Many of us complain that the law in this country is an ass.
Many crimes go unpunished, or underpunished.
So what do we all think of bringing back hanging, is that immoral, is it evil.
Or is it the deterent we need to scaremonger people in to thinking twice about what they do.
Murderers, peodophiles ect, not petty crime but the real crimes we hear of every day.
Well its over to you lot.

The problem lies in that some people are mentally ill, which drives them to such things.
Some people are just genuinely born evil and probably hanging's too good for them.
Some people blame their crimes on bad past experiences or a poor upbringing, which I think is a cop out. If it was hard on them, they should know how their victims feel.
Some people will be genuinely evil but claim to be mentally ill and get locked up in a hospital rather than a prison.

And there's always the element of doubt. You'd have to be 100% certain you've got the right person before you dish out a death sentence.

There was a guy in the paper today released from prison after 27 years for a murder he didn't commit. Bad enough, but he still has a few years to live a life as a free man.

As Ches said- there's nearly always a question of doubt :( so for that reason I guess- not having it is a good thing :S.

Also....even for the worst crimes (the most brutal murders - and some rapes)- capital punishment almost seems too kind. I prefer the thought of prisoners suffering behind bars for the rest of their lives....especially in the case of terrorists :\. I just wish life sentence- actually meant "life sentence" though- far too often sentences are too short and there have been far too many instances when people convincted of murder have had 10 or more years cut from their terms because of parole, soft sentencing etc. I can't imagine how distressing this would be for the families of victims :(

On another note- I found it quite appalling that the Bali Bombers got exactly what they wanted :(- to be "martyrs" in the eyes of their followers > <.

In my opinion, I don't think capital punishment should be brought back just because I feel it's like revenge in a way. I do prefer if people are locked away for a very long time for these serious crimes.

I just wish life sentence- actually meant "life sentence"

Well said mapsy. I completely agree with harsh sentences for serious crimes, but it seems that only a portion of the sentence is actually carried out nowadays.

http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo177/db1986/Treasure%20Hunt/EasterEgg4.jpg

I can understand from a victim's family's point of view that if their loved one was murdered, why should the murderer be allowed to live? But because the judicial system is imperfect - one can never be entirely sure whether the accused did commit the crime or what their motives were - the irreversible nature of the death sentence puts me off it. I do think that prison sentences should be tougher (and perhaps prison as a whole should be tougher) in order to act as a deterrent to re-offending and to potential offenders and I find getting early release for "good behaviour" ridiculous - it sends the message that bad behaviour is acceptable and that being well-behaved is something out of the ordinary.

In my opinion, I don't think capital punishment should be brought back just because I feel it's like revenge in a way. I do prefer if people are locked away for a very long time for these serious crimes.
The perpetrator being locked away can also be seen as revenge for the victim/victim's family but there is a fine line between revenge and justice and it is quite a subjective one.

'Let him have it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Him_Have_It)'

The baying Mob and the Establishment needing Revenge & a complete miscarriage of justice - ie how to hang a (probably) innocent man.

A very good film.

I also disagree with use of capital punishment but my reasons are slightly different..

The idea of taking another human life just seems immoral to me... capital punishment may be justified, and completely necessary in some cases, but I still believe and will always believe that it is wrong. To me, every human life has value, yes even the truly wicked, disturbed and downright evil lives are worth something, I don't think it is our right to choose whose lives are worth living. Perhaps it is my religion that has influenced my thinking, but I just cannot agree with the taking of another humans life. It makes me sick in the stomach to think of the process in which executions are carried out, no matter how "humane" they claim to be.

Yes it can act as a deterrent for future offenders, yet as others have stated there is always the possibility of a wrongful conviction. I agree that there are many problems with the judicial system.. but capital punishment is not the answer.

EDIT: Ooooh also a good movie - Dead Man Walking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film))

By the general response so far it seems the death sentence isnt liked.
And i agree with the reasons given, i like the point given that prison sentences should be tougher and the prison service needs to be tougher as well.
I think punishment should be hard, no tv rooms games rooms ect just 3 meals a day exercise and books to read thats it.
When you have either taken a life or made someones life hell then you should feel you have done wrong.
The goverment today give offenders to much on tax payers money its disgusting.
I mean ffs peter sutcliff uses the internet and has spoken to lots of women errrr excuse me he killed women ffs, that unfortunate man is on facebook pleeeeze.
He has use of that also other luxury items such as computer gaming phone ect, people who are hard working citizens in this credit clime right now dont have those things some can barely afford to heat the homes they are in or eat decently.
Tougher punishment all round i say.

