What wider debate is there to be had? The wrong people get killed, it's not a deterrent, it's arguably a lesser punishment than true life imprisonment (not 'life' that actually means 7 years) and it's more expensive. On the plus side....?
the plus side is an evil twat is killed, it provides closure for the victims and it doesnt cost the tax payer to keep somebody who will never see 'daylight' again
So you want miscarriages of justice reduced and you're going to do that by decreasing the number of appeals for people who've been given death sentences? Yeah, that'll do it. If people are incorrectly incarcerated, then they can be released and compensated. Not ideal, but you can't bring the dead back to life, so preferable to the alternative. Basically you're looking for revenge and not justice. When you attended that trial of a man convicted on two counts of soliciting to murder, which you presumably believe should carry a death sentence, were you there to call for harsher punishment?
as I said miscarriages of justice happen and those responsible should be bought to justice. However it shouldnt detract from the debate on capital punishment The arguments against are dubious at best
Repeating something stupid won't make it any more intelligent, Fan. Mistakes happen. People get convicted incorrectly and that's simply impossible to cut out completely. I assume that you agree with that? Given that obvious truth, the state would be putting innocent people to death at some point. I'm not sure why you believe that's acceptable or desirable.
so you reckon the people who have had loved ones killed wont get closure if the perp is killed rather than be in prison and hitting the headlines every so often, ala hindley? thanks for your contribution, cya
I can't imagine the feeling of hopelessness an innocent man would feel on walking into that room to receive the lethal injection
I just find it interesting that the notions behind justice and punishment get overlooked and emotion sets in. The death penalty may not be the right thing, however the arguments against are IMo ridiculous. PNP has highlighted some of the usual rubbish in his responses without understanding the discussion Fact is that the deterrant argument is not conclusive in any way. Tehre are too many variables. For example a swift and quick punishment IS a deterrant. Its the time in convicting that is seen as no deterrant. This is the case in just imprisonment aswell. The more time taken to punish an act the less of a deterrant the punishment becomes.
I get the point Fan, it's just that I think you're completely wrong. You 'know' that the death penalty's correct though, so there's no debate to be had. There's no possible argument that could influence your opinion on the matter.
I would imagine the same as a guilty man, simply due to the fear of death held and no difference to an innocent man who has lost everything on account of being locked up for 30 years No amount of compensation etc is going to get rid of that feelig of hopelessness and the losses occurred in terms of relationships etc The issue of miscarriage needs to be addressed full stop. But it shouldnt detract or be used as the sole reason for not having a death penalty IF after all the discussions are concluded its a NO for the death penalty, thats different
Yep, can't have any dissent, can we Fan? It's not a deterrent and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is and plenty to suggest that it isn't. You're wrong. Have a nice evening talking utter bollocks.
for those arguing about potential innocents being put to death and that being unacceptable lets flip it what if putting someone to death has prevented other innoicents being killed? like that bloke in 1973, who served 15 years then went on a 21 month spree? also what if the penalty wasnt administered behind closed doors and wasnt as painless?
Fan. I have stated before, and will do so again until you understand. Justice wrongly done is a far worse crime than the crime it was intended to punish. Now go and think before you talk/type.
