in particular a right to his life and bodily integrity. It is beyond me how a civilized society can on the one side put human rights on its flag, and on the other side take the most fundamental right away from people by capital punishment.

I do understand the emotions a victim of a crime has and that he/she cries out for revenge, but don't call that "justice", it's not. A victim wants the criminal to suffer as much as he/she did, but that's not what the penal system of a civilized society should do.

Today's penal system should more concentrate on re-socialization with a view to release the convicted into a normal life where he will not repeat his behavior. That's why the penal system has basically two components: a general prevention (to keep others fro doing it) and a special prevention (to keep the perpetrator from doing it again).

Some have argued that capital punishment serves a good general prevention. If this is true, i wonder why in countries with capital punishment are so many murders.

Some say that capital punishment will avoid the murderer to repeat his act. But suppose you have killed someone and you know, capital punishment is awaiting you. So you might as well kill a couple more, your are toast anyway.

So in my opinion, capital punishment has absolutely no justification at all. It's barbaric, inhuman and useless.

And a final note, in a Buddhist society, taking a life is certainly not permissible.

Troll mode on. Perhaps we should let the little darlings wander the streets, save lots of money. Troll mode off

[Prakanong]

In primitive societies the penal system is also primitive: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is not "justice", it's revenge, perhaps some sadism and mostly just utter inability to understand human nature.

As society evolved, so did the penal system. And since we believe that we can educate people, we also believe we can re-educate them, show them what they did wrong and make them change their behavior. In an even more evolved society we start to recognize that each human being has some inalienable right, in particular a right to his life and bodily integrity. It is beyond me how a civilized society can on the one side put human rights on its flag, and on the other side take the most fundamental right away from people by capital punishment.

I do understand the emotions a victim of a crime has and that he/she cries out for revenge, but don't call that "justice", it's not. A victim wants the criminal to suffer as much as he/she did, but that's not what the penal system of a civilized society should do.

Today's penal system should more concentrate on re-socialization with a view to release the convicted into a normal life where he will not repeat his behavior. That's why the penal system has basically two components: a general prevention (to keep others fro doing it) and a special prevention (to keep the perpetrator from doing it again).

Some have argued that capital punishment serves a good general prevention. If this is true, i wonder why in countries with capital punishment are so many murders.

Some say that capital punishment will avoid the murderer to repeat his act. But suppose you have killed someone and you know, capital punishment is awaiting you. So you might as well kill a couple more, your are toast anyway.

So in my opinion, capital punishment has absolutely no justification at all. It's barbaric, inhuman and useless.

And a final note, in a Buddhist society, taking a life is certainly not permissible.

Your post is utter drivel!

Why shouldn't victims have revenge? If one of my family members was murdered then I want the offender to die. I don't want them re-educated; they've forfeited all their rights.

I even believe that in certain cases a quick death is wrong; they should suffer a much more terrible death than their victims. Barbaric? Yes & so it should be.

If they must keep them in prison, I'd advocate using them for testing new medicines; these b******s have forfeited every right they had & I no longer consider them human beings.

I've said this previously on here but, the party that promises to restore capital and corporal punishment in the UK gets my vote any day.

The death penalty is vastly underused; there are far too many criminals in jail who have no right to life.

My Wife's a Buddhist and she firmly believes in the death penalty.

I can see you think deeply about these trhings

I doubt you will be voting for anyone then as I doubt any party will ever put that on its manifesto unless its some right wing looney party and if so your wife will not be in the country with you! As I don't intend staying in the UK for the rest of my life I'll be more than happy to vote for the "looney right wing".

As for testing new medicines on them - you really show your knowledge here of the procedures and total ignorance may I add

Lets forget the fact that using prisoners for clinical trials is totally aganst GCP and the Helsinky Agreement but why do you think testing on prisoners would do them any harm as you obviously wish?

