Do Some Crimes Deserve The Death Penalty? (The Big Questions)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Nicky Campbell presents The Big Questions live from Ashton Park School in Bristol. The 'Big Question' is "Do some crimes deserve the death penalty?" Guests include Dr. Michael Naughton of The Innocence Network UK, Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens, Christian barrister Mark Mullins, Vi and Ray Donovan from the Chris Donovan Trust, broadcaster James O'Brien, Michael O'Brien (who spent time in prison after he was wrongly convicted of murder), columnist Bruce Anderson, and the moronic David Musa Pidcock from the Islamic Party of Britain, who makes the astonishing claim that the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorists were innocent!!! (BBC The Big Questions, 29th April 2012)
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
my brain cells died from this debate. The appeal to emotion is over the roof.
Mοhαmmed wαs a pedοphίle
We do need to accept that being emotional is being human. Emotions are relevant to a degree.
Typical lefties .
@@justthatgirl-ct4joIts secondary and that's the way it should be .
If I could go through the full hour of this programme, without getting angry, it would be a great achievement for me.
It was the absence of the death penalty that led to the death of their son.
Pro-death penalty won this one. The otherside only resorted to emotional pleading. Next to no facts given.
Connor Blasing They did give facts, for example innocent people dying, closure for the families, examining reasons why people commit crimes in the first place, etc. Plus there is nothing wrong with including emotions in the full picture. I think the against death penalty team has been much more reasonable.
Not in my book they didn't. In reality the grieving parents, and the man who had been wrongly convicted, had the clearest of personal evidence and experience. As a man who once supported the reintroduction of capital punishment, I admit to having changed my mind completely over a period of many years for a number of reasons. I don't feel that the pro-capital punishment lobby ever truly makes rationally satisfying arguments for its use. I am on many issues a huge Peter Hitchens fan, but on this topic I believe he and his co-polemicists were profoundly wrong.
Especially that snake naughton
killbotone If you're going to engage in a debate on the topic then you should control your emotions.
You know, none of these people are debating the question. Some crimes do deserve capital punishment, but that in it's own right doesn't mean they 'should' get capital punishment.
Capital punishment is much more gentle that people imagine. The experience is identical to being put under for an operation. It is over in a few seconds. It is painless.
The problem with it is it is irreversible. If future forensic technology shows innocence, you can''t do anything.
lol utter bollocks, british companies have stopped selling the drugs, of which there are 3 (a paralytic, an anaesthetic then a drug to induce cardiac arrest). This is because there is evidence of the anaesthetic failing, so the person isnt put to sleep, they are paralysed and their heart stopped as they are fully aware. So its not just a shot, and then death, it can be long, drawn out and intensely painful, made worse by the fact the paralytic prevents the prisoner from signalling to the execution team if it is painful.
Yes, and capital punishment can't be justified on any level - retribution, deterrence, whatever - if innocent people are being executed.
Besides, if a killer doesn't deserve to be part of a civilised society, then the logical fail of society executing killers is there for all to see.
Exceptionally weak and poor 'moderation' from Nicky Campbell there. Anti-Capital Punishment supporters allowed to speak as long as they desired and shout down the Pro-Capital Punishment supporters. Then, when the Pro camp get to speak they are constantly cut-off and shouted down and not allowed to finish or explain any points. One of the most pathetic displays I've seen on this programme.
TheOppl i agree. obviously biased
There is an astonishing number of people who do not understand the differences between justice, prevention, righting wrong, and punishment. When people are sentenced in a court of law, it doesn't right a wrong. It is doesn't make it better, particularly in very heinous crimes.
When you break the law, you receive a punishment. That addresses the person responsible for the crime. Maybe it helps some of those who have been wronged, gives them closure, but that is not its principle purpose. You break a rule, you get a punishment; it is the consequence of your actions for your inability to live as part of society.
Do some deserve to die for certain crimes? Hell yes they do; people who torture and murder people in their basements, who rape and hack their victims to pieces, kids who felt like it was justified to go on a killing spree in a school because their math teacher gave them a B-, sadists and arsonists whose primary desire is to inflict endless harm and destruction on those around them, take your pick.
They should not be apart of society, as they have quite blatantly shown that they are incapable of functioning as a part of it. Even if you make the case that eye for an eye is a moral objectionable, in the end you need to face the fact that you have to remove these people from rest of the community and the only two ways of doing that is to imprison them or kill them. Same way you kill a rapid dog, you can kill a human being.