I disagree with the death penalty. This is not because I really feel everyone deserves to live any more after certain actions (because I'd honestly rather see some people dead), but because I do not think an impersonal organisation such as the government should be allowed to murder people. Not even on behalf of its citizens.

In fact, I would rather see revenge from the family and friends of the victim, than of an institution which does not have emotion. Of course, the 'eye for an eye' approach would lead to chaos and is generally a bad idea, but it's still better than a government killing people.

It also goes against what a government is there for. We imposed a government upon ourselves to ensure order, safety and protection. These are things that are hard to reach without an institution whose purpose and duty it is to do so. Just think of the things that happen in places with unstable governments; other groups seize power and rule in ways that aren't quite as friendly (because usually they are driven by self-interest. Not saying that this doesn't also hold true for some governments!).

What I want to say is that it is inherently contrary to a fundamental purpose of a government (that is, to protect each and every one of its citizens), if you allow the government to kill its own citizens!

--

Also:
It does not deter people from committing crimes; consider that first of all people intend to get away with crimes, and second of all they have a reason to commit the crime in the first place. These reasons range from being psychologically ♥♥♥♥ed up to thrill-seeking, and personal gain to revenge. If people want to achieve something that is outlawed, these driving forces often ignore the consequences (or seem more important than having to deal with the consequences). After all, there's a chance you won't be caught, too. I've once read a study that there was no less severe crime in US states that use capital punishment than in states that don't.

I also disagree with a capital punishment policy.

Nay, I'm glad you brought up the point about the government; it's one of my major reasons for not agreeing with capital punishment, but I just didn't feel like writing a huge post about it (seems like we have a sudden surge in debate threads xD). I also feel that when a government gives itself the right to kill offenders, the definition of "offenders" becomes debatable - how much offence does a person need to commit before needing to be killed? I'm not so sure I would 'prefer' to see friends and families execute the offender, because as you noted - that would just lead to chaos.

What I would much prefer, like everyone has mentioned thus far, is to see people locked away. Like marauders, I also see capital punishment as too 'kind'. For certain people, death would be a terrible alternative (for petty offenses like robbery), but for people like terrorists, it would be the ultimate aim. They won't ever have a chance to reflect on their actions in solitude.

Although I'd like to see people locked up, I think it's appalling how much luxury prisoners get. I visited a prison here recently for paedophiles and sex offenders and I was shocked at how much comfort they live in. Their individual (no sharing) cell rooms are almost as big as my first year university accomodation! As if that weren't enough, they get access to TV in their rooms plus a movie player (for videos and DVDs that they may have possessed when brought into jail). They have a common room that has a pool table, a very comfortable sofa, carpeted floor, and television. Normal citizens have to pay for such accessories and facilities. To me, all of these things are not necessities - they're luxuries. The only message I'm getting here is, 'commit a crime and you'll be given free accomodation, free food, and free entertainment'. This is a reward, not a punishment. OK - so they have limited freedom and aren't free to do whatever the hell they want, but this is pretty darn good for someone who has violated a moral code of conduct, in my opinion. There are hungry, homeless people on the streets who don't have all this simply because they haven't committed a crime. I find it extremely unfair.

I'm certainly not saying that they should be shoved into a 2m by 2m cell and never see daylight; but there's a fine line between ensuring humane imprisonment and 2 star luxury, and I really would like to see governments stay on the right side of that line, and that any human rights advocates who feel otherwise should set their priorities straight.

I'm almost tempted to support capital punishment because I'd rather see high-risk offenders taken away than be pampered and allowed to live a worry-free life.

I read an article once about a guy in Japan who was released from prison after he'd served his time; a few weeks later, he came back asking to go back to prison, because the economy was bad and he couldn't find a job. I heard a story about a guy who would offend repeatedly just to get back to prison, because it had everything he needed/wanted. Prison shouldn't be a place people want to go back to (unless it's because they wanted the therapy sessions, of course xD).

In my opinion, the only scenario where capital punishment can even be considered is in one where there exists a perfect justice system whereby there are no miscarriages of justice. The obvious problems are that this does not and most likely will never exist and even if it did, a decision still has to be made as to what crimes are deemed worthy of capital punishment. The latter point is where I am unsure and some would argue that the death penalty is the easy way out for the criminal compared to a long prison sentence. But in this society as it exists today I would not like to see capital punishment reintroduced.