I never said I wished them harm (it wouldn't concern me obviously) but, why use primates when you can have the real thing. Why let these bastards sit in a comfy en-suite cell doing nothing?

Lets guess - you reached CSE level then you left school?

Actually, I reached A level. I'd like to win the lotto - unlikely. Still unlikely but, I suspect I've better odds on seeing the restoration of capital punishment.

Liberals have destroyed society.

14 million to one to win the lottery - do you play it?

I do not know the odds on bringing back the death penalty but the only way i see it is if shariah law is introduced into the UK

As for testing on primates - well that has to happen before human testing but there stil has to be three phases of human testing to follow. Four if you count PMS but the drug is on the market by then

If you really want a country with both capital and corporate punishment get down here to Singapore then

[meadish_sweetball]

I'm not against it as long as they execute the right person. Not sure how many innocent people have been executed over the years by mistake though.

If you accept that innocent people are executed now and again, how on EARTH can you not be totally against it? Is one innocent being killed now and again not too high a price to pay?

Depends. So far I've never had a stake in anybody being executed so it's a theoretical discussion since it doesn't effect me.

I can imagine though that if somebody murders my wife I would be in favor of the death penalty.

The obvious counter-argument is what you would feel if your wife, or you yourself was framed and about to be executed for a crime you did not commit.

[Prakanong]

In primitive societies the penal system is also primitive: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is not "justice", it's revenge, perhaps some sadism and mostly just utter inability to understand human nature.

As society evolved, so did the penal system. And since we believe that we can educate people, we also believe we can re-educate them, show them what they did wrong and make them change their behavior. In an even more evolved society we start to recognize that each human being has some inalienable right, in particular a right to his life and bodily integrity. It is beyond me how a civilized society can on the one side put human rights on its flag, and on the other side take the most fundamental right away from people by capital punishment.

I do understand the emotions a victim of a crime has and that he/she cries out for revenge, but don't call that "justice", it's not. A victim wants the criminal to suffer as much as he/she did, but that's not what the penal system of a civilized society should do.

Today's penal system should more concentrate on re-socialization with a view to release the convicted into a normal life where he will not repeat his behavior. That's why the penal system has basically two components: a general prevention (to keep others fro doing it) and a special prevention (to keep the perpetrator from doing it again).

Some have argued that capital punishment serves a good general prevention. If this is true, i wonder why in countries with capital punishment are so many murders.

Some say that capital punishment will avoid the murderer to repeat his act. But suppose you have killed someone and you know, capital punishment is awaiting you. So you might as well kill a couple more, your are toast anyway.

So in my opinion, capital punishment has absolutely no justification at all. It's barbaric, inhuman and useless.

And a final note, in a Buddhist society, taking a life is certainly not permissible.

Troll mode on. Perhaps we should let the little darlings wander the streets, save lots of money. Troll mode off

Its not a question of freedom or capital punishment though is it - your aergument is a straw man and irrelevant as such

[ClaytonSeymour]

I am sorry to hear about your friend - is that the case where he went out as some guys were damaging his car?

No - 14 years is not life and while I am against capital punishment I am not against much stiffer jail sentences in all but the most extenuating circumstances.

The poor wife was probably warned in case they got off with manslaughter - were they convicted of murder?

I do believe time on remand does not count in life sentences as it does in fixed period sentences though - they will not get a parole hearing till 14 years after conviction date and I doubt they wil get out first go but I may be wrong - anyone knbow the UK penal system with regard to lifers?

Do the victims now have a say in parole or did I dream that? - I thought they could give a victim impact statement or is that just at sentencing? - sorry I have been out of the UK for a while now.

The car was his father-in-laws. Kevin was watching it while his in-laws were having a Christsmas in walmer climes. The gang were attempting to steel it, Kevin had been out for a few and fell asleep on the sofa. A noise woke him up, I think it was his wife shouting that someone was trying to get in the car. Kevin went out, and gave chase. You had to know Kevin, he would do anything for anyone, and very slow to anger, and usually quick to forgive, except where cars are concerned. The really stupid thing is the car had a flat battery, and the road I believe almost dead flat. The car was going nowhere. The murder weapon was a terminal screw griver, you know of the type electricians use with the small blade.

