Chamber of Debate

CRIME - death penalty

Serial killer Steve Wright will die behind bars for killing five prostitutes, a judge ruled on 22 February 2008.

How much would that cost the taxpayer?

Do people who kill for fun deserve to die?

Is there any point at all in keeping these people alive at the expense of the taxpayer when Britain's prisons are already so over-crowded that prisoners are being released early to make way for more recent convicts?

"A life for a life, a limb for a limb, an eye for an eye" is an argument for proportionality and justice. Should we heed this injunction, or are we too blinded by liberal hand-wringing that we can no longer see the virtue of condign punishment or the moral validity of an effective deterrent?

The possibility of a miscarriage of justice and a wrongful conviction exists, of course. However, it could be argued that a criminal who is insufficiently deterred and inadequately punished is also a miscarriage of justice.

An opponent of the death penalty once said: "It is better that a hundred guilty men should go free than a single innocent man be wrongfully convicted."

Better? For whom?

Vote: Should the death penalty be re-introduced in some form, eg for the worst cases of murder?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)

Yes 69%

No 31%

Yes

OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)

Yes 67%

No 33%

Yes

AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

Records Per Page


Andromeda	19-Dec-2008 10:5
I am delighted to hear that Scamp would be happy to support a referendum on the death penalty and accept its result. I have always accepted that there would be the possibility of a wrongful conviction and execution if the death penalty were brought back. Since bringing it back would result in a significant reduction in violent crime and saving to the taxpayer, it is a no-brainer as far as I am concerned.

scamp126	18-Dec-2008 17:0
The question I have answered is: (In your opinion) Should the death penalty be re-introduced in some form, eg for the worst cases of murder? I have in no way said or implied that a referendum on this question should not be permitted. On this point I am ambivalent; mainly because referenda are unpopular with any of our governments and would be difficult to achieve. The point is therefore moot at present. If, however, a case could be successfully made for such a referendum it would have my full backing as an example of democracy in action. My vote would be in the negative and I would do my best to persuade others to the same conclusion. Only today Robert Napper has confessed to the killing of Rachel Nickell in 1992. Colin Stagg had been vigorously pursued by the police for this crime and in less enlightened times may well have been executed. The thought of Rachel Nickell’s gruesome and untimely death fills me with horror. I am sure that even she would not have wanted an innocent man sent to the gallows for it.

Andromeda	18-Dec-2008 16:10
My response to Scamp is this: in a properly democratic political system, controversial matters such as the reintroduction of the death penalty would not be left to our political classes to decide for us. In a genuine democracy, I would have thought, there would be a referendum on just such a matter. I wonder if Scamp is prepared to contemplate a referendum on just this, knowing as he probably does that the majority would want it reintroduced, if asked? If his desire is to thwart the will of the people and to support those who would withhold such a referendum from us, then I would suggest that he is not a democrat!

scamp126	17-Dec-2008 18:43
Apologies – a correction to my last entry is required. It was not the fallibility of DNA evidence which resulted in the unsafe conviction of Barry George, but the reliance upon one tiny speck of gunshot residue. The principle of the cautious use of any forensic evidence remains the same.

scamp126	17-Dec-2008 18:3
Almost all of the established views are represented in this debate - and that is how it should be. It is possible to propose and counter every point, from DNA evidence which is far from infallible (E.g. Jill Dando and Barry George), to the reporting and interpretation of overheard conversation (E.g. 'Let him have it', Derek Bentley). It is true that if I suffered the loss of loved ones in any of the many ways we read and hear about, I would feel murderous and vengeful myself. (I have experienced the loss of a nephew in Northern Ireland.) Ultimately, however, everything comes down to what we believe to be 'right' and 'wrong'; both emotive and philosophical concepts. It is my belief that the wanton destruction of human life, whether by criminal or judicial action, is unacceptable and uncivilized. We may be unable to control the action of those who are criminal and reckless but we can certainly control our own. The return of the death penalty would take us back to an age of callous brutality and society would be the poorer for it.

Andromeda	15-Dec-2008 9:8
Scamp is invited to consider how he would feel about Myra Hindley and Ian Brady if his children had been one of their victims. Perhaps he is unable to make that leap of the imagination of anyone he knows being a victim of a victim of violent crime for reasons to do with where he lives, how much he earns, the people he knows etc. He is of course entitled to his opinion, but I believe most people want the return of the death penalty. If we did live in a democracy, we would get precisely this. As it is, our political classes who think like him, who are too isolated and arrogant to care what we want, continue to tell us what they think is good for us despite it being quite obvious that it is their incompetence, corruption, stupidity and cowardice that has caused all the social problems we now face.

scamp126	14-Dec-2008 23:6
I can think of few greater horrors than being in a condemned cell while innocent. This has happened before and would undoubtedly happen again. Who would wish to find themselves or a loved one in such a terrifying situation?

evansthespy	13-Dec-2008 0:17
I used to be opposed to the death penalty - because mistakes like the Tim Evans have happened in the past, However, with DNA and better scientific evidence available now I think guilt is pretty well proven in many cases - and I also think that the death penalty should be available for judges to choose - after all that s why they are paid so much. Would anyone have shed a tear for Huntley, Shipman, Sutcliffe, West...? I doubt it.

AnotherView	4-Oct-2008 0:23
We need to get away from this absurd notion that a civilised society is one that puts the human rights of criminals above the rights of innocent victims and the general public. Letting criminals out after a few years does nothing to deter criminals, does nothing to make people feel safe and it most certainly does nothing for the innocent victims or their families. A civilised society is one that protects the human rights of innocent victims and the general public while punishing criminals swiftly and severely. Criminals forfeit their human rights when they commit their crime. By NOT having the death penalty people seem to think that they are protecting innocent people from losing their lives. Let's not forget the amount of innocent people that are murdered or raped because the criminals that did it were not scared of the law. Innocent people suffer/die at the hands of criminals regardless of whether the death penalty exists . The question is, do more innocent people suffer/die because we do NOT have the death penalty? On balance, if you weight it up, more innocent peoples lives would be saved if we did have the death penalty! Think about it!

RichardCostello	13-Sep-2008 11:35
A policeman or woman is promoted on finding you guilty of a crime, not by finding you innocent! And don't believe there is no corruption in our police force here in the United Kingdom. Sorry, did I say Police Force? Police SERVICE. Got it wrong, folks!