Imprisonment... I think the US has shown that it doesn't work in the long run. You only end up you spending more money maintaining an infinitely increasing string of prisons, catching escapees, and fighting an endlessly jungle of bureaucracy about their rights, conditions, appeals, and so forth. It's an evolutionary dead end that will end up costing the innocent as much or more than the guilty.
Zelnyair Not sure how that is relevant; people being wrongfully convicted is the system failing in ways that have nothing to do with the death penalty; How about how many completely debased criminals there are in the US prisons, convicted of violent crimes?
Those are actually the kind of people I was talking about. Not sure what the number is but I'm certain it is 15 to the power of very, very many.
Zelnyair Since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1976 not a single murderer has been acquitted following execution.
In to tired to fully expand upon my points, but in short, I fully agree with you and your analysis.
Shirley Andrews Why do many people make plea deals to exchange the death penalty for life?
This argument, which I don't blame you for, is a wonderful act of sophism. I have heard it many times from people who are secretly just anti-death penalty hug a thug liberals.
It is just bizarre because you are suggesting the death penalty is actually a step up from life imprisonment. So if there are mitigating circumstances should we execute in lieu of imprisonment?
The death penalty is important because it is absolute and definitive giving legitimacy to the criminal justice system.
Shirley Andrews I think the the state has authority distinct from the individual and we must distinguish between private retribution and social retribution. The state acts as the moderator between individuals which keep people from taking the law into their own hands which is probably the reason it was brought about.
The State can send people to kill and risk death in war, it can take your wealth without stealing and indeed deprive you of your freedom if you are deemed to be a threat to her order.
I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent however I do think it set a standard of discipline that is lacking in most western states. States without the death penalty tend to be far more relaxed on punishing people for minor crimes and jail time if reached is short and fairly pleasant. The norwegian who murdered 70 school kids has three rooms to himself and must be considered for release after 20 years.
Americans should not give up not he death penalty though I don't like lethal injection nor the fact the states and not the federal government carry it out.
The two people who forgave their son's murderers are, strange as it may seem, guilty of extreme self-indulgence. They have tarnished his memory, and also done their own little bit to endanger future innocent victims.
Only religious people and their brainwashed minds would be able to forgive their son being murdered for no reason.
*****
Indeed, however I didn't say all religious people. I said only religious people exercise such brainwashed behaviour.
***** Christian religion now is witch craft and wizardry racism and bigotry and 2000 years old. You Sr are backwards.
finalfrontier001 To make such a statement shows how fundamentally ignorant you are. You speak from a position that displays a complete lack of any intellect. Study the subject and then make a comment.
finalfrontier001
Of course he's backward. Look at his avatar.
When law and emotions get involved we will see alot of criminals let off. Oh he had a rough childhood, he was an addict. Yeah nonsense
"he who shed the blood of man, by man should have his blood shed" Genesis
I uphold utilitarianism. A vengeful society is not a valid minded society, that is almost a childish attribute although not childish per individual who is a victim or knows a victim of a terrible crime because that is natural but for the rest of society, we ought to appreciate the ability to think cleanly, without deepened emotion and objectively and think in a civilized grown up away about what really does resolve these issues. Maybe capital punishment does make the world better, maybe it can help for the better good, or maybe it doesn't, but what I uphold is that, we should approach this from a civilized objective manner and ask what works out for the better good, when we are not victims of these horrendous crimes, we should not indulge in emotion.
In the case of the Norway murders, it is not a matter of "justice" but a matter of logic and safety, to re release that man into general public is an act of murder in itself, he will obviously do horrible things again.
Who are the state to say that your life belongs to them?
No one is saying that a killer should not be punished. Those in favour of the Death Penalty seem to think that if they are not executed they get off with it. Innocent people could be executed. That is clearly wrong.
I have dealt with hundreds of violent confrontations and not once did I need a gun.
Forgive them?
FORGIVE THEM?!
FOR-FUCKIN'-GIVE A FUCKIN' MURDERER!
that's fuckin' horseshit.
123mambo321 Rather be a liberal than a conservitard who incorporates religion into most social issues more than liberals
It's not about religion for me, but honestly .. Some people don't deserve to breathe the air that we do.
People who torture, rape and rob the purity of children .. fuck 'em, they deserve the worst punishment possible!
I was completely with that one woman until she said we should focus on video games and movies.. now who is being irrational.
They could also have had parents of a child who was murdered, who WERE in favour of the death penalty. A bit of balance that the BBC doesn't want in debates like this. Stop funding the BBC with your TV licence.