I just googled on victim impact statement UK, and it appears it has been the case since 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4202618.stm

That is the case I thought it was - as I said I have been out of the UK for a while but must have read about this case online or seen a report on BSkyB news.

I know 14 years does not seem much but I bet they do longer than that - I'll be amazed if they do a solitary year more. still does not bring back your friend though and it will not be much consolation to his wife and family will it so any sympathy should be saved for them as they have to live without him now. Every holiday season now will have sad reminders.

[Prakanong]

I am sorry to hear about your friend - is that the case where he went out as some guys were damaging his car?

No - 14 years is not life and while I am against capital punishment I am not against much stiffer jail sentences in all but the most extenuating circumstances.

The poor wife was probably warned in case they got off with manslaughter - were they convicted of murder?

I do believe time on remand does not count in life sentences as it does in fixed period sentences though - they will not get a parole hearing till 14 years after conviction date and I doubt they wil get out first go but I may be wrong - anyone knbow the UK penal system with regard to lifers?

Do the victims now have a say in parole or did I dream that? - I thought they could give a victim impact statement or is that just at sentencing? - sorry I have been out of the UK for a while now.

The car was his father-in-laws. Kevin was watching it while his in-laws were having a Christsmas in walmer climes. The gang were attempting to steel it, Kevin had been out for a few and fell asleep on the sofa. A noise woke him up, I think it was his wife shouting that someone was trying to get in the car. Kevin went out, and gave chase. You had to know Kevin, he would do anything for anyone, and very slow to anger, and usually quick to forgive, except where cars are concerned. The really stupid thing is the car had a flat battery, and the road I believe almost dead flat. The car was going nowhere. The murder weapon was a terminal screw griver, you know of the type electricians use with the small blade.

I just googled on victim impact statement UK, and it appears it has been the case since 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4202618.stm

That is the case I thought it was - as I said I have been out of the UK for a while but must have read about this case online or seen a report on BSkyB news.

I know 14 years does not seem much but I bet they do longer than that - I'll be amazed if they do a solitary year more. still does not bring back your friend though and it will not be much consolation to his wife and family will it so any sympathy should be saved for them as they have to live without him now. Every holiday season now will have sad reminders.

First of all we will never convince each other to change our opinions regarding the death penalty and thats fine by me.

I must admit I am not terribly up on the UK penal system and its parole working but I was once told by someone who was that its quite rare to get parole as a lifer the first time you apply. Given that these guys have a 14 year tarrif agreed by the trial judge and the Home Office that is the first time they can apply

Does anyone know any different?

PS: While I do not agree with the capital punishment I am not against longer terms in prison and even more life to mean life tarrifs

[GuestHouse]

I think the reaction 'IF anyone killed a member of my family I'd want them to die/I'd kill them myself/I'd want them to be tourtured' is a natural one - but it may not be, and in many cases in not the actual reaction of families who loose a loved one to violent crime.

More than a few people, and especially people who hold strong convictions of faith see forgiveness as the only means of getting over a henous crime and loss.

I've read of several cases where parents of children lost to violent crime may ask, for example that they do not wish any more violence or death to be attached to their own loss.

There are several instances in legal systems that account for this - for example Sharia law (often viewed as brutal) allows for the death sentance for murder to be overuled where the victims family request this. I also understand that this forgiveness and the family pleading on behalf of the murder is a relatively common occurance.

Perhaps then the expression of anger before a muder which we all hope will never happen is an expression of the helplessness all parents feel in the realization that our children or indeed loved ones are from time to time throughout their lives exposed to these terrible risks.

