Executions... what do you think?
 

Just been reading about this guy. According to the article, he is due to be executed, by lethal injection, in about 2 minutes after being convicted of abducting and killing his girlfriend 20 years ago.

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Georgia state to execute convict

SO what is the general consenus on execution? Is it time these forms of punishment were scrapped completely?? Or do you think that it should always go ahead except for cases where there may be a grain of doubt over the conviction???

Well its cheaper than the leccy chair but not half as dramatic :wonder:

Good one Ginge. I say to off him using the same "cruel and unusual punishment" that he used to off his girlfriend. :thumb:

As befits a self-confessed grumpy git, I'm done done with all this 'worrying' about the rights of the criminal :mad:

Serves as a deterrent to other's bring it back in this country I say paedo's murderer's hang em all

Can't believe it may not be ok, due to him possibly feeling some pain, but not be able to cry out.

I wonder if he applied those rules to his girlfriend who he kidnapped and murdered. :wonder:

He's had 20 years to prove his innocence, if that's not enough time..

Oh let me guess how this poll goes:Whatever_

Unwanted for guessing at the outcome of a for gone conclusion?

Come on guys you can't be that uncomfortable with your views

I'll save you the suspense : Common sense wins and the do-gooders lose :luxhello:

In principle I have no problem with capital punishment, but enforced only where guilt is absolute and murder was premeditated without any mitigation.
In my eyes an example of mitigation would be where say a mugger knifes his victim resulting in death and the victim's brother later kills the mugger in revenge. I would not wish to see the brother executed (a medal perhaps?).
Kevin

Unfortunately, it clearly doesn't, otherwise people in countries with the death penalty wouldn't be going around murdering people at all. OK, there will always be the odd nutcase who either doesn't care, or doesn't think they'll get caught, but the numbers of murders would be lower than they are if it was actually working as a deterant.

or they would be massively higher without it? :confused:

Possibly, but at this point, where it is effect, we would never know that for sure.

I'm against it. It is a cruel punishment to serve 20 years+ with no future, and then to be strapped down and killed by the state.

Although I completely understand the counter arguments, life without parole is far more severe than the UK justice system, and I think that would suffice.

Of course the US system is not as barbaric as China/Iran for example.

When you holding the Interviews?

It quite clearly doesn't.

Not until you get the Death Penalty back in the UK, which, ain't gonna happen :thumb:

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 - a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000.

<face bovered?>
I really couldn't give a monkeys as it's a US case and I'm governed by UK/EU laws.
</face bovered?>

:rolleyes:

America is the world's law inforcer's SW, didn't you know that? :D

I think they should bring back crucifixion .... much more entertaining.

It's not a case of it being a deterrent - its about removing psychopathic genetic accidents from the population for the benefit of all.

Murder (or any crime for that matter) shouldn't automatically qualify for the death penalty, it should be done on a case by case basis.

A man who kills someone who raped his wife has acted in an understandable way imo, and shouldn't face such a punishment. Someone who kills a bunch of people and disposes of their bodies in various imaginative ways should hang from the neck until dead ;)

Its an easy way out for them.

Bring back the stocks and humiliate them every night on prime time TV.

Thats proper Reality Telly

In which case capital punishment has done its job by serving as a deterrent.

If it stops some murders and then only leaves some (which is sill bad news) which are the mentally unbalanced then it is better than we have at the moment.

The problem then lies with absolute proof of guilt.

Perhaps a period of up to 5 years in jail is allowed then the execution is carried out if the appeal(s) overturned.

DNA evidence has come a long way.

CCTV, he gov'ts and polices magic pill also.

We are not America with its problems and we have a chance not to let things get that bad. Just because things do not work there doesn't mean they will not work here.

I have lived in a country that has corporal and capital punishment.
Crime rates are low, very few murders per head of population, virtually no drugs or drug related crime. The population also had respect for the police and authorities, no one unless totally stupid messed with the police, who where tough/hard but also fair - from what i heard and saw myself.

Being tough and extreme on some types of people/elements of society works and we should not shy away just because we feel a little squeamish, it may be tough and unpalatable, sometimes that is what is needed.

Leccy Chair always reminds me of this film

Shocker (1989)

We know that both DNA evidence and CCTV evidence can be flawed.

As for a 5 year period of appeals. There a few cases where you would have murdered absolutely innocent people. The Guildford Four, for example. That spent 15 year sin prison before having thier convictions quashed.

The state cannot afford to get even one case wrong when the death penalty is involved. That's why it gets defeated whenever the motion is put before parliament on a free vote.

The single biggest way of reducing crime in the USA was allowing abortion. Every statistic available proves that the Roe vs Wade case in 1973 was the defining moment in American law enforcement as it made abortion legal.
If the UK wants to reduce crime, ecouraging abortion instead of making it easy to have the state pay for every 13 year old mothers kids is the way forward. Capital punishment woud be expensive, impractical and serve no purpose.

As much as I know that there is no way that Capital punishment is coming back, I still think it is a good idea of cleansing the streets of the depraved paedos, rapists and murderers etc.

We cannot keep funding these low-lifes in prison for long sentences, I would much prefer the lower cost of a rope and some gallows.

if it can be proved beyond doubt of their guilt then I think execution is a suitable form of punishment.

The costs per year saved on housing the prisoner(s) would be worth it on its own.

Yes but the yanks have the right to bear arms Pete - do you think this might have anything to do with it



Cruxifiction would be great but a lot of hassle

Loius had it right , bring back the guillotine :thumb:

Times have changed since he guilford four as have attitudes, practices, vidnece gahering and technologies. we cannot keep looking to the past, yes we must be mindful of it but that cannot prevent moving forward.

If i had a choice i would have voted for the death penalty for Huntley, Fred and Rose West. All proved guilty without a shadow of a doubt and none deserve to live. in cases such as this, no problem.

Whilst I think that women should have the right to choose, befire a certain term, as is currently the case. I think the state actively encouraging abortion is pretty abhorrent.

With regards to the cost - The average prisoner is something like $35,000 per year in the states, whereas the average death row prisoner is more than double that, and will have an average stay in jail of 7 years. The "Cheaper to kill them" argument doesn't add up.

Yup, quite possibly.

I think when this last did the rounds, we managed to dig up some comparisons between death penatly Britian and non death penalty Britain. There was definite rise when the Death penalty was abolished. By you were dealing with such small numbers.

I went from something like 7 people per million, to 12 people per million commiting murder.

Now, as Les pointed out at the time, that's a 50% rise. But when taken as numbers, the likelyyhood of being murdered, raised from "**** all chance" to "bugger all chance"


In other words, the chances of getting it wrong, outweigh any supposed benefit to having a death penlaty

Thing is Paul, you would say the same of the Guildford four in 1989. A year later they are proved innocent.

Now I am not saying that Ian Huntley is suddenly going to turn out to be innocent, but at some point under a "Kill people that *definitely* did it" rule, you are going to make a mistake.

I think you're confusing gun related deaths with homicides. If people want to kill, they will by whatever means, guns are something of an irrelevance.

The death penalty never has, and never will, serve as a deterrent and you cannot put right someones death who has been executed wrongly.

I do think that sentencing should be harsher and people should serve the public doing various labour instead of lounging in prison though.

Geezer