So, if your son gets murdered you automatically become an authority on everything.
Politics seems to have become the politics of emotional people espousing their sadness and grief, wtf?
If you execute someone who has done a terrible crime then they are escaping from what they did. They don't have to live with themselves with what they did, they get an easy way out. If you keep someone locked up in prison for the rest of their lives then you take away the privileges that they would have had if they hadn't done what they did, and they have to live with themselves
On the contrary, I was really impressed by her and her husband. It doesn't apply to all victims of crime, but I think it's so commendable that they've been able to come to terms with the situation, forgive the people who killed their son, and move on. I think it's great that the BBC put them on the show, because I think they are a great example to other people in the same situation. I approached them afterwards and told them that I was impressed by them, and they said they liked my comment.
You’re a clown
The best point brought up in this debate is that an offence is not merely against the victim and family, but more importantly against Her Majesty's (the state). HM will not and should not tolerate crime of any level between her citizens. I blame the lack of understanding of this simple part of our criminal code for these "restorative" justice nutbags.
The death penalty is perfectly rational and should be in place for certain sever crimes e.g murder, terrorism, treason and for any offence committed by a non-citizen while in the country. Also, we need to do away with these ridiculously long appeal times. If someone is sentenced to death it needs to be carried out within the year. No taxpayers paying for these criminals.
Paul Hhong You had me for a while and then you lost me. Firstly treason should def not be punishable by death. I mean look at Edward Snowden he revealed classified info b/c he thought government was overstepping its bound by recording the actions of everyday citizens, he has since been charged with treason. Do you believe he should be put to death? Also "Any offence committed by a non-citizen while in the country," are u kidding me? what if he a non citizen got drunk and punched a citizen, you believe he should be put to death?
Problem with James's attempt to expose Peters parallel with war and the execution of the innocent is that he's basically wrong. You can't say sorry to a person who's been killed despite being innocent, well no you can't.. but how many innocent people have been and will carry on being murdered solely because there is no death penalty which would otherwise deter murderers from killing innocent people.
Secondly, he says that comparing state-sanctioned murder to self-defence is pathetic. Getting involved in WW1 and thus WW2, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan etc were not all on the basis of self defence but on the basis of an ideology which thinks we have the right to interfere with how other countries are run. It wouldn't have effected us if we had stayed out of other peoples business.
Innocent people die without the death penalty in higher numbers.
Innocent people die when countries go to war, self defence or otherwise. So if you can justify the loss of innocent life regardless of the reason you go to war, then you are a hypocrite for opposing the justification for the death penalty. Unless another nation actually invades your country then you're not defending yourself, you are merely fighting on behalf of other countries who were both equally stupid to go to war with each other in the first place.
John-Paul Stuthridge Completely agree. You are quite right.
John-Paul Stuthridge most murders are spur of the moment so thought of death penalty will not a deter
John-Paul Stuthridge If the death penalty deters murder why is the USA homicide rate 3 times higher than the uk's.
motelr Most? How could you or any study conclude that? But I disagree anyway, peoples thoughts and actions are constantly influenced by the moral system in which they live. If a society makes it clear there is a particular punishment for a certain type of crime, then it eventually sinks and it affects peoples behaviour.
Arse Robinson Why use USA as an example? They have a different history with a cruel legacy still lasting from the slave trade as well their way of the death penalty being bankrupt anyway. The convicts spend years and years on death row before being lethally injected or whatever. The UK used to hang people on conviction (pretty much). Also, it did deter people in this country, for example: UK Population 1916: 36 Million - 100,000 criminal offences. UK Population 2001: 51 Million - 5.2 Million criminal offences.
This is not just proof of a weakened and declining criminal justice system but proof that the laws Britain used to enforce did deter very successfully.
Man, if only we had programs like this in the US.
I don't think these discussions would go over well here. It would be an absolute screaming match.
The lack of seriousness with which some people approached the argument is quite sickening. Peter Hitchens was right, if you can't actually argue your point with rational deduction, just don't bother arguing. Insulting people who disagree with you accomplishes nothing but further closing your own mind.
Peter Hitchens is a grass, not to be trusted on any level.
I don't 'trust' him on anything. But what he said here is a simple statement regarding the basis of rational argument. The vast majority of people don't understand what are legitimate ways of arguing and thinking. The sheer number of people who will instantly leap to demonize their opponent is shocking. This is something that's basic undergrad psychology, it's embarassing how many people are essentially following the textbook definition of what delusion looks like.
