Capital Punishment.

[Theland]

If a referendum was held on whether or not to reintroduce the death penalty, how would you vote?
What moral basis would dictate your choice?

[Old_Geezer]

Not.
The basis that it is wrong take the life of another human being save in exceptional circumstances such as self defence or compassion to end pain etc.. It would be hypocritical to vote to reintroduce something that was wrong, especially as a punishment for doing the same wrong act.

[waterboatman]

I would vote NO, many mistakes were made and innocent people died at the 8AM rope dance.

Having said that, a life sentence should mean life in prison. Then if further investigation proves them innocent they can be released. That can't happen if they have been hanged.

[johnk]

No

[david small]

Yes. A life for a life. There would have to be complete certainty regarding the guilty party.

[naomi24]

Yes, but since I have no desire to inflict pain on anyone I’d elect for a simple lethal injection rather than one of the less humane methods. I don’t regard it as a moral issue, nor as punishment or retribution, but rather as a practical solution to something that otherwise presents a danger to society.

[emmie]

i would, on the basis that some people are evil and that keeping them in prison for long periods is just a waste of taxpayers money. Child killers would be my first choice, a quick and easy jab and away they go. I never used to think like this but i do now.

[MallyJ]

I would vote no...on the grounds that killing another person is wrong. Simple as that.

[woofgang]

I would vote no. Too many judgements have been wrong in the past.

[woofgang]

also of course "Justice is Mine" saith the Lord "I will repay"

[EDDIE51]

I am 100% against the death penalty. It does nothing to deter crime and has no place in a civilised society.

[naomi24]

Eddie, I don't think it's a deterrent, but in the interests of public safety it's a practical solution. We put dangerous dogs down for that very reason.

[pixie374]

Same as Naomi. The only problem would be that you would need to be 100% sure of guilt, not just the "beyond reasonable doubt " that we use otherwise.

[mikey4444]

I would vote NO.

It isn't effective, as can be seen in the few places in the world where it is still allowed.

[pixie374]

It is effective. They generally end up dead.

[emmie]

it may not stop other killers, rapists, but if the thought entered their minds at all that they could end up on a slab maybe they would think again.

[andy-hughes]

No.

State-induced murder is still murder.

The moral basis is very simple - killing people is wrong.

[pixie374]

I wouldn't usually have supported it in the past, but just sometimes, it's the only practical answer.

[emmie]

i don't know what moral basis, but if someone killed my kid i wouldn't want them just to be shut away for an indeterminate length of time, i would frankly wish they would go to hell..

[pixie374]

Cross-posted... murder is illegal killing, so it wouldn't be murder.

[naomi24]

Pixie, //It is effective. They generally end up dead.//

Succinct. :o)