I didn't choose my words correctly there! I just mean I didn't want it to turn into an argument if someone disagrees!I think it’s difficult to have a light hearted chat about capital punishment, it’s such an emotive topic.
4% on Death Row are innocent, you clearly do not care about the fact that 4% of the people are getting put to death.Yes because in America hardly anyone on death row is actually killed because of this stupid appeals process!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s not a deterrent because for the majority they are never killed, they spend 30 odd years living a comfortable life in jail with full access to TVs/internet/games consoles/food/healthcare etc etc
Bringing up cases from 40 odd years ago isn’t relevantSo, we would have hung the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, they had a fair trial, that would be okay with you, despite them being innocent. Where do you draw the line? Who do you kill? Do you only kill someone, then leave the others? Or kill all?
Also the football Ched Evans, would be dead, because he was found guilty of rape, which ended up being false.
With the death penalty in place, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six would be dead, despite being innocent, giving a fair trial and botched evidence, should they have been killed?Yes because in America hardly anyone on death row is actually killed because of this stupid appeals process!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s not a deterrent because for the majority they are never killed, they spend 30 odd years living a comfortable life in jail with full access to TVs/internet/games consoles/food/healthcare etc etc
No, it's not. It's proving a point that despite a fair trial, the wrong person can get found guilty.Bringing up cases from 40 odd years ago isn’t relevant
I have replied - I just meant I am here for a friendly discussion - just didn't choose my words correctly! Topics like this can get heated.Pro's and con's of state execustion is hardly light hearted chat now is it
It was 40 something years ago.With the death penalty in place, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six would be dead, despite being innocent, giving a fair trial and botched evidence, should they have been killed?
No, it's not. It's proving a point that despite a fair trial, the wrong person can get found guilty.
Ched Evans, would have been dead, due to being jailed for rape, a retrial found him innocent.It was 40 something years ago.
We have come a long way with regard to police investigations, collection of evidence, forensics etc
And some people here trying to say that child rapists deserve to have their human rights upheld are also ridiculous.Some of these comments are ludicrous and show a complete lack of understanding for how the legal system operates.
Or the fact that we think killing doesn't do anything, it doesn't bring the victims back or ease their suffering. It's not about justice, it's about revenge. Killing someone, they're dead, like that. Having someone locked in jail, knowing they can never leave is better sense of justice.And some people here trying to say that child rapists deserve to have their human rights upheld are also ridiculous.
Not one person has defended child rapists, as you keep trying to suggest. Stop being ridiculous.And some people here trying to say that child rapists deserve to have their human rights upheld are also ridiculous.
Yes exactly this. Human rights are for everyone, not 'only people we like and who behave in a way we agree with'. Otherwise there would be no point.Not one person has defended child rapists, as you keep trying to suggest. Stop being ridiculous.
Believing in human rights being inalienable and applying to all (as the law currently states) is not ridiculous.
China uses the death sentence for drug trafficking and corruption, do you honestly think a country like China gives me people a fair trial. What is their definition of corruption, someone who doesn't like the government.Interesting topic and I’m not particularly one way or the other.
Death penalty appears to work well as a deterrent in some countries such as China and Singapore which are incredibly safe, yet not so much in others.
I’d be for death penalty if it’s 100% certain that the person being executed committed said crime and even then the crime would have to be proven to be one of an act of unprovoked cruelty. I mean, I don’t think someone who kills someone who tried to kill their family deserves that.
About the death penalty being more expensive than a life sentence, are we talking the penalty itself or death row? Surely the penalty itself is not as costly.
I do too and also poor Timothy evans that christie helped to send to the gallows. But on the other hand I look at what Brady and hindley did, which is still raw where I grew up where the victims were from, and I think of how much they have cost the taxpayer in their years in prison.I always think of this case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case
If there is solid unwavering evidence of the crime being committed then why would we allow an appeal?Yes exactly this. Human rights are for everyone, not 'only people we like and who behave in a way we agree with'. Otherwise there would be no point.
Could not be rolling my eyes harder at the comments criticising appeals existing either, I'm sure if anyone here was wrongly convicted of a crime you'd be very very glad you can appeal. Juries are not infallible.
Ever heard of evidence not being correct?If there is solid unwavering evidence of the crime being committed then why would we allow an appeal?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?