Can you waste more people's time?
I completely agree with you. Sometimes I find myself re-evaluating my view on a specific issue when I realise that my opinion has no reasonable foundation but is instead based on an emotional response. There's no reason to hold on to an argument when you can't result to it through rational deduction.
***** I say Jeeves, I could not have put it better if I'd have had my eyelids welded open with my cats spunk.
I am in this episode! I start speaking at 15.18. I really enjoyed being part of The Big Questions, really good day. Thanks for uploading
You look great..but I disagree with you..death penalty is not revenge...it's to put the family at ease and to send a message to all people to think twice before for example kidnapping a kid and killing him / her..but I respect your opinion 🌹
Totally agree. State sanctioned murder is still murder.
@@dawnatkinson7704 it's not sanctioned murder. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person. The death penalty is society acting in self defense against murderers. Also, it is a slippery slope to argue that an innocent person can be killed. It's actually self defeating. An innocent person can be killed regardless. If the state believes the person is guilty then it is not the intentional killing of an innocent person, it is manslaughter due to negligence or incompetence. Are you advocating for the abolishment of jail itself since someone can go to jail innocently as well? If an innocent person dies, then that means the system needs to be reformed and there must be some form of compensation for the family. What ppl like you are doing is arguing that criminals should not be punished whatsoever! That's the dumbest logic I've ever heard.
Peter Hitchens argues that being against the death penalty on the basis of preventing the loss of innocent lives means that you must apply the same logic to other scenrios where there might be loss of innocent life such as going to war. The two situations are entirely different. In the case of war, the risk of innocent dying might be mitigated if the cause saves others. Killing a convicted person guily or innocent does not save lives if the individual can otherwise be incarcerated.
The death penalty should be instituted but victim's family have the right to forgive the culprit if they choose so.
No, this would put the victim's family in distressing situation where their hands are stained. The state should take that burden away from them.
James O'Brien requires Instant death.
he has new book out...
One side seems to handle their case in an emotionalized, reactive way, while the other side seems to argue theirs through calm, rationalist statements. Winning an argument isn't done by how many times you interrupt a person or tell them you think they're wrong.
My respect has gone down for Hitchens after watching this - I guess everybody has to be wrong sometimes. Non the less he makes a good point about the murder rate not being sky high only because of improvements in medicine.
Moral reasons aside, we have far more violent and serious crime since the abolition of the death penalty. Ditto the fact we've abandoned moral principles for 'do what you like' society.
Lefties are really sad.
I don't give a rat's arse what the person "was thinking " before they decided to kill someone- they took a life so they should forfeit their life!
Very good debate good views im old school and dont mince my words the death penalty should be used in severe cases obviously we need to ensure we are putting the right person to death and in a humane manner and if 100% proof and appeals dropped then yes that person should be executed and before their execution they should be made to face the family of their victim and cry out their poor excuses and sorrows then face their own family and say their sorrows for the shame they brought on their family name
Then prepare to meet their maker.
Simon Clark What happens to the person that kills the murderer as their punishment Shouldn't he then be killed judging by what your saying...
You're a clown you don't have to be stubborn because you have views of a right wing.
Oh wait obviously you do.
Criminals = victims and we wonder why society is in the slums
No. I think a person has the moral right to defend himself when attacked. And a nation has the moral right to defend itself when attacked. An attack is a clear and present threat to life. Nobody can say that a judicial proceeding in which a defendant in custody of the state stands trial is in any way equivalent. A prisoner of the state is not a threat to society. We can treat such people with justice.
Criminals are scared of gallows i.e. capital punishment.They are not scared of 21years jail term even if it is depressing.To make the world livable death penalty is a boon to get rid of dubious criminals who pose as monsters.
Most murders are crimes of passion. The consequences tend to simply not be considered by the perpetrator at the time of commission.
@@NoxiousNoodles Exactly, also when criminals do plan their crime, they try to act without getting caught. OR in extreme cases, they might not even care about what happens to them later. Some people sadly do not value their own lives as much as the rest of us do
"But I'm more than just a little curious
How you're plannin' to go about makin' your amends
To the dead"
-A Perfect Circle, The Noose
21 years is not the longest possible sentence for Breivik, his dentention can be extended for five years at a time after that.
My point is that having the death penalty didn't do much to lower the amount of murder that occurs.