I am very much against the Death Penalty...the sheer number of innocent people who have been imprisoned for years before justice is served is enough to put me off, if the death penalty had been in use, they would all be dead :/
I recommend people look into this case
www.wm3.org
disturbing reading, but well worth it.

Hmm... *attempts to organise thoughts*

A few people mentioned the need for tougher punishments for prisoners to truly get some sort of revenge for what they have done to their victims.. I'm not so sure I agree with this. I cannot imagine what it must be like for the victims or families of victims, I have never been in their shoes. But from where I sit right now, it seems to me that getting revenge doesn't solve anything. I understand that it can give victims and families some kind of satisfaction and relief, yet in the long term, as far as I can see it's not really going to ease their grief. I don't think that imprisonment should be about making the offender suffer, rather it should be about protecting the community. This doesn't mean allowing the prisoner to live in luxury though! I agree with tasha and storm that some of the luxuries criminals are afforded are pretty shocking! If we wanted the prisoner to truly suffer though, if death is too kind, do we stick them all in concentration camps and torture and torment them for the rest of their natural lives? As someone already mentioned (tasha I think?), locking someone in a cell for the rest of their lives isn't necessarily going to make them feel guilt for what they have done, it isn't going to make them suffer - this is completely dependent upon the person. Generally speaking though, I think that seeking revenge and making someone suffer is a terrible thing, and that sometimes it takes a really big person to look beyond that.

Another point made was that parole for good behaviour and the general shortening of sentences was too soft. I believe that parole is an important part of our legal system. It's about forgiveness and giving people a second chance. Yes some people don't deserve it, some people will never change, mistakes are made and crimes are repeated.. but the compassion of the human race and the faith we put in each other is too important to give up on. This doesn't mean there aren't situations and scenarios where I do agree the offender should be locked up for life (and I do agree with people who have said that generally sentences are too soft), but for the most part I think that forgiveness is important, even in these extreme situations.

Phwoar this is a bit jumbled!! Haven't really got out what I wanted to say exactly but ehh.. hope it makes sense! XP

Hmm... *attempts to organise thoughts*

A few people mentioned the need for tougher punishments for prisoners to truly get some sort of revenge for what they have done to their victims.. I'm not so sure I agree with this.
I don't agree with the revenge aspect either but as storm mentioned previously, when criminals are afforded luxuries in prison whereas there are homeless on the streets who possess virtually nothing and have committed no crime, there is clearly an imbalance.

I don't think that imprisonment should be about making the offender suffer, rather it should be about protecting the community.
My view is protecting the community is only one aspect of imprisonment, together with punishment for the criminal in order that they do not re-offend. The first point takes care of itself (barring jailbreaks) but the second varies very much from person to person. Although torture would work to prevent this, I would never endorse it due to its inhumanity. By calling for tougher jail conditions, I mean making it tough enough so that it acts as a deterrent to would-be offenders; making jail life easier than the struggles in free life will not do this.

Another point made was that parole for good behaviour and the general shortening of sentences was too soft. I believe that parole is an important part of our legal system. It's about forgiveness and giving people a second chance. Yes some people don't deserve it, some people will never change, mistakes are made and crimes are repeated.. but the compassion of the human race and the faith we put in each other is too important to give up on. This doesn't mean there aren't situations and scenarios where I do agree the offender should be locked up for life (and I do agree with people who have said that generally sentences are too soft), but for the most part I think that forgiveness is important, even in these extreme situations.
Forgiveness is an important human attribute but parole for good behaviour is sort of forgiveness by the state, not by the victim/victim's family, which, in my opinion, is not the same as the human virtue of forgiveness. If the state deemed that the prisoner had shown enough remorse while in jail and the victim/victim's family were prepared to forgive the criminal, I would agree with parole. But I feel that getting released simply for behaving well, which is no indication of any form of remorse or any grounds for forgiveness to be based on, to be ludicrous.

Phwoar this is a bit jumbled!! Haven't really got out what I wanted to say exactly but ehh.. hope it makes sense! XP
Makes sense... for once! XD It seems I picked on you a bit meds but I jumped right in and forgot to multi-quote so yeah, nothing personal! XP

I really do think they can use prisoners for certain kinds of labour. Not among people who aren't in prison, and I don't mean slave labour either, but surely they can work. Imprisoning people costs a lot of money.