[Mosha]

Troll mode on. Perhaps we should let the little darlings wander the streets, save lots of money. Troll mode off

Its not a question of freedom or capital punishment though is it - your aergument is a straw man and irrelevant as such

Sorry, I was being just being a little facetious. However when people are saying, "Thou shalt not kill", and "An eye for an eye." Strangely both quotes from the same reference, then it makes me think that if they think they are Christians, they are just chosing certain parts of the book to base their faith on. A bit like the Jehovah's. If you are a true Christian, which I'm not (IMHO religion is just a form of superstition), You have to accept the whole book. Now the original version was an eye for an eye, or so I am lead to believe. As the only accurately quoted words of Jesus are from the sermon on the mount, then unless he said thou shalt not killl there, the rest is pure speculation, from a religious point of view re Christianity.

[tgeezer]

I'm not against it as long as they execute the right person. Not sure how many innocent people have been executed over the years by mistake though.

If you accept that innocent people are executed now and again, how on EARTH can you not be totally against it? Is one innocent being killed now and again not too high a price to pay?

As a deterrent, it doesn't matter if you do get the wrong person provided everyone believes he is the right person, I don't think that this would obtain in Thailand however, so I would vote against it. I think that it's time is almost here for my home country.

[Mosha]

As a deterrent, it doesn't matter if you do get the wrong person provided everyone believes he is the right person, I don't think that this would obtain in Thailand however, so I would vote against it. I think that it's time is almost here for my home country.

That my friend is a little brutal, if you don't mind me saying. It matters a lot to his family.

[ClaytonSeymour]

In primitive societies the penal system is also primitive: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is not "justice", it's revenge, perhaps some sadism and mostly just utter inability to understand human nature.

As society evolved, so did the penal system. And since we believe that we can educate people, we also believe we can re-educate them, show them what they did wrong and make them change their behavior. In an even more evolved society we start to recognize that each human being has some inalienable right, in particular a right to his life and bodily integrity. It is beyond me how a civilized society can on the one side put human rights on its flag, and on the other side take the most fundamental right away from people by capital punishment.

I do understand the emotions a victim of a crime has and that he/she cries out for revenge, but don't call that "justice", it's not. A victim wants the criminal to suffer as much as he/she did, but that's not what the penal system of a civilized society should do.

Today's penal system should more concentrate on re-socialization with a view to release the convicted into a normal life where he will not repeat his behavior. That's why the penal system has basically two components: a general prevention (to keep others fro doing it) and a special prevention (to keep the perpetrator from doing it again).

Some have argued that capital punishment serves a good general prevention. If this is true, i wonder why in countries with capital punishment are so many murders.

Some say that capital punishment will avoid the murderer to repeat his act. But suppose you have killed someone and you know, capital punishment is awaiting you. So you might as well kill a couple more, your are toast anyway.

So in my opinion, capital punishment has absolutely no justification at all. It's barbaric, inhuman and useless.

And a final note, in a Buddhist society, taking a life is certainly not permissible.

Your post is utter drivel!

Why shouldn't victims have revenge? If one of my family members was murdered then I want the offender to die. I don't want them re-educated; they've forfeited all their rights.

I even believe that in certain cases a quick death is wrong; they should suffer a much more terrible death than their victims. Barbaric? Yes & so it should be.

If they must keep them in prison, I'd advocate using them for testing new medicines; these b******s have forfeited every right they had & I no longer consider them human beings.

I've said this previously on here but, the party that promises to restore capital and corporal punishment in the UK gets my vote any day.

The death penalty is vastly underused; there are far too many criminals in jail who have no right to life.

My Wife's a Buddhist and she firmly believes in the death penalty.

I can see you think deeply about these trhings

I doubt you will be voting for anyone then as I doubt any party will ever put that on its manifesto unless its some right wing looney party and if so your wife will not be in the country with you! As I don't intend staying in the UK for the rest of my life I'll be more than happy to vote for the "looney right wing".