The problem with that is that there really is no way to know how many innocent people we have killed. Once a death row inmate dies,people usually (outside of their friends and family) don't look at their case afterwards. Why would they? The justice system looks worse the more they kill innocent people. They have a personal motive NOT to pursue the cases of dead death row inmates.
This was a good debate until I heard the possibility of video games having a role to play in murder... nonsense
YOU ROCK PETER HITCHENS!
All murder deserves capital punishment
If a man hits me, I have no right to hit him back. If I do, how am I any better than him? If I don't hit him back, it does not make me a wimp, it means that I can feel satisfied that I did not stoop to his level. And I don't agree that children can't be expected to deal with a situation in the same way. If it's acceptable for an adult to hit someone back, why isn't it acceptable for a child? I don't think it's acceptable for either.
If the government can't kill someone because citizens can't kill someone, the prison penalty should be abolished as well, since normal people can't kidnap others and keep them locked up.
I want to be quite clear when I say this, there is no justification for the death penalty what so ever. People seem to have a very distinct view between who is good and who is bad, i.e some people are virtuous and some are diabolical in their nature. However there is always a clear context to why crimes are committed by people. They aren't inherently evil, but instead are victims of their own circumstance. For example if a young man who is born into a poor family with no chance of a real education, no father figure to help guide him, he can't get a job and ultimately ends up stealing a loaf of bread from the shops so he can live another day. On his way out he is stopped by the elder shop keeper and the young man pushes the shop keeper to the ground. The shop keeper bangs his head quite hard and dies. The young man didn't want to push the elderly shop keeper he just wanted his bread. Does he then end up deserving the death penalty? The death penalty advocate would say that death is only required when an innocent life is taken, so let's try another example. What if a woman comes home to an abusive (physically and verbally) husband each night. One night she snaps and stabs the husband and he dies. Is death required here? The husband was abusive but did he really need to be killed? In this case the ambiguity over the victim’s innocence is suspect at best and the killer may have been perfectly justified in her actions. Does she deserve to be sentenced to death? I lay out these examples to give the reader some context to why crimes are committed and that life is one massive shade of grey with little spots of black and white.
Now that I've added context to the crimes lets address the other pro capital punishment comments below.
The death penalty isn't justice it is an act of vengeance. This is because although the state may be sanctioned to carry out executions it is accountable to its people and is an accurate reflection of its population. Therefore all death penalties are an act of vengeance because not only do their citizens accept it they actively want it to satisfy their black and white idea of justice.
The families of the victims should decide the outcome of the criminal. If this is the case and the society wants to be absolute in its sense of justice, then the family should be responsible for the execution itself. I say this because I doubt many people would go through with it. It’s very easy to say that we are for the death penalty as long as some else does the dirty work, but knowing that one day you may be called to physically end another person’s life is very unsettling.
Prisons are expensive, well so is looking after the elderly, by that logic we should have them executed as well. They've all lived long full lives and now they're just taking up space, they don't contribute anything to society anymore, some aren't even aware of the real world. The example may seem childish but it makes the point of illustrating that reducing a life to cost demeans our very existence as human beings and the value we attach to life.
The risk that an innocent life will be taken by accident. I think enough has been said on this matter, but yes the risk is too great.
We don't want to live in a society ruled by fear. What is the purpose of punishment? It is so the offender learns from there crime and so goes back into society rehabilitated. However if the punishment for a crime is death then they learn nothing, so what is the purpose of the punishment then? The criminal becomes the example to everyone else. In other words if you commit this crime you will share the same fate, and so we have a society that is kept in line out of fear not the rule of a common sense of justice.
If we don't sentence these criminals to death they will go back into society and reoffend. Now there is no guarantee that this will occur but it is a reality, which is a problem with society and the prison system itself rather than the offender in question. For some reason in society we think by putting someone in prison no matter the crime, their motives or their upbringing and placing them in a place with the most violent and dangerous individuals in society that they will magically be rehabilitated. In reality it makes them more aggressive and more resentful of the society that sent them there. The ones that do get out and try to reintegrate with society find it almost impossible to gain employment with a criminal record hanging over their head, and so turning to crime may be there only way out of poverty. People often forget that prisons are supposed to help people. They aren't storage units for the poor and unfortunate.
One final word, religion has no place for basing a legal system around. This is because different religions have different views on crime and the appropriate recourse for them.
Okay I’m done!
