2 hours ago, hugh2121 said:

 

That would be revenge. Not to be confused with justice. 

Nothing wrong with wanting revenge.

So your saying in that situation the death penalty would be appropriate as far as you were concerned

23 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

Is the principle of eye to eye allowed in all cases? If that was the case we all would live, or die, in a chaos,  worldwide. As I rhetorically asked before, is stealing from a thief legal, i.e. does your principle apply here?

Well we already have the chaos part worldwide lets see about the die part oh yes we must all die sooner or later. 

15 hours ago, mrnike said:

I've always be against it and will always be. The life is a sacred gift that cannot be taken by anyone whatever the corcumstances.

 

You don't punish babary by beeing a barbarian.

 

Then you would probably pray for me - but I will think for you.

On January 15, 2017 at 11:18 AM, humqdpf said:

You cannot be ever 100% certain of guilt. That is the problem. Any sentence involving imprisonment can be rescinded but clearly once carried out the death sentence cannot.

Why pay expenses to keep a killer in jail for 20 + years. Better just kill them and save money.

The Philippines has already reinstated the death penalty extra-judicially, with Duterte encouraging vigilante groups to shoot anyone they think is a drug dealer 

Hindley and Brady didnt swing because the death penalty was abolished shortly before they came to trial,1963 i believe.Also after Harold Pierrepoint resigned(he didnt retire) he stated that he said that the DP was no deterrent.his book makes a good,interesting read,as does 'The Hangmans Tale' by Harry Allen.After Pierrepoint resigned,the home office got a thousand letters a week from people asking to take his place.

On 15/01/2017 at 11:07 AM, Tchooptip said:

Every questions cannot be answered simply  by yes or no. 

My main problem is the possible miscarriage of justice, what a nightmare. 

My main problem is that a convicted murderer can be released to murder again. An innocent person can only be executed once, whereas a guilty parolee can commit several murders.

 

 

22 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

am sure you all know that to execute someone in e.g. the USA costs much more than a life sentence in gaol when all is said and done. 

Maybe we should adopt the Chinese method. No appeals out the back door and bang a .10 cent bullet in the head (adjusted for inflation it use to be .05 cents) and its all over you move on to a higher judgement if there is one. One of the worst cases of social injustice is Breivik who killed 85 people and now makes a mockery of the justice system. 

4 hours ago, jesimps said:

My main problem is that a convicted murderer can be released to murder again. An innocent person can only be executed once, whereas a guilty parolee can commit several murders.

 

 

"An innocent person can only be executed once".

True in a miscariage of justice your innocent wife daughter or why not mother could only be executed once.

I'v seen many opinions in favor of the death penalty, some quite respestable and perfectly understandable. 

 Sorry but this one is worthy of a psychopath. But you 'r not alone as a barbarian since you have at least one like for this horrible comment.  

 

The justice sysem is not perfect, as much as we would like it to be. Without the death penalty, mistakes can be rectified, often years after a person has been incarcerated. Instances of this happening are worryingly common (google it, it happens).

 

Mistaken incarceration can be reversed - give back liberty and a huge payout. Death is not reversable. This is a very simple, irrefutable truth.

In the USA, the death has been a failure as a deterrent to crime...but this is probably because it enforced so sparingly...as I recall, the average wait time between sentencing and imposition of the penalty is about 10 years...I'm sure that if it were imposed in a 12 month period, it would dramatically reduce some crimes...

 

but most crimes are committed by low IQ individuals who grant little consideration to the consequences of their actions, so most crimes of impulse would probably remain unaffected...

 

an interesting fact is that blacks usually get the death penalty more often, but whites are executed more often...perhaps the only situation where blacks are not rioting for more affirmative action...

23 hours ago, Deepinthailand said:

So your saying in that situation the death penalty would be appropriate as far as you were concerned

 

I certainly did NOT say that.

A pre-condition to use the death penalty in a country must be a functioning and effective police force and an independent judiciary.

 

Sooooooo ....

55 minutes ago, hugh2121 said:

 

I certainly did NOT say that.

So revenge for you in that situation would be?

