With the Woolwich murder in mind, and the little Welsh girl’s murder, would you bring back the death penalty?

My own thoughts are you would need to be absolutely certain and there could be no possible doubt that you’ve got the right person, and that there is no remorse then my answer would be yes.

100% abosolutly! Bringing it back would reduce murder in the uk

It's been a very successful deterrent in various states in the USA, after all... Why, by now there must be hardly any Texas?

i didn't say it would stop it but imo it does reduce it. You still want to kill someone when its in place in your state, then you get whats coming to you

It may have a detrimental effect as with some of these groups as they often believe in martyrdom for their cause

So we help em out.

Definatley how much have we waisted on Brady,Hindley,Rose West,Neilson and countless others none of them deserve to draw breath as far as l am concerned.The money waisted on them in prison could be spent on our old age pensioners who cant afford to exist.

Can I ask one question those that are "for" the death penalty in murder cases, what are your opinions on Sharia Law?

Ban it... next question?

Can you read? If so I suggest you go read up on Sharia Law as I bet a lot of your opinions on the judicial system are entrenched firmly in the same beliefs as those that make up the basis of Sharia Law.

when you come to the UK you obey the laws of the UK. Sharia Law has no place in the UK

Up and running in Walthamstow.

[img]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/26/5ehy6yra.jpg[/img]

Mal post it again.. its not showing up

Show be okay if you use tapatalk app.

i can see it there but vast majority on here dont use that app

Just have to click on the link then..

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/26/5ehy6yra.jpg

gingers! send them to Australia

Ignorance is one thing lazyitis is another...

1. There is no such thing as UK law.
2. ENGLISH law is based on the principles created by Lex talionis, the Christian interpretation of the Jewish Talmud, guess what the Islamic interpretation is?
3. Taken to its extreme, as Islamic fundamentalists are intent on, gives rise to the "eye for an eye" punishments for crimes. I.e. death penalty for murderers.

It never fails to amuse me, the sheer number of numpties who create merry hell about Sharia Law then espouse the EXACT same views and beliefs that Sharia Law encapsulates because "it's what dem Muslims fink innit"

Plebs...

Have you been radicalized ?your rant's seems to look that way.


Dont fink l agree wif u mush have read of this

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/ ... -elsewhere


I will be having no more to say on this.

Hmmm, which part of my post suggests I am for Sharia law?

All your link does is highlight, when brought to it's extreme, people's basic human rights are removed. Much like taking people's right to life away for committing murder, an eye for an eye.

It is a dangerous thing to allow emotion to cloud judgement in law.

No - punishment should be a deterrent and therefore as unpleasant as is possible under our laws or prevailing morality. Execution is an easy get-out for criminals in my view and much more preferable to a life-long jail sentence.

Me personally, if I was in the emotional state where I was considering murdering a few people, the prospect of life in prison would be much more depressing thing to face than a quick execution, and thus much more of a deterrent.

Simply put, I'd much rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in a prison cell.

I imagine that's why people like Raoul Moat once cornered engage in 'to the death' gun battles with police as it's preferable to prison, or why people like Fred West kill themselves once inside as the prospect of decades behind bars is too much to bear.

With Moat especially, had he known he would have gone straight to the gallows and not be facing incarceration for life then I suspect once the man-hunt started he'd not have tried to evade capture by laying low during the man-hunt, and may well have been more brazen and shot more people as he knew that if the police didn't end him the hang-man would. It was only the thought of prison that put him off and forced him into hiding, and he was willing to engage in a shoot-out once pinned down choosing death over porridge.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment.

Let them stew over what they've done behind bars for the rest of their lives.

Torture. Prison should just be made hellish.

I do not think that you can you can use the link to make analogies with the UK. The Judicial systems are different.

Army boot camps are the answer. Teach people discipline and how to look after themselves.

Shouldn't parents be doing that?

Having spent a good 14 hours a day for a year studying law, it is always interesting to see this being debated. A trial costs a huge amount of money and in order to secure a conviction with the consequences of execution, the trial will be longer, legal costs will be higher, and juries will be less willing to convict (this should not be the case, as they must be beyond all reasonable doubt before convicting anyone of any crime, but it humans will be less naturally inclined to condemn someone to death) meaning that some murderers could get off on a technicality. Furthermore, trials at first instance will always be appealed where the death penalty has been granted, which will require the higher courts to be involved and further wasting tax payers money in separate attempts to quash the sentence.

This is before you even consider human rights arguments, which are completely valid and have been discussed above. However, the state should have the power to end the life of another. In my view, a civilised society should always show compassion to those who have refused such compassion to their victims; ultimately, it is what separates us from them.

Just to add that the death penalty isn't overall abolished in this country. You can be hanged on the gallows for treason, this is still law.

Not true, the death penalty was absolutely abolished in 2004 to conform with the European Convention (up to that point, wartime was a justifiable reason for exercising the death penalty). The only way that the UK can reintroduce the death penalty is to withdraw from the Convention.

Its not a question of death penalty yes or no? It should also be a question of 10 years should mean 10 years (not 6 on good behaviour). Life should mean life (not 15 years and out on good behaviour) etc. If someone behaves in prison then release them after their sentence, if they dont behave, causing fights, riots etc, then charge them, trial them and extend their sentence.

Also, prisons should be just that - not holiday camps with a bit of work thrown in, no teles, no luxuries.

Depends on your view on rehabilitating and preparing people to be functional and contribute to society on release.

Not saying it's my view as it's a difficult thing to balance.

Perhaps have work in prison, and those who work well get credits for TVs and luxuries etc - behaviour which would be encouraged upon release.

Also, ending the bent prison guard corruption rings would be useful. If crooked guards are happy to help supply drugs etc then no prisoner is going to be reformed or have behaviour to aspire to - though I guess that counts as a luxury.

Before the usual suspects rant on at me, I am not saying we should keep prisons comfortable or let people our early as prison is supposed to be a deterrent to offending in the first instance. It also needs to make sure people who are released don't re-offend.

I can see and accept that point of view RCS. I still think however that the sentence given should be that which is served or perhaps the victim (if any) gets to be on the parole hearing

I agreed with you......?

To further HPs point, we should get rid of parole as that costs money as well - every sentence issued must be served in full as you say.

Though we'd have to build more prisons as I'm sure a lot of early-release is to relieve overcrowding.

Yes you did agree - sorry - misread it to begin with.

Re the relieving overcrowding, I expect you are right, but if prison was a proper deterrent, ie you knew you would have to serve the whole sentence, no luxuries (unless earnt as you suggested), etc then perhaps it may make some (not all) think twice about committing a crime. Now that would go some way to relieving overcrowding. The other think is perhaps we can ship them off somewhere...a big island in the middle of no where..what about Australia

Their cricket team is getting worse - could do with another batch of convicts to make the next 100 years of the Ashes exciting again I must say.

No problem re: the misread - seems to happen a lot on this forum