Animals & Nature0 min ago
Capital Punishment
42 Answers
Should it be reintroduced for those found guilty of crimes like that guy who stabbed a man because he complained about him throwing chips at his girlfriend.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by reportmonkey. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Simply put - no. Mistakes can be made and then with capital punishment, lives will be lost unecessarily. There are too many cases of false confessions and fit-ups by the true criminal too. If the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 don't persuade you then may I direct you to 10 Rillington Place an excellent true story written in the style of a novel by Ludivick Kennedy? It has also been made into a film and is available on DVD in Blockbusters.
This link is to a bbc page detailing the story. Being on the BBC it is suitable for family reading, but I should warn you that the crime is that of multiple murder and necrophilia. It is horrifying really.
What about removing the pituitary gland. Surely anyone who carries a knife around on public transport for no good reason and kills someone in cold blood without flinching is mentally ill and should be sectioned? These people are beyond help are they not?! Would you employ them? Would you let them have kids? Would you leave them in society where they are a danger?
How do you go about rehabilitating an individual like this?
I've been against capital punishment since the 1960's.
When you speak of miscarriage of justice most members of the general public can only recall the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4, because theirs were high profile cases, the truth is more sobering, if we had not abolished hanging in 1969 to date we would have judicially murdered more than 100 innocent people.
Britain has the worst rate of "getting it wrong" than any other country in the civilised world.
As we have seen in the last ten years fingerprint evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be, and has probably resulted in many thousands of wrongful convictions over the past 100 years worldwide and DNA "foolproof" evidence looks likely to take over from where fingerprint "foolproof" evidence left off.
Should we put people to death? Only people who are not aware of what has happened in this country over the past 100 years would even ask the question.
When you speak of miscarriage of justice most members of the general public can only recall the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4, because theirs were high profile cases, the truth is more sobering, if we had not abolished hanging in 1969 to date we would have judicially murdered more than 100 innocent people.
Britain has the worst rate of "getting it wrong" than any other country in the civilised world.
As we have seen in the last ten years fingerprint evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be, and has probably resulted in many thousands of wrongful convictions over the past 100 years worldwide and DNA "foolproof" evidence looks likely to take over from where fingerprint "foolproof" evidence left off.
Should we put people to death? Only people who are not aware of what has happened in this country over the past 100 years would even ask the question.
capital punishment was abolished in Britain chiefly because innocent people were executed - Timothy Evans, for instance, hanged for John Christie's crimes. Had it not been, several more would have died wrongly (various alleged Irish terrorists jailed in the 70s and 80s, for instance could well have faced execution). As acw says, seems like a good reason for keeping it off the books.
Society never said killing anybody was wrong. That man on the tube was executed because the police thought he was a suicide bomber (tragic mistake). If he was a Suicide bomber i'm 100% sure that society would have said shoot him before he kills hundreds of people.
And then of course theres war, it was okay and fully condoned by the british government to kill germans if you were in the Armed forces.
Killing people is wrong however if there is a way to avoid it...I think that man on the bus could have said 'sorry I just thought you were hungry so I was sharing my chips the only way I know how' and left...instead he chose to kill someone!!
"a bit of a divvy" - HOW DARE YOU!?! Did you read the case!?! Did you take time to note anything about Timothy Evans? He had what I suppose modern society would call "learning difficulties". Are you suggesting that people with such "problems" should be put to death?
It was NOT his fault. He did NOT commit the crime. He DIED for it. That is simply NOT fair.
I for one would not want to see that happen again.
And what on earth do you mean by "society never said killing anybody was wrong"? Most of us make typos every now and then, but do you actually read what you're typing!?!
acw I just looked at your link all about Christie. My Mother used to work with him. I think he was her union leader and had his union book with his signature in but my Father thought it not nice to keep after he was caught for the murders so chucked it out!! Fool! it be worth thousands now.
Like I say though in those days we did not have CCTV or DNA, if we did then Timothy Evans would have been cleared. Christie also took advantaged that Evans was a bit slow in the brain department
I appreciate that forensics have come on a long way since the 1960s. However I just feel that mistakes may still be made. It may still be possible for people to be wrongly convicted.
Perhaps a better example is Sally Clarke. CCTV was not an option. Forensics showed she had touched the babies. Prof. Roy Meadows' evidence had her convicted. She'd probably have been hanged/executed somehow by now if we still have capital punishment.
Please someone tell me that this weakens the arguement in favour of capital punishment!!! Sally Clarke's case looked open and shut.
PS - I also don't think that people with mental illness should all be killed. Some need to stay in secure hospitals to prevent them committing crime. If life fails them and they are not treated BEFORE they commit a crime then secure hospitalisation is a must. But it's not fair to kill them. It wasn't their fault and they still have families who love them. If one of my parents developed a psychotic (sp?) illness and committed a crime, I'd still love them. Just as I still loved my Nana when she developed mental illness and became a total stranger.
Explain why the government says its ok to kill people your at war with then. It depends entirely on the situation doesn't it?
I am certainly NOT suggesting that about people with learning disabilities and I think it entirely irrelevant to this thread. I believe most people who commit murder to be 'not of right mind' anyway. While I agree mistakes have been made I think that with CCTV, multiple eye witnesses and DNA evidence you can convict someone.
Are you suggesting that the person on the Bus had learning difficulties and that he stabbed that man to death because he didn't get enough attention in school and should therefore be given some help and perhaps an xbox as a reward.
NO, I dont believe in the death penalty because all it is is state sponsered murder. Doing it in a calm,legal, thought out (cold) logical way does not make it any less murder. I understand that it is an emotional subject and if, God forbid, anyone killed my boy I would be the first person to want to hunt them down and kill them myself but I wouldnt be such a hypocrite as to say it was my moral right it would be natural vengance pure and simple. I wouldnt be pretending it wasnt really murder to try and distance myself from an act that is quite rightly the most serious and life changing thing (taking another life)
reportmonkey - are you serious? When did anything I say suggest that I think an alleged murderer should be given a games console?
There are some circumstances were it will be 99.9% certain that someone DID commit the murder. Yes that's true. But it still doesn't make killing them right.
Another line of reasoning that you might like to consider is the idea that it's better to leave them to rot in jail than to get away with it that easily by dying. That's why they watch people in jail to stop them committing suicide. If someone murdered a relative of mine I'd like to see them punished for life, not killed. At least that is my view at the moment, which is somewhat objective as I have never known anyone who was then murdered.
And let's not start on jail being a "soft option" these days. That debate has been had on AB already and is a separate issue.