4 hours ago, hdkane said:

In the USA, the death has been a failure as a deterrent to crime...but this is probably because it enforced so sparingly...as I recall, the average wait time between sentencing and imposition of the penalty is about 10 years...I'm sure that if it were imposed in a 12 month period, it would dramatically reduce some crimes...

 

but most crimes are committed by low IQ individuals who grant little consideration to the consequences of their actions, so most crimes of impulse would probably remain unaffected...

 

an interesting fact is that blacks usually get the death penalty more often, but whites are executed more often...perhaps the only situation where blacks are not rioting for more affirmative action...

So it would dramatically reduce crimes but at the same time individuals committing the crime grant little considerations to their actions.

 

You may think it has failed as a deterrent due to it being enforced sparingly, the research into it says something different. It is simply not effective as a deterrent. As a punishment it is quite effective though.

Definitely a bad thing

22 hours ago, Deepinthailand said:

So revenge for you in that situation would be?

Nor did I say that I would personally wish to take revenge.

You obviously don't read what's written.

That ,or life in prison ,no parole ever .

I hate the argument that it is not a deterrent. Fear of death is what keeps us from doing a lot of crazy things, It keeps us from driving beyond our car's limitations, it keeps us from wrestling with bears and working in high locations without safety devices. And although there are people who still do these things; It is a deterrent for 99.99 percent of us.  Now what do we do with the psychopaths who do not fear death? Well we give them a fair chance, and if they kill, we shut them down permanently. 

 

Also the argument that it is not a deterrent fails in the sense that since it is not a deterrent, why are you not replacing it with something that is? And if there is no deterrent, at least for some, why should it be removed when it is a deterrent for the rest

.

Life in jail is definitely a step in the wrong direction. It is nearly a reward and paid for by the law abiders.

I wouldn't morally condemn a father seeking revenge for his loved ones but that isn't the role of a justice system to satisfy that kind of need. It is a social function that regulates our coexistence but also defines us as a society, and as such it is not rendered only in the name of victims and their legitimate claims but also in the name of society itself.

 

At least on that point I find it sane that our (European) societies do not define themselves as life and death systems but prefer to “take the hit” when an atrocious act is committed, exclude dangerous individuals and try to grief by seeking truth instead of a delusive consolation in some kind of proportional punishment that do not bring any satisfaction to anyone except comforting victims and society members in their hate and resentment.

 

As for its usefulness and role as a deterrent, just compare the violent crime rate in Western countries that apply the death penalty and those that don’t.

 

 

In UK the Birmingham 6 were framed by the police and were all eventually released and pardoned. Also there was the case of a mentally backward young man given life for rape and murder. Years later he was also released when DNA evidence showed he was not the guilty party.

My preferred position is not one of the options. "3. Yes, I believe the death penalty is a suitable punishment for all crimes"

9 minutes ago, champers said:

In UK the Birmingham 6 were framed by the police and were all eventually released and pardoned. Also there was the case of a mentally backward young man given life for rape and murder. Years later he was also released when DNA evidence showed he was not the guilty party.

Thank heavens for technical advancements.....So what is your opinion on a bloke shooting a bird and her mum caught on video.......?

The death penalty should be saved for only the most serious crimes.

 

Such as serving me a tourist style krapow moo.

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Thank heavens for technical advancements.....So what is your opinion on a bloke shooting a bird and her mum caught on video.......?

Life in prison - whole life. I don't agree with the death penalty anywhere under any circumstances.

Just now, champers said:

Life in prison - whole life. I don't agree with the death penalty anywhere under any circumstances.

Are you a Vegan....?

1 minute ago, transam said:

Are you a Vegan....?

For human beings; I should add just to please you.

7 hours ago, transam said:

Thank heavens for technical advancements.....So what is your opinion on a bloke shooting a bird and her mum caught on video.......?

 

 

A better example would be the two Burmese convicted of murder on Koh Tao.

3 minutes ago, champers said:

For human beings; I should add just to please you.

So it's OK to "top" our planets creatures to eat, and humans are just one of earths creatures, but not to take out a human that's a  killer....?

7 hours ago, champers said:

For human beings; I should add just to please you.

 

I'm against thedeath penalty as it does not deter crime at all.

 

All it does is murder innocent people from time to time.