The death penalty - poll added

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty in the UK

  • Yes

    Votes: 88 39.6%
  • No

    Votes: 134 60.4%

  • Total voters
    222
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you kill someone, you deserve to die

Would you be quite so certain as that if your child was in the dock on a murder charge that they didn't commit? Wrongly accused, stitched up or whatever (it can and does happen!)

All those queuing up to be the executioner, would they be quite so self-righteous if it was their own child about to put the rope round their neck?
 


Would you be quite so certain as that if your child was in the dock on a murder charge that they didn't commit? Wrongly accused, stitched up or whatever (it can and does happen!)

All those queuing up to be the executioner, would they be quite so self-righteous if it was their own child about to put the rope round their neck?
This 100%. It's people that are in charge of the justice system. People make mistakes.

Anyone watching that missing thing about Durham police during the week can see how quickly suspicion can fall on you. Blokes dad with Alzheimer's wandered off for three days, and before long the Police began to suspect his son might have offed him. If the old boy had fell down a hole somewhere and died, but for a few misplaced words the son might have found himself up for murder.

As it happened he rocked up three days later.
 
Yes. What is the point in keeping those on "life means life" tariffs alive?

I don't buy in to the argument that it's the easy way out and they'll suffer more by going to jail.

If you end their life, they have their freedom removed completely. Give them a life sentence and they'll be without freedom for 20-30 years. If an 18 year old kills someone, they'll more than likely be out by time they're 40 and have more than half of their life to enjoy.

If you kill someone, you deserve to die

That's not strictly true is it.
 
Love how some people think jails are like a nice hotel. They aren't.

Had an argument on here a few weeks ago with some clown who was saying the Human Rights act should be repealed cos it would mean prisoners wouldn't be able to have access to playstations and X boxes.

When I countered that this would affect us all, even those of us who were good upstanding citizens, it was countered with "so, at least prison life wouldn't be a holiday"

He was actually gonna vote in the GE for the Tories on this one single point.

Anyway, in answer to the question, a few swivel eyed loons will tell you the country is awash with murder, villiany and larceny (and prisoners on Playstations), a few of these loons will tell you that they will happily pull the lever (for free usually), and they will castigate anyone who says "no" as a liberal wet lettuce (which is 99% of the population to be fair).

That's the way the thread usually ends up.
 
Had an argument on here a few weeks ago with some clown who was saying the Human Rights act should be repealed cos it would mean prisoners wouldn't be able to have access to playstations and X boxes.

When I countered that this would affect us all, even those of us who were good upstanding citizens, it was countered with "so, at least prison life wouldn't be a holiday"

He was actually gonna vote in the GE for the Tories on this one single point.

Anyway, in answer to the question, a few swivel eyed loons will tell you the country is awash with murder, villiany and larceny (and prisoners on Playstations), a few of these loons will tell you that they will happily pull the lever (for free usually), and they will castigate anyone who says "no" as a liberal wet lettuce (which is 99% of the population to be fair).

That's the way the thread usually ends up.

I believe there is generally reference to pensioners that can't turn the heating on, and ex-squaddies on the street too.

Bonus-points if you can introduce Islamic fundamentalists into the thread.
 
Love how some people think jails are like a nice hotel. They aren't.

Indeed.

A lot of people talk shite in relation to prisons.

One of the main reasons why prisoners get perks (e.g. televisions and playstations) is to maintain some level of order in the prison. If they misbehave they lose their privileges. There is very little protection for our underfunded prison service from a prisoner deciding they want to move prisons so they empty a boiling kettle over an officer's head. We, quite literally, need to have incentives in prisons.

Also, a lot of the conversations on here tend to be about wanting to make the person suffer etc. But if you make someone suffer a lot, they will wind up damaged as a result of suffering. They will then be more likely to reoffend. I can see the argument in cases where someone is on a full life tariff, but in cases where someone is due to be released at some point it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be made to suffer. They will become more unstable and more mentally ill and will be more likely to harm someone.
 
For me it is a simple question, would I be happy if I, or a member of my family or a friend were executed when they were innocent. The risk is too great for.

A better punishment might be to make people read the Pure Football forum for 23 hours a day. Though I am sure Human Rights groups would be against that, as it is an extreme form of torture.
 
Last edited:
For extreme cases with absolutely no chance of mistaken identity etc I think so yes. Seems to be rare these days but some people don't deserve to live even behind bars imo.
Errrr you would know that is everyone ever convicted then released later as atbtge time there needd to be 0% doubt to convict, everytime I hear this sort of shit I realise why we should never have referenda.
 
i have always been very clear on this, a life for a life.
 
Id like them to rot.....in a proper prison. 1 to a cell. Concrete bed like in police cell.....rubber mat and quilt. Thats it!

No tv, just a radio.
Real time should hang heavy....no new trainers and gym etc.
 
Yes, only for cases of premeditated murder where absolute proof has been obtained (ie a mixture of proof where possible including : DNA, fingerprints, correct timelines, witnesses, CCTV, phone evidence / triangulation, fibre testing / proof someone had been somewhere at a specific time due to transference etc....................every avenue exhausted so there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE / INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING PUT TO DEATH). So say for example Ian Brady, he should get the death penalty due to there being witnesses to his crimes and audio / photographic evidence of him raping and murdering Lesley Ann Downey etc - DNA wasn't even required etc).

What about really nasty kiddy fiddlers?

Absolutely not. I would leave it if got introduced.

We are not savages.

We routinely drop bombs where we know there are women and children. We employ people to kill other people who are nothing more than unwilling victims themselves.

Why are you still here?
 
Last edited:
Errrr you would know that is everyone ever convicted then released later as atbtge time there needd to be 0% doubt to convict, everytime I hear this sort of shit I realise why we should never have referenda.
Not at all you condescending bell end.
I wouldn't put anyone to the death penalty where the case had been up in the air and a jury had came to a decision based on grey area evidence. I was referencing cases like Lee Rigby where the accused is absolutely 100% guilty with no chance of a wrong decision or mistaken identity.
And on another note, I don't know why I'm even replying because I quite frankly couldn't give a flying fuck if you agree or disagree. Cheers.
 
Not at all you condescending bell end.
I wouldn't put anyone to the death penalty where the case had been up in the air and a jury had came to a decision based on grey area evidence. I was referencing cases like Lee Rigby where the accused is absolutely 100% guilty with no chance of a wrong decision or mistaken identity.
And on another note, I don't know why I'm even replying because I quite frankly couldn't give a flying fuck if you agree or disagree. Cheers.
Yeah I'm condescending, I've explained to you how trial cases work and you still dont get it, every case is 100% guilty, as you are directed as a juror by the judge no one gets convicted unless 100% guilty in the eyes of a jury or a judge, if a case is subsequently found to be shaky its usually to do with new evidence coming to light that wasnt heard at trial.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top