As for testing new medicines on them - you really show your knowledge here of the procedures and total ignorance may I add

Lets forget the fact that using prisoners for clinical trials is totally aganst GCP and the Helsinky Agreement but why do you think testing on prisoners would do them any harm as you obviously wish?

I never said I wished them harm (it wouldn't concern me obviously) but, why use primates when you can have the real thing. Why let these bastards sit in a comfy en-suite cell doing nothing?

Lets guess - you reached CSE level then you left school?

Actually, I reached A level. I'd like to win the lotto - unlikely. Still unlikely but, I suspect I've better odds on seeing the restoration of capital punishment.

Liberals have destroyed society.

14 million to one to win the lottery - do you play it? I do one line, same numbers. The Wife does two plus three lines on the euro millions. If we won, I wouldn't be spending any of it the UK.

I do not know the odds on bringing back the death penalty but the only way i see it is if shariah law is introduced into the UK Unfortunately, you may be right, although I sense the right wing may have something to say about that & believe me, eventually a credible right wing party will emerge. I was never into right wing politics but, it's hard not to become frustrated with what is happening in the UK. In the UK newspapers I see more and more journalists speaking out on the compatibility of Western & Islamic values. Rant over.

As for testing on primates - well that has to happen before human testing but there stil has to be three phases of human testing to follow. Four if you count PMS but the drug is on the market by then

So, why not enforce them to participate in the three phases of human testing?

If you really want a country with both capital and corporate punishment get down here to Singapore then I've always been impressed with Singapore. If you've any sense you'll stay there, I know where I'd rather be & I certainly know where I'd prefer my kids to grow up (if we had them).

[Prakanong]

Troll mode on. Perhaps we should let the little darlings wander the streets, save lots of money. Troll mode off

Its not a question of freedom or capital punishment though is it - your aergument is a straw man and irrelevant as such

Sorry, I was being just being a little facetious. However when people are saying, "Thou shalt not kill", and "An eye for an eye." Strangely both quotes from the same reference, then it makes me think that if they think they are Christians, they are just chosing certain parts of the book to base their faith on. A bit like the Jehovah's. If you are a true Christian, which I'm not (IMHO religion is just a form of superstition), You have to accept the whole book. Now the original version was an eye for an eye, or so I am lead to believe. As the only accurately quoted words of Jesus are from the sermon on the mount, then unless he said thou shalt not killl there, the rest is pure speculation, from a religious point of view re Christianity.

I agree with you its superstition but lets not let the god squadders hear that

I do think we have moved on from those folk tales ensconced in that book of fairy tales though

[canuckamuck]

Sorry, I was being just being a little facetious. However when people are saying, "Thou shalt not kill", and "An eye for an eye." Strangely both quotes from the same reference, then it makes me think that if they think they are Christians, they are just chosing certain parts of the book to base their faith on. A bit like the Jehovah's. If you are a true Christian, which I'm not (IMHO religion is just a form of superstition), You have to accept the whole book. Now the original version was an eye for an eye, or so I am lead to believe. As the only accurately quoted words of Jesus are from the sermon on the mount, then unless he said thou shalt not killl there, the rest is pure speculation, from a religious point of view re Christianity.

You never read it eh? a bit too many words, not many pictures in most versions.

[ClaytonSeymour]

I think the reaction 'IF anyone killed a member of my family I'd want them to die/I'd kill them myself/I'd want them to be tourtured' is a natural one - but it may not be, and in many cases in not the actual reaction of families who loose a loved one to violent crime.

More than a few people, and especially people who hold strong convictions of faith see forgiveness as the only means of getting over a henous crime and loss.

I've read of several cases where parents of children lost to violent crime may ask, for example that they do not wish any more violence or death to be attached to their own loss.

There are several instances in legal systems that account for this - for example Sharia law (often viewed as brutal) allows for the death sentance for murder to be overuled where the victims family request this. I also understand that this forgiveness and the family pleading on behalf of the murder is a relatively common occurance.

