Hid_Enigma
In Runtime
- Messages
- 154
Thanks everyone for posting your opinions. Its good to here everyones viewpoints instead of reading a bunch of articles saying what everyones viewpoint is.
For or Against the Death Penalty
- Thread starter Hid_Enigma
- Start date
Atomic Rooster
Omnipotent One
- Messages
- 11,161
- Location
- USA
Bring back "Old Smokey".
I'm for the death penalty. It serves as a deterrent to those who would otherwise kill, rape or otherwise take another's life to indulge their own sick fantasies.
Unfortunately, there are some groups in this country who have gone out of their way to give death row inmates more rights and appeals. This waters down (or in some cases completely nullifies) the deterrent factor.
Unfortunately, there are some groups in this country who have gone out of their way to give death row inmates more rights and appeals. This waters down (or in some cases completely nullifies) the deterrent factor.
INxFAMOUSxJW
Baseband Member
- Messages
- 69
I'm for it... but like the others said (NEED'S TO BE SOLID FACTS)
I can imagine that i someone murdered a member of my family that I'd want their life to be taken away from them, but really it doesn't solve anything...
but you can never prove 100% that somebody actually did something
My thoughts exactly...
in this instance the guy was actually convicted based on biological evidence, (his blood type) which later turned out to be a bad indicator.
he also confessed to the crime. -and yes there are lots of cases where innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit, some even truly believe that they actually did commit the crime as well.
he was later released on DNA evidence, proving that he didn't commit the crime.
but DNA evidence isn't 100% accurate either, there is a possibility that it can be wrong.
so I'm against the death penalty,
I do believe that if a person is convicted of a heinous crime though they should loose their human rights and be treated with the same contempt for life that they have shown.
(any one not in Britain will have to google for "slopping out" + "scotland" + "compensation")
but you can never prove 100% that somebody actually did something
My thoughts exactly...
in this instance the guy was actually convicted based on biological evidence, (his blood type) which later turned out to be a bad indicator.
he also confessed to the crime. -and yes there are lots of cases where innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit, some even truly believe that they actually did commit the crime as well.
he was later released on DNA evidence, proving that he didn't commit the crime.
but DNA evidence isn't 100% accurate either, there is a possibility that it can be wrong.
so I'm against the death penalty,
I do believe that if a person is convicted of a heinous crime though they should loose their human rights and be treated with the same contempt for life that they have shown.
(any one not in Britain will have to google for "slopping out" + "scotland" + "compensation")
UK31337
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,776
Against. The death penalty is revenge, not justice.
I'm glad the UK dropped the death penalty for murder in 1965 (it was still available for other crimes up until as recently as 1998 actually, although unused since the 1960s).
There are many cases from the past where the sentence has seemed dubious after it was carried out, the most notable being Derek Bentley from 1953 and then James Hanratty from 1961 (although he bragged about it and the Police had a hard time proving it, his family appealed for a posthumous pardon but it was proved that there was a 1 in 1bn chance of it not being him based on the DNA evidence).
Also the guy who got let out of jail after 27 years, well he wasn't alone. Remember Stefan Kiszko in jail from 1976 to 1992 for the murder of Lesley Molseed that he didn't actually carry out?
Problem is the Police in the UK, up until recently, had no knowledge of DNA testing and would fit up anyone for anything just to get results. Watch Life on Mars and look at Gene Hunt, that is honest to God what 70s policing was like in the UK.
I'm glad the UK dropped the death penalty for murder in 1965 (it was still available for other crimes up until as recently as 1998 actually, although unused since the 1960s).
There are many cases from the past where the sentence has seemed dubious after it was carried out, the most notable being Derek Bentley from 1953 and then James Hanratty from 1961 (although he bragged about it and the Police had a hard time proving it, his family appealed for a posthumous pardon but it was proved that there was a 1 in 1bn chance of it not being him based on the DNA evidence).
Also the guy who got let out of jail after 27 years, well he wasn't alone. Remember Stefan Kiszko in jail from 1976 to 1992 for the murder of Lesley Molseed that he didn't actually carry out?
Problem is the Police in the UK, up until recently, had no knowledge of DNA testing and would fit up anyone for anything just to get results. Watch Life on Mars and look at Gene Hunt, that is honest to God what 70s policing was like in the UK.
Rubber314Chicken
Golden Master
- Messages
- 5,574
what if they admit it? And all the evidences points to them?
But it really is an easy way out for the criminal. Jail would be MUCH more effective if they got a 2x6x8 cell with a gym mat on the floor and nothing more than two meals a day. Then maybe people would really want to stay out of jail, and it'd actually be justice.
see my post.
the guy just released after 27 years.
he said it was him. available forensic evidence testing at the time said it was him.
it's only because forensic techniques got better that it can be proved it wasn't him.
and his confession was false.
Similar threads