"What is the purpose of punishment? It is so the offender learns from there crime and so goes back into society rehabilitated"
The primary and most important purpose of punishment is to deter crime from happening. It is all well and good to rehabilitate a murderer, but let's not forget the real victim is the one that's dead. Hitchens brought this up in the debate, that assaults with intent to kill have gone up dramatically in the absence of the death penalty. This should have been the focus of your comment but instead you did not mention it.
No crime deserves the death penalty. Criminals deserve to suffer and death is an easy way out. For a man to suffer through his entire life is a far more fitting punishment for mass murderers than to simply have them physically suffer for an extremely small ammount of time after which they feel nothing.
To the parents who lost their son my heart goes out to them but their argument that if their sons killer was dead then his parents would be victims...but if he got released and killed another then how would they feel
What makes you judge, jury and executioner?. Revenge is a powerful feeling of rage, in the end your will regret it till then its to late.
What confuses me is that in primary school, if someone hits you in the playground, you're taught not to hit them back - because that makes you as bad as them, and if you hit them back, you both get into trouble. That is something that every five-year-old understands. If something can be so simple to a five-year-old, why can't we as adults get our heads around the same principle when maximised to a greater extent?
I think killing someone is a little bit more extreme than hitting an another don't ya think
Do two wrongs make a right?
Is taking the life of somebody who is defenseless (as the suspect is) morally justifiable?
Why should the state be given the authority to punish a murderer with death when an ordinary citizen cannot?
These are questions which you need to answer in order to provide a solid case in favor re-introducing capital punishment.
I must add I do not believe a rapist deserves death.
does forgiving someone suddenly mean that justice cannot take place?
People have no guns in Britain for self defense. People are not afraid to commit crime. BAM. That just happened.
I will admit that that is a large problem in the American model of justice. In Finland,my nation of origin,lawyers get a fixed pay,it doesn't matter if they win or lose cases. In America,defense lawyers get more money if they can defend more people succesfully,thus guilty people roam free. And a prosecutor gets paid far more if he has sent more people to prison,thus they sent innocent people to jail and death row just to make more money.
There is great liberation, redemption and construction when you see a murderer as an ill person, instead of someone who needs revenge in this case being the death penalty. Apart from having innocent people wrongfully accused and put to death, today scientists are determining more and more that a violent person who murders and tortures people has a mental imbalance. These people need to be treated and cured, and it's very possible to do so and most necessary too. It is much healthier to do so.
Mental illness does not excuse murderers nor is it the underlying reason for most crime.
Something in this video is very clear:
While the pro death penalty man put rational arguments, The anti-death penalty use emotional arguments.
Very true and obvious
It's not the person, it's the gun. OR in the UK it's the knife. The UK actually has introduced laws prohibiting knives with points! The UK has become rife with "compassion" misplaced. Clear thinking has become with "victimhood".
It rare now that the UK has men & women that realized that WWII was fought for a reason. Blaming abhorrent behaviour on video games, guns, etc destroys personal responsibility.
As a Christian, I am against the death penalty. Those who are for the death penalty should realise that if they cant provide grace then they don't deserve the grace and forgiveness that God gave them through the torture, death and resurrection of Christ. But there is something important about what Hitchens is saying here. If all criminals are victims then why punish them at all? Why not abolish life imprisonment and instead send these 'victims' to hospitals, churches and social organisations?
Making the decision about whether to kill someone or not based on the cost is a pretty disgusting idea.
Bring back the death penalty for certain cases. Rape, child & animal abusers and murder. Why should we pay for these sick ppl to live in comfort and believe me they have it easy in Prison.
Teaching people they shouldn’t kill by killing a person shouldn’t sit right with anyone
For those who are calling for the death penalty...how about we give those people 'death penalty duty' the same as we have jury duty? Then we'll see if they can go through with it. Because some of these people want the death penalty as long as they aren't directly involved. Out of sight out of mind so it's not on their conscience and they don't feel directly responsible for killing another human being so that's why they're ok with it.
Look, it doesn't deter crime. Its been shown in studies that the crime rate stays around the same regardless. It costs a lot of money. Its a horrific moral dilemma for the person assigned to do it. And if you are wrong about something, it is irreversible and so innocent men die for no reason. People thought that the guy in this video was guilty. They said "WE KNOW THAT". Look what would have happened.
Let the victims family choose
it's called life in prison without parole...the death penalty is only necessary if you're that vengeful and bloodthirsty that you wouldn't rather have the perpetrator waste away in prison with no freedoms while allowing you the ability to find closure through communication rather than revenge murder
I think Peter is right
Should I ever be in the unenviable position of finding it necessary to kill anyone, I would hope to be given the death penalty. Imprisonment is inhumane.