Perhaps then the expression of anger before a muder which we all hope will never happen is an expression of the helplessness all parents feel in the realization that our children or indeed loved ones are from time to time throughout their lives exposed to these terrible risks.

Let's not forget that blood money is often the persuader when families spare the life of a killer.

[Prakanong]

In primitive societies the penal system is also primitive: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. That is not "justice", it's revenge, perhaps some sadism and mostly just utter inability to understand human nature.

As society evolved, so did the penal system. And since we believe that we can educate people, we also believe we can re-educate them, show them what they did wrong and make them change their behavior. In an even more evolved society we start to recognize that each human being has some inalienable right, in particular a right to his life and bodily integrity. It is beyond me how a civilized society can on the one side put human rights on its flag, and on the other side take the most fundamental right away from people by capital punishment.

I do understand the emotions a victim of a crime has and that he/she cries out for revenge, but don't call that "justice", it's not. A victim wants the criminal to suffer as much as he/she did, but that's not what the penal system of a civilized society should do.

Today's penal system should more concentrate on re-socialization with a view to release the convicted into a normal life where he will not repeat his behavior. That's why the penal system has basically two components: a general prevention (to keep others fro doing it) and a special prevention (to keep the perpetrator from doing it again).

Some have argued that capital punishment serves a good general prevention. If this is true, i wonder why in countries with capital punishment are so many murders.

Some say that capital punishment will avoid the murderer to repeat his act. But suppose you have killed someone and you know, capital punishment is awaiting you. So you might as well kill a couple more, your are toast anyway.

So in my opinion, capital punishment has absolutely no justification at all. It's barbaric, inhuman and useless.

And a final note, in a Buddhist society, taking a life is certainly not permissible.

Your post is utter drivel!

Why shouldn't victims have revenge? If one of my family members was murdered then I want the offender to die. I don't want them re-educated; they've forfeited all their rights.

I even believe that in certain cases a quick death is wrong; they should suffer a much more terrible death than their victims. Barbaric? Yes & so it should be.

If they must keep them in prison, I'd advocate using them for testing new medicines; these b******s have forfeited every right they had & I no longer consider them human beings.

I've said this previously on here but, the party that promises to restore capital and corporal punishment in the UK gets my vote any day.

The death penalty is vastly underused; there are far too many criminals in jail who have no right to life.

My Wife's a Buddhist and she firmly believes in the death penalty.

I can see you think deeply about these trhings

I doubt you will be voting for anyone then as I doubt any party will ever put that on its manifesto unless its some right wing looney party and if so your wife will not be in the country with you! As I don't intend staying in the UK for the rest of my life I'll be more than happy to vote for the "looney right wing".

As for testing new medicines on them - you really show your knowledge here of the procedures and total ignorance may I add

Lets forget the fact that using prisoners for clinical trials is totally aganst GCP and the Helsinky Agreement but why do you think testing on prisoners would do them any harm as you obviously wish?

I never said I wished them harm (it wouldn't concern me obviously) but, why use primates when you can have the real thing. Why let these bastards sit in a comfy en-suite cell doing nothing?

Lets guess - you reached CSE level then you left school?

Actually, I reached A level. I'd like to win the lotto - unlikely. Still unlikely but, I suspect I've better odds on seeing the restoration of capital punishment.

Liberals have destroyed society.

14 million to one to win the lottery - do you play it? I do one line, same numbers. The Wife does two plus three lines on the euro millions. If we won, I wouldn't be spending any of it the UK.

I do not know the odds on bringing back the death penalty but the only way i see it is if shariah law is introduced into the UK Unfortunately, you may be right, although I sense the right wing may have something to say about that & believe me, eventually a credible right wing party will emerge. I was never into right wing politics but, it's hard not to become frustrated with what is happening in the UK. In the UK newspapers I see more and more journalists speaking out on the compatibility of Western & Islamic values. Rant over.

