I support it and think we should use it far more, even for some non-violent crimes. For example, some of these white collar criminals whose actions have led to people losing their entire life savings. Bernie Madoff would have been a prime candidate. The world is filling up with scum and it's time to start balancing the books.
Take Fred and Rose West. Fred hung himself in his cell. Please explain how this cost the tax payer more money than if he was incarcerated for life? Rose West is jailed for life. The tax payer has to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions to house her. You tell me how that is cheaper then putting a rope around her neck tomorrow? I'm intrigued in hearing your financial formula.
I voted “yes” but in a very limited sense. Timothy McVeigh got what he deserved. Ditto for anyone who assassinates a president or if the crazy guy who wanted to kill a Supreme Court justice had succeeded.
I understand the dual aspect of justice in progressive courts. Put that aside and look at Capitol cases where there is "overwhelming evidence" of 1st degree murder. Some of these cases are even recorded on film.
I was briefly against the death penalty as I fear a government with the power to kill people. Then they started killing people in Canada if they're sad or broke and I realize we don't have to wait for someone to commit a capitol crime for the government to be a danger to us all.
Suicide isn't capital punishment. In any vaguely civilised system, the process for conviction, sentencing and appeals will inevitable take time, and death row inmates generally require separate accommodation and security. It is also necessarily to maintain the infrastructure for capital punishment even though it is used extremely rarely. There are few developed countries that actually use capital punishment (arguably, by definition) but where they do there is no evidence of it actually saving any money.
It gave the same result, Fred did the tax payer a favour, sounds like the anti capital punishment brigade are not so happy. Again, as in the OP and mentioned elsewhere, "Clear Cut". So like the West's, the Lee Rigby case, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian and Myra Hindly, there would be no time for a delay in hanging. And they would appeal to what? Take Lee Rigby. The two Muslim extremists, in front of pedestrians, ran into Lee with their car. Then they beheaded him infront of the pedestrians. Then they paraded around with the blood dripping off the knives, the police turned up and arrested them, still all infront of the pedestrians. That is clear cut. So the system for that should be, through the courts, off to the gallows, cremated.
No it's self-murder. Any one complicit is an accomplice to murder. (however if you do have the fortitude to do it yourself, no one will face retribution). The idea is to view life is precious and as a society we don't want the hopeless to take their life. They need encouragement, not irreversible death. On the other hand, if an individual has the propensity to "take innocent life" society has the responsibility to remove them from the planet.
An individual prisoner dying has largely the same effect regardless of how they die but we're not talking about individual prisoners, we're talking about implementing a system. And while I'm not happy when anyone dies, my concern certainly isn't for the life or wellbeing of actual horrific criminals but for the people who aren't but get caught up in the system. That is especially significant since the "cost saving" argument could be made for a much, much wider range of prisoners. After all, many prisoners who are due to be released after a relatively long sentence are likely to end up of benefits and struggle to find decent work. They could well end up costing the state more than lifers, especially if they fall in to reoffending as a result of their circumstances. Legality/constitutionality of capital punishment, any manner of procedural issues, mental health (at time of offence or execution). Unlikely to be valid in most cases but could be valid in any so would need to be available as options. And you've only identified half a dozen examples across many decades. Are you sure the cost of maintaining a capital punishment system really be covered by the savings from not holding those few people for the rest of their natural lives?
I'm sure there are many cases in many countries. Hundreds, if not thousands, yearly. The cost of maintaining a capital punishment system? How much does a set of gallows cost and when they get serviced, how much is that? What's the cost of a cremation? We all eventually need one, so that's a fixed cost to any system. I think it's pretty obvious to all that the Lee Rigby killers being hung shortly after would save the public a fortune. Who would pull the lever to the trap door? Ask the family members of the victim, I'm one of them would do the honours free of charge. Not sure what "capital punishment system" cost you're thinking about. What kind of system did you have in mind that outweighs prison costs?
That depends on exactly what kind of offences you're deeming justifying execution. You only mentioned mass-murderers and terrorist killings, which are thankfully extremely rare (especially in the UK, which seems to be our mutual point of reference here). There is also your "clear cut" criteria, which could well exclude a lot of "less severe" and one-off cases. What's the cost of imprisonment? How much does a cell with a bed and a toilet in it cost? The fact is that in both cases, there will be plenty of costs around general infrastructure, staff and management. It's not that capital punishment infrastructure would necessarily cost billions, but for the number of prisoners it could realistically apply to, it is unlikely to be covered by any savings in prison spaces (especially considering our prison system is massively overcrowded, especially on the high security side, so removing a few individuals may well not save anything at all). I'd suggest you need to cut through the general fuzziness with the capital punishment arguments. It's never really clear whether the point is a practical one of saving money and preventing reoffending (in which case it would apply to a much wider range of offenders) or if it's a moral one of declaring that certain people don't have the right to live (in which case you shouldn't object to the cost, just like the rest of the criminal justice system). Trying to present it as a zero sum game, with no possible reason not to do it, simply doesn't do your position any favours.
I don't believe in the death penalty beyond murder. However stealing in the middle east can still result with the offender losing the right hand. People may think that uncivilized....but I bet it works well as a deterrent.
In Saudi Arabia they sort of have "different rules", depending on whether someone is a Saudi citizen, an immigrant, or a United States citizen or white European. The immigrants who form the underclass are more likely to get the death penalty. If you're an immigrant in the underclass, practically any killing will get you the death penalty, even if it was done for very sympathetic reasons or it was on the borderline of not really being murder. Saudi citizens get treated with more honor and benefit of the doubt, but they also get held to some strict rules because "they should know better". White Europeans are easily imprisoned, even easier than Saudi citizens, but the Saudis are more reluctant to execute them, due to concerns over international outcries. Especially if the victim is not a Saudi citizen, the country sees no reason why it has to be harsh. They'll get treated with more lenient European-style justice if they come from one of the more important European countries. If it's a United States citizen, the Saudis are more likely to defer to what the U.S. wants, to appease them. So there are some double standards of justice. So different people sort of have different rights depending on their citizenship status, and how important they are seen as being, and who is seen as holding jurisdiction over them.
What crimes involve the death penalty, in which the victim wasn't killed? So you think it depends on who they killed? Interesting Personally, I don't care whether it's a deterrent or not; it simply means that person will not kill again. As far as the cost goes, they should get an appeal (one) only if new evidence appears, within a time limit of say two years. It's ridiculous for these people to sit on death row, while I and other taxpayers support them for maybe 20 years, while they get to appeal and appeal, trying to find a jury that will release them. Furthermore, some say that life in prison without parole means just that. But years later the laws are changed by young people who don't remember the crime or care. See Leslie Van Houten...
Absolutely. A political assassin can change history. The assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand started World War I. Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John Kennedy and left us stuck with Lyndon Johnson. Had he not been assassinated, Robert Kennedy might have changed history in 1968. Dim whit John Hinkley could have ended the Reagan presidency. Look at it this way. A political assassin can have more influence that 70 million voters. You bet. If you kill a major public figure, you deserve the death penalty.
Ok I see it. But I've actually never heard of a case where someone tried for child molestation only got the death penalty. Maybe you were being sarcastic and I missed it. Sorry.
someone advocated the death penalty for child molestation. with 30 years as a prosecutor I noted why I oppose the DP for such cases. at one time some crimes were capital punishment eligible including forcible rape and some armed robberies.
I'm on the fence but because I don't think some crimes require the death penalty, but because I don't like the state being able to kill people.
For me, punishment that is beyond deterrent and keeping dangerous people away from society - becomes pointless. It should be either about reformation or just making sure that person doesn't procreate.