If you take a look at countries by homicide rate, countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Indonesia, Bahrain, etc. and these countries that punish murder with death are almost at the very bottom with only a few murders a year. Capital punishment for crimes like murder, rape, terrorism, etc. solve problems fast.
Why is it that when you steal something you have to give it back but when it's a human life that rule doesn't apply?
SilverAbsol Well that is a terrible examples. They have issues with what is murder lol. Stoning a woman for not wearing her burka isn't considered murder. Now a good example would be Singapore.
FrostBite MN Just throwing out something I'm more familiar with. Does Singapore have the death penalty?
Death Penalty yes a little less than it used to be used that is mostly cause they have such a low crime rate. They also do canning which i"m a big supporter of it.
FrostBite MN What is canning?
SilverAbsol
Taking a long flexible stick (a cane) and smacking either the calves, butt, or upper leggs with it. Singapore uses it for both students and criminals (obviously they don't go nearly as hard on students). Criminals typically are hit hard enough to strip the top layers of skin off there ass after 3 swipes in the same spot. If you stole you will be lashed if it is your first time as a teen you will never do it again after getting hit in the ass like that.
This debate was set up incorrectly. People were talking about specific cases....a man drives a car and accidentally runs over 3 innocent people; well no the death penalty is not called for. But a man intentionally blows up an entire building and as a result hundreds of lives were lost....why not ask questions like this?!! I bet their anti-death penalty view will change
just because a system needs to be reformed is no excuse to bring back the death penalty
Look at the expensive death penalty system in the U.S, it's backrupting states that have the death penalty.
We Should only have the death penalty for extreme acts of terrorism!
They tend to kill themselves in the act, if you mean our friends the muslims.
The UK needs the death penalty. We waste enough resources keeping murders and serial killers in warm beds with 3 hot meals a day for decades. Get rid of this scum of society and spend that money on education, health and the things that really matter!
Please explain why it is more humane to keep someone locked up like a caged animal as opposed to a quick and painless death?
Also, I don't agree with punishment just for punishment's sake. When we are children, we are taught that if someone hits us in the playground, we don't hit them back. That is something that every five-year-old knows, and I follow the same principles. Punishing someone for something does not change the fact that said thing has been done, it only makes us feel happy that we've inflicted something unpleasant on someone. Sentencing should only ensure that such a thing does not happen again.
Agreed: "the death penalty is wrong for a civilized country". The corollary of that is: in a genuinely civilised country why would anyone even talk about the death penalty?
I'm glad Peter mentioned the seriousness of the jury's decision making, because if I were ever asked to serve on a jury in a country with capital punishment for a murder case, I would refuse to serve on that jury.
Because a) I'd live with the fact that I MIGHT have killed someone wrongfully, whether the murder was really committed or not, and b) fear of a) may mean I give a not-guilty verdict unintentionally.. letting the true criminal walk away free.
Juries should never be put in that position.
Abolishing the death penalty is definitely a future trend but I honestly don't think every single human being is ready for it. If someone is so dis-functional to live among others in a society, it would probably be more resource-saving to just put him/her down.
Having that said, abolishing the death penalty is definitely a future trend when most of us is ready.
I really want to give Peter Hitchens a high five, in the face, with my fist
Start witbyrself first
In July of 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court re-instituted the death penalty after having struck down all state death penalty statutes almost exactly four years earlier. During those four years without the death penalty there were about 12,000 more murders as compared to the four years prior to 1972, an increase of 19 percent, and more than 10,000 additional families who had raised a child who then became a murderer.
_And will you profane Me among My people... killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live...?_ - Ezek. 13:19
And to those who have no regret or feel no guilt for what they did?
I absolutely would not agree with that form of self-defence! If B knew A's plan in advance, he'd be able to spend that time avoiding A rather than attacking him. If he attacks A, that makes him just as bad.
Revenge is incompatible with justice because justice is fair and reasonable, and I don't think revenge is reasonable. It's petty, childish, immature and doesn't benefit anyone except in the most asinine way. Sentences should protect the public, but revenge is something separate.
The boys who killed the parents son may come out and do it again....the parents are then guilty of murder by association.....how would they feel then?.
People allowed back into society who then go on to murder more innocent people is a crime.......bring back the death penalty.