As for testing on primates - well that has to happen before human testing but there stil has to be three phases of human testing to follow. Four if you count PMS but the drug is on the market by then

So, why not enforce them to participate in the three phases of human testing?

If you really want a country with both capital and corporate punishment get down here to Singapore then I've always been impressed with Singapore. If you've any sense you'll stay there, I know where I'd rather be & I certainly know where I'd prefer my kids to grow up (if we had them).

If I won I would spend some in the UK - I would be at the Cup Final every year - a Rugby International at Twickenham and maybe Wimbledon.

As for the three phases - generally

Well the 1st phase is for healthy subjects without the condition in very highly controlled medical environment

2nd Phase is for people with the condition in the controilled environment

3rd phase - people with the condition in their normal environment

As I said that is generally and there are variations but nothing to go into details about.

There just would not be enough subjects - an example is my pal is working on a lung cancer treatment that needs over 2000 patients - we would not get them from the worldwide prison population

Anyway - you can not get your drug licensed using prisoners its by the by, its ethically unsound and only Dr's of the calibre of Joseph Mengler would agree to take part - hardly the type of KOP's (Key Opinion Leaders) we like to use

Yes I do like Singapore - I have no kids but I can see its a great place to bring them up. Safe, a positive learning environment with a lot of emphasis on sports and other extra curricular activities.

[Mosha]

Let's not forget that blood money is often the persuader when families spare the life of a killer.

Let's not forget, that although not exactly in the same circumstances but as we Westerners see it. Blood money is paid here too. I know of of at least 4 motoring deaths, were blood money has being paid in my Tambon.

[Prakanong]

Sorry, I was being just being a little facetious. However when people are saying, "Thou shalt not kill", and "An eye for an eye." Strangely both quotes from the same reference, then it makes me think that if they think they are Christians, they are just chosing certain parts of the book to base their faith on. A bit like the Jehovah's. If you are a true Christian, which I'm not (IMHO religion is just a form of superstition), You have to accept the whole book. Now the original version was an eye for an eye, or so I am lead to believe. As the only accurately quoted words of Jesus are from the sermon on the mount, then unless he said thou shalt not killl there, the rest is pure speculation, from a religious point of view re Christianity.

You never read it eh? a bit too many words, not many pictures in most versions.

Yeah - the great works of fiction mostly do not have many pictures.

[torrenova]

I have always been in favour of the death penalty and would even have it live on TV from Hyde Park each Sunday on pay per view. Various options of execution possible, from medievil to modern, depending upon the audience and their votes.

I accept that a certain proportion of those executed will be innocent. That is a fair price to pay for getting rid of the others. Sad, but true.

I don't give a flying suck about the modernist arguments that it is a barbaric penalty or that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in jail (really, please). I think the public has a right to decide and the general public wants the death penalty.

One of the problems which supports the death penalty is the lax sentencing by the judiciary of those who should be locked away forever. I do not mean 20 years, I mean to die in jail. Then you have the jail standards. If i thiought someone was having a terrible time, day after day, real hard labour and harsh conditions and I knew they would be like that till they died, then you have a more convincing argument. But, you have jails like hotel rooms, with toilets, hot water, televisions, even heating etc. I'm sorry but some classes of prisioners do not desrerve those luxuries.

So you then come down to who gets the rope. Basically, all kiddie fiddlers, rapists and all that sort. All on first offense. Then some murderers, but not crimes of passion. Drug dealers and smugglers can go as well but perhaps not on the first time. A difficult choice I agree but you know the sort of people that society is better off without.

So until society comes up with an acceptable punishment, then some are going to have to meet their maker. That the UK population is not allowed a referendum on this because the wet behind the ear MPs will not vote the way the people want them to is despicable.

In Thailand, some have to go but the corruption means that those at the top rarely face punishment.

