whats your opinion on this ?

[tweetypie/8]

i strongly advocate the death penalty for all murderers,terrorists,rapists,paedophiles,if they are proven to be guilty,it would free up the prisons,cut back well on the costs to keep the ******s and hopefully put off others from carrying out these foul deeds,i am sure there are a lot more you can add to this list and if you think of any feel free to do so.

[Russ]

Some people love to make work for the team.....

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by tweetypie/8

i strongly advocate the death penalty for all murderers,terrorists,rapists,paedophiles,if they are proven to be guilty,it would free up the prisons,cut back well on the costs to keep the ******s and hopefully put off others from carrying out these foul deeds,i am sure there are a lot more you can add to this list and if you think of any feel free to do so.

And what happens if, after being found guilty and put to death, further evidence comes to light, or someone else admits that they were the perpetrator of the crime? Just asking...

How would you bring back to life the ones wrongly convicted (initially proven to be guilty, but later found to be not guilty)?

Fine have no death penalty but lets have life sentences that actually mean exactly that you are in for the rest of your life. I know we have had bad convictions in the past but i think the chances of it happening these days is a lot less then ever before. Either way we have to do something if we are to deter violent behaviour on the part of a small section of our society.

[Paddy1]

If I'm a rapist and facing the death penalty/life long incarceration then I may as well kill the victim to shut them up

[v0id]

We should ship criminals to an island, the other side of the world.
Oh wait, we already tried that.

Oh thats a good policy Paddy we have light sentencing because the criminal is less likely to do major harm to a victim .

[punky]

Originally Posted by tweetypie/8

cut back well on the costs to keep the ******s

I think you've been misinformed. Its be conclusively demonstrated before by other members that it costs more, not less, to execute criminals as opposed to life them off.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Oh thats a good policy Paddy we have light sentencing because the criminal is less likely to do major harm to a victim .

I think paddy is making a good point, besides it's hardly light sentencing if the punishment is death and I am not sure it's appropriate to have the same sentence for such a different range of crimes, unless you have things like being hung drawn and quartered for the most heinous crimes. I also agree with your earlier point about having life means life sentences, that's what we were promised when they abolished the death sentence but like most things politicians say, it was a lie

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Gavin

I think you've been misinformed. Its be conclusively demonstrated before by other members that it costs more, not less, to execute criminals as opposed to life them off.

Yep for instance

Despite no executions in the state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1982, the system has cost New Jersey taxpayers more than $250 million.

[PeteTheMusicGuy]

I'm not for the option to execute criminals, as two wrongs do not make a right

Maybe the victim should get some sort of input in what punishment is passed down by the court. The final decision on that would of course still be with the judge

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Gavin

I think you've been misinformed. Its be conclusively demonstrated before by other members that it costs more, not less, to execute criminals as opposed to life them off.

Ironically, Death Row (which is intended just to be a place to hold prisoners while they are awaiting execution and any appeals) is classified by Amnesty International as a form of torture.

Not that I wish to defend the rights of those who murder, I just find it ironic that something that is probably intended to save lives is considered torture.

Anyhow, there is another point. The Death Penalty clearly isn't (on it's own) a good detterant, as you still get high murder rates in countries/states where the death penalty exists.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Ironically, Death Row (which is intended just to be a place to hold prisoners while they are awaiting execution and any appeals) is classified by Amnesty International as a form of torture.

Not that I wish to defend the rights of those who murder, I just find it ironic that something that is probably intended to save lives is considered torture.

Anyhow, there is another point. The Death Penalty clearly isn't (on it's own) a good detterant, as you still get high murder rates in countries/states where the death penalty exists.

Usually only habitual criminals commit crimes in order to get caught. The rest still believe they can get away with things. If the threat of punishment actually was a deterrent our prisons would be empty but there again we have more and more laws which if broken are likely to land you in gaol.

[Salu]

I think the case for the death sentence for serial killers holds more water than the death sentence for one-off murderers. The level of doubt is significantly reduced when you have been convicted of more than one murder.
I do agree that if sentenced to life then it should mean life though. Part of the problem is that the definition of murder needs elucidating. Killing someone out of anger/rage is different than accidentally and different to a premeditated killing. It is also very different when you kill several people and cannibalise them or torture them etc. Surely these need better definitions and appropriate minimum sentences apportioning?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by v0id

We should ship criminals to an island, the other side of the world.
Oh wait, we already tried that.

Yeah they colonised it and won't let us in now