I really do think they can use prisoners for certain kinds of labour. Not among people who aren't in prison, and I don't mean slave labour either, but surely they can work. Imprisoning people costs a lot of money.

Yeah, I agree with this too. In the prison I visited, the offenders were sent away to do some manual labour (if they were deemed low-risk enough). I think it would really help them mentally to do some hard work. It's always rewarding to contribute to something and see the impact one can make. Those who've never worked a day in their life may well grow accustomed to routine and regular work. Just shoving people into prisons and not giving them anything to do doesn't do much but make them lazy, I think.

I also believe that Sparrow's point about forgiveness having to come from the victim/victim's family is how parole should work.

It seems I picked on you a bit meds...
:cry::cry::cry:

Haha nah for the most part, I agree with a lot of what you said... I was expecting a lot worse! XP


My view is protecting the community is only one aspect of imprisonment, together with punishment for the criminal in order that they do not re-offend.
The point I wanted to make was really just that I didn't think the primary goal of imprisonment should be about seeking revenge and making the prisoner suffer, ensuring that the person did not re-offend and also acting as a deterrent to future offenders (in some cases but as Nay pointed out in an earlier post, if a someone is going to commit a crime they obviously believe they will get away with it or are not thinking of the consequences) is of course also important reasons for imprisonment.


If the state deemed that the prisoner had shown enough remorse while in jail and the victim/victim's family were prepared to forgive the criminal, I would agree with parole. But I feel that getting released simply for behaving well, which is no indication of any form of remorse or any grounds for forgiveness to be based on, to be ludicrous.

This is a good point which I hadn't really considered. Perhaps I didn't write it well before, but I didn't mean that people should be released on parole simply for behaving well! There is a range of criteria that should be looked at and showing remorse is an important part of that. I can't even imagine how traumatic it must be for victims families to deal with the person that has caused them so much pain and grief being allowed back out on the streets, yet if every victims family was consulted every time before parole was granted - I think there would be very few paroles! Largely, it is too difficult for the families to forgive them, that doesn't mean the offender doesn't show remorse and deserve a second chance. So idk, I'm a little torn on this atm as I want to say that parole is still important and should be granted without families approval yet I can understand why that would be important too.

Perhaps I'm too naive, or put far too much faith in the good in people - but I do think everyone (the good, the bad and the ugly ;) ) deserves our compassion and forgiveness. I think those who have commited offenses and gone off the rails a bit, are perhaps among those who need it the most.

I really do think they can use prisoners for certain kinds of labour. Not among people who aren't in prison, and I don't mean slave labour either, but surely they can work. Imprisoning people costs a lot of money.
Yeahhh I agree with this too :)

Hmm enough from me! Time to get ready... :eek:

If the British legal system had capital punishment, it should only be used in cases of near certainty such as those caught conspiring in the July 7th attacks, Ian Huntley, where forensic evidence and admission of guilt in the process of the crime and the M25 rapist, Antoni Imiela.

DNA evidence alone should not be a deciding factor since there are flaws in the system, but in the case of Antoni Imiela, the same DNA profile and his whereabouts at the time of the attacks, matched.

Will it be a deterrent in having capital punishment? It doesn't seem to my eyes that it has an overall effect of reducing crime.

I think if it was introduced in the U.K. then it would bring a minor reduction, at that in violent crime.

I personally believe that the answer is to impose tougher prison sentences and to exclude parole from prisoners who have committed violent crimes.

The time at which one is eligible for parole is 1/3 of their minimum sentence, and often is the case that repeat offenders are relased early and continue their acts of criminality.

Having tougher prison sentences will bring over-crowding in the short run, but long term this would be beneficial to reducing crimes.

Also, what has to be looked at is the luxuries that prisoners get within their prison cells and confined areas. Prisoners are welcomed to the luxuries of television sets and it justs make the punishment go by a lot easier.

When released back into the public, their education worsens, as there are no strategic policies within place to make sure prisoners do something constructive to enable them to find jobs after serving their sentences.

Often is the case is that they do time, acquire no practical skills whilst inside and therefore believe that they are better off back in prison where they get free food and shelter.

Until practices are put in within prisons to give incentives to prisoners to learn new skills and stay law abiding, it'll just follow a vicious circle.

Having capital punishment therefore would make minimal difference in reducing violent crime, in my own opinion.

