|
This is a tricky one. In theory, I think capital punishment should exist for some crimes. For
example, the perpetrator in the recent case in Austria I think would deserve to die. However, I
think it should be applied very rarely. Therefore, if it exists, I would like to see it hedged round
with buffer processes which prevent it from being applied too often.
My problem is that I don't have much faith that these buffer processes would work. For example, I
think the death penalty as it exists in all current legal systems in the world, should be abolished.
It would be better for it not to exist than for it to exist in such a flawed form.
I can see the death penalty, if it was reintroduced in Britain, for example, being applied way too
often, in response to popular indignation over a crime. There are many high profile crimes which saw
someone convicted initially only to be cleared years later. So my support for the proposition is
conditional on the new law being accompanied by appropriate safeguards. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe that capital punishment should be brought back into the UK for a punishment when there is
absolutely no doubt that the crime has been committed. However, I don't think it should be used for
all crimes and should only be used for the worst possible acts such as murder and rape. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think that capital punishment should be brought back as a the moment there is absolutely no
deferent for major crimes such as rape and murder. If this doesn't work as a deferent it will at
least stop people from re-offending. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I will just copy what I wrote on a similar debate a few months ago.
I have to agree. In the most extreme and clear cut cases. Ian Huntley in the UK would be a good
start. I cannot subscribe to the train of thought that says it makes us just as bad. It clearly
doesn't. I would leave it to the families of the murdered to decide whether or not they would like
the death penalty. If it makes them feel even slightly better then that's worth it alone. I know I
certainly would want them executed, it would make me feel sick to think that my tax was spent on
them in jail, they have forfeited any rights they once had. Imagine the sickening feeling the
families of little Hollie and Jessica get everytime they see reports of Huntley on a PlayStation or
watching sky.
What right does someone have to say to them "no you must not execute him that would make you just as
bad". The same right someone would have to say "you must execute him" if they felt strongly against
it. None whatsoever.
The only argument against is if an innocent person was executed, therefore this must be reserved for
a very small number of clear cut cases. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes without a doubt for premeditated murder , terrorist offences child molesters ,drug dealers , and
traitors eg people who have been born in this great country and then take up arms or take part in
the planing of attacks upon it |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, it should because there is so much ill discipline in todays youth, the main reasons for
ill-discipline are got policy and the resulting lack of punishment in schools and at home. So
discipline starts in the home, parents should be given the legal right to smack their kids and if
necessary beat them to a pulp until they are black and blue, this will stop them answering back or
going out late at night. Next discipline in school. School teachers have insufficient powers, all
they can do is give detentions and most kids don't care if they get a detention or not, it doesn't
work. So the only way to stop them misbehaving is to bring back caning in schools. Teachers should
be allowed to beat the kids into a pulp until they are black and blue. And if necessary kick the
hell out of the kids until they behave. Next Police should be given legal powers to give chavs (who
hang around outside McDonalds) a good beating. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
27 Apr 2008 18:46
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