[GuestHouse]

Let's not forget that blood money is often the persuader when families spare the life of a killer.

But by no means always

[Mosha]

Sorry, I was being just being a little facetious. However when people are saying, "Thou shalt not kill", and "An eye for an eye." Strangely both quotes from the same reference, then it makes me think that if they think they are Christians, they are just chosing certain parts of the book to base their faith on. A bit like the Jehovah's. If you are a true Christian, which I'm not (IMHO religion is just a form of superstition), You have to accept the whole book. Now the original version was an eye for an eye, or so I am lead to believe. As the only accurately quoted words of Jesus are from the sermon on the mount, then unless he said thou shalt not killl there, the rest is pure speculation, from a religious point of view re Christianity.

You never read it eh? a bit too many words, not many pictures in most versions.

Have you ever read the origional version? I must warn you it's in 2000 year old Greek. The version you are aquainted with contains many mis translations.

[Mosha]

I agree with you its superstition but lets not let the god squadders hear that

Oops too late.

[meom]

I'm not against it as long as they execute the right person. Not sure how many innocent people have been executed over the years by mistake though.

If you accept that innocent people are executed now and again, how on EARTH can you not be totally against it? Is one innocent being killed now and again not too high a price to pay?

Depends. So far I've never had a stake in anybody being executed so it's a theoretical discussion since it doesn't effect me.

I can imagine though that if somebody murders my wife I would be in favor of the death penalty.

The obvious counter-argument is what you would feel if your wife, or you yourself was framed and about to be executed for a crime you did not commit.

True, point taken. Difficult question actually cause I wouldn't know what I would prefer; innocent life in jail or innocent execution? If at the time I have any faith in an after life I might prefer execution over life in jail.

[LoveDaBlues]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...d=6&did=109

After reading from this link if anyone is still for the death penalty they aren't wired right.

[JetsetBkk]

I believe everyone has the right to life, irrespective of how evil they are.

thats the sticking point then.

i strongly believe the opposite , that the evil should not expect any mercy from the society that they have attacked.

I agree. Once someone has shown that they do not respect the life of another person and that they have deliberately taken it away, they no longer deserve the right to live.

As for "the system", it is up to the executive - the government - to make sure the the judicial system works.

Let's not forget that blood money is often the persuader when families spare the life of a killer.

But by no means always

Using the Amish as an example??? That's scraping the barrel, isn't it?

[ClaytonSeymour]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...d=6&did=109

After reading from this link if anyone is still for the death penalty they aren't wired right.

One sided, liberal propaganda. How about compiling a guilty list of released killers who have gone on to kill again? How many wrongly executed innocents were criminals in their own right, just not guilty of the charge they were executed for?

Interestingly, Washington DC and Puerto Rico with double figure murder rates per 1,000 don't have the death penalty.

Interesting link but, it's still for the death penalty here.

[GuestHouse]

Using the Amish as an example??? That's scraping the barrel, isn't it?

Not at all, since the point I made earlier was that religious conviction is one of the reasons why the family of a murder victim may offer forgiveness to the murder and/or ask for the death penalty not to be used against the murderer of a family member.

You may find that amusing - I do not. I think it tells us something about brining comfort to the families of murder victims and is something we should be examining before we ourselves sanction killing.

[chicowoodduck]

I believe everyone has the right to life, irrespective of how evil they are.

thats the sticking point then.

i strongly believe the opposite , that the evil should not expect any mercy from the society that they have attacked.

I agree. Once someone has shown that they do not respect the life of another person and that they have deliberately taken it away, they no longer deserve the right to live.

As for "the system", it is up to the executive - the government - to make sure the the judicial system works.

Let's not forget that blood money is often the persuader when families spare the life of a killer.

But by no means always

Using the Amish as an example??? That's scraping the barrel, isn't it?

I'm thinking I like the o' West more and more. If you got caught, you got hung. They didn't wait around for years thinking about it.