I can't remember my source, but places in the US that have a three strikes (misdeamors or felonies) and the criminals are imprisoned for life actually have an increase in violent crime. The reason for the increase is that career criminals know they are on their last strike, so they go out with a bang.. usually killing rampages.

While this is not exactly capital punishment, it is an interesting side note.

Personally, I do not think it is the government's place to punish people by killing them. Yes, the criminals have done horrible crimes, but doesn't that make us just as horrific if we condone that type of punishment? I figure after death, anyone who does such horrible things in life will have to deal with the afterlife.

And as far as Capital punishment being a deterrent to violent crimes... I really don't think that works. I personally feel that if rapists and murderers valued life than they would not commit those horrific crimes. It serves no purpose to kill already-broken people.

... When released back into the public, their education worsens, as there are no strategic policies within place to make sure prisoners do something constructive to enable them to find jobs after serving their sentences.

Often is the case is that they do time, acquire no practical skills whilst inside and therefore believe that they are better off back in prison where they get free food and shelter.

Until practices are put in within prisons to give incentives to prisoners to learn new skills and stay law abiding, it'll just follow a vicious circle. ...

I don't know about the prisons in England, but at Peterhead, where most - if not all - of the UK's sex offenders and paedophiles are sent, the offenders can study for A-Levels and even do university degrees if they so wish. They also help out in the kitchen cooking meals for everyone else. Of course, the waiting list for studying and getting qualifications is long and not everyone gets selected for qualifications. The qualifications are given by some university (forgotten the name) and the classes funded by the government.

So if you want prisoners to get skills and become educated - it's your taxpayers money the prisoners need to become educated so that they become better people and can get acclimatised to the real world when they leave. It's easy to say prisons need to teach their prisoners something, but everything comes down to money or selflessness (teachers teaching for free, for example).

As has been mentioned before, prisoners can do manual labour and that won't cost money. Afaik, these practices are already in place, and prisoners usually get some help with finding a job once they leave. It doesn't seem to be as if they are chucked out and forgotten.

At least, this is the way it is at Peterhead :)

Yup, I'm sure most institutions have in place for people to learn or do some work in woodshops or canteens.

They'll get paid for that and spend it on items on their choice.

The way I see it though, is that there should be an incentive for early release if someone is showing signs of willingness to be rehabilitated back into society.

I don't know the parole system inside out, but if a prisoner stayed out of trouble in prison, out of the eyes of the staff, they'll get relased early on parole.

I believe only those who show a willing commitment in making efforts to obtain skills for use outside of prison should be the only ones given parole.

All too often, those in prison are repeat offenders and it's often obvious they'll reoffend to commit higher levels of crimes just as in the case of Gary Newlove (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/01/18/chief-cop-s-fury-at-gary-newlove-murder-115875-20289571/)

I'm not saying those who show signs of wanting to learn within prison will not reoffend, but I am sure those who do, will pose a lesser risk to the public.

Hmm, I'm going to post this here...

Capital punishment for murderers is the ultimate form of "an eye for an eye" justice. However, a judge in Tehran has taken the saying quite literally. Iranian woman Ameneh Bahrami has been told by judges that she is allowed to pour acid in the eye of a man who did the same thing to her. clicks (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/03/26/acid-attack-revenge-eye-for-an-eye/iran-court-allows-victim-to-blind-culprit.html).

From where I'm sitting, this isn't justice at all, just straight-up revenge.

Oh, also I haven't posted here. I don't believe that capital punishment should ever be used, as I don't feel that any person is beyond redemption or reform. Umm, I don't have much else to say which hasn't already been mentioned. The thing about which I always wonder is when a person is evil, is it really their fault? It could be a case of bad experiences in life, being treated badly by others, has led them to the end of their tether and made them do heinous things. Alternatively, it could be that a person was born bad, somehow something was wrong from the start, in which case I don't know if it could be said to be their fault; it wasn't their choice to become bad, and I don't believe that we should ever persecute people for being the way that they were born. Naturally if a person commits murder then this is an extreme case, but I still do not believe that capital punishment should ever be used. Again, as many people have said it feels like "an eye for an eye", and I feel that capital punishment is murder just as much as murder is murder. Actually, I think that capital punishment is worse; murder shows evil in an individual, capital punishment shows evil in many.

As for an alternative, I'm not sure what I think should be used. Longer prison sentences, I don't know about. It seems that sometimes the call for longer prison sentences is made purely to punish people further rather than with the thought that future crimes will be made less probable.