In old time rape punishment was death ,
Because no matter what u do that person will never recover,
I do not pretend to speak with the eloquence of my predecessors, but it seems to be inappropriate to argue for the death penalty's effectiveness at deterrance. It is not a matter of deterrance, it is a matter of, if you take a life, your life shall be demanded from you.
This is simplified, but life is so precious that the reckless or malicious murder of a person by an individual can and should be met with a swift incarceration, trial, and execution. It is not revenge, but justice.
I think the economical benefit death penelty brings is only a bonus. The more important question is do you really want to let a person that have killed another person (or several) get more chances to kill again? That for me is the thing that matters.
The fact here is that either side of this argument is not perfect. This world will never reach an equilibrium in terms of justice and thats the way its always going to be in this world.
And what tells you that every criminal only does the crimes do just beacause society? Do you not think that many people just arn't greedy, crazy or just like the thrill of the crimes?People who kill people sometimes just do it out of sudden anger do you really think that a "better" society can change anger.
People who sell/smuggles drugs do just want to earn cash.
I would say that most crime is done simply beacause of greed.
In America I forgot the name of the case but someone killed this woman's husband and son. He was sentenced to life but she campaigned to let him have life in prison rather than the death sentence. The man who killed them was an only child and his father passed away, his mum had nothing but him. So the mums actually became friends because they both lost but in different ways. Any corr blimey the religious people need to make their minds up do you want to follow jesus teaching or forgiveness or you wanna pick and choose. No judge in this country is fit to judge wether or not you should live, they're barely fit to judge.
I don't mean to be rude but of the 31 states in the USA that have the death penalty, only three allow (one to three) judges to decide whether or not to accept the prosecution's motion for capital punishment. The other 28 require a jury and all but one need a unanimous decision. There is no one person who decides a execution for the accused or convicted in our system.
I didn't say they did? The juror are there to say weather you are guilty or not guilty, that's it. Your punishment is fundamentally down to the judge after any negotiations with the defence lawyer and prosecutor. Not sure about the U.S. But here in the UK jurors are just normal people with no legal training
UR3ANFISH
Jurors in the US are all legal citizens, that is the only qualification and all citizens must perform "jury duty" here in America.
Also in America, there are trials for the accused and trials for sentencing that are all handled by the defense and the prosecution. Judges do decide the sentencing based off of recommendations, such as in sexual assault cases and some violent crimes, but no judge can appoint the death penalty without the state's approval I think is the point I was trying to make.
Maybe I made a mistake but it looked like to me you thought judges could hand out the death penalty when they are only allowed to after a jury of twelve have approved it after the prosecution holds a separate trial for it.
My whole point is in our courts system, one person doesn't decide who lives or dies. Although we are not perfect in handling the accused and convicted, America has the most advanced legal system for capital punishment.
I know I said that, America is the most advanced country for capital punishment because you're just about the only first world civil laws country that still does the stupidness , nothing to be proud of. Over 100 people have been aquitted from death row since 1970. Some being in death row for 40+ years. No legal system can be perfect of course but when you know you could have kill 100 innocent men it's time to give it up. its not even a deterrent. If you're American your 4 time mor skillet to end up in jail than a Brit. America sucks
To your total surprise, Death is not a punishment. 1-B´se it w´d mean that people who simply die in accidently are in some way penalised. 2- No one knows what the dead man faces after he is gone, locking them up makes one shure they are getting the experience.
justice is not revenge, and a thing most people need to understand that most killings are not coldblooded, it often happens that the offender is either high or in brief heavy emotional anger. if it is truly murder (coldblooded) the penalty should be harsh, many many years in prison, but most killings are not coldblooded, and unless they are a threat at the a latter point to society then even they should be forgiven at some point.
Most wars today are not done in accordance with the just war theory. So would you say the state was involved in judicial killing?
A crime should be sentenced with justice, not whether someone is a threat in prison or not. A hung prisoner is not a threat to society, more of a warning to society.
the wrong person is expensive in a totally different way and alot of people on death row have been released.
If murder is committed then why has no police or MPs or English fa stood trial for murder of 96 Liverpool supporters would you take there lives because they were responsible for murder
If the killers are truly human, then they are responsible moral agents and sentient beings. In order to fully appreciate that they're human, they must meet an equitable punishment - death for the premeditated taking of life. To do anything less is to hold them to a lesser standard, and hence degrade them from the humans that they are to, instead, some sort of animal that isn't fully accountable for their actions.
What a load of rubbish! If you have murdered someone you don't deserve to live! Simple
Wow i respect that christian mother so much! What a beautiful inspiring person! Bless you xx