Ryedo40 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 No. 1) It doesn't, as seen in nations with the death penalty, deter crime. 2) Innocent people may be wrongfully convicted and executed. 3) It's possible the death penalty may increase murder rates* * having the death penalty in place could, because of the thrill of evading capture, encourage those with psychopathic tendencies to commit murder. Likewise, it could also encourage those who are sick of living to commit murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffvan 1 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 And presumably less thorough and less likely to arrive at the correct verdict... If DNA proves they were thew killer ,a short trial is all that is needed ,and if DNA proves they are guilty ,then not even the Bleeding Heart brigade among society can argue against the death penalty . ( although i dare say some may still try and find an excuse for the killers crime). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 If DNA proves they were thew killer ,a short trial is all that is needed ,and if DNA proves they are guilty ,then not even the Bleeding Heart brigade among society can argue against the death penalty . ( although i dare say some may still try and find an excuse for the killers crime). As we've already established DNA is not always relaible - and it's not even given in evidence in many murder cases. Of course I can still argue that the death penalty is wrong even if I'm 100% sure that a person is guilty. Killing is wrong whether it's done by a murderer or by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffvan 1 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 As we've already established DNA is not always relaible - and it's not even given in evidence in many murder cases. Of course I can still argue that the death penalty is wrong even if I'm 100% sure that a person is guilty. Killing is wrong whether it's done by a murderer or by the state. But you cant argue with the fact that NO ONE who has recieved the death penalty has EVER re-offended can you . ? It has a 100% Guarnteed success rate at stopping re-offending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 But you cant argue with the fact that NO ONE who has recieved the death penalty has EVER re-offended can you . ? It has a 100% Guarnteed success rate at stopping re-offending. Pipe down Benny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 But you cant argue with the fact that NO ONE who has recieved the death penalty has EVER re-offended can you . ? It has a 100% Guarnteed success rate at stopping re-offending. And you also cant argue with the fact that some who received the death penalty didn't offend in the first place. Its also very rare that a murderer on release of sentence will re-offend anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 conviction rates for murder increase when the death penalty is abolished. juries are less likely to deliver a guilty verdict when they know that the defendant might be hanged. in the old days, when capital punishment was the sentence, more murderers walked free from the courtroom and weren't punished at all. some of them undoubtedly went on to re-offend. The second-to-last woman executed in the UK, the one before Ruth Ellis, Styllou Christofi, who nobody remembers because she was over 50 and foreign, was tried and aquitted of murder in her native Cyprus thirty years before. The chances are she was guilty of both crimes. innocent, but executed prisoners don't commit any crimes in the future, that's true. But guilty, and aquitted murderers may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 But you cant argue with the fact that NO ONE who has recieved the death penalty has EVER re-offended can you . ? It has a 100% Guarnteed success rate at stopping re-offending. Stupid analogy. You could equally argue that those innocents who received the death penalty also never offended, let alone re-offend. Those innocents who were murdered by the state will "100% successfully" never be able to contribute to anything, ever, again. I suppose your idiotic bloodlust reasoning is, collateral damage, I can live with that..innit! If you have a law which enables you to kill offenders, you have a law which enable innocents to be caught up in that process. Live your dream, the death penalty will not be reinstated. Even States in the US are slowly but surely removing the statue from the books. Stick with hiding in bushes taking pics of bikers, stay away from the big issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 innocent, but executed prisoners don't commit any crimes in the future, that's true. But guilty, and aquitted murderers may. :huh:They never committed any crime in the past. Are you saying the price we pay is convicting and murdering innocents in order to convict and murder the guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 they don't even realise that when there's a death penalty and jury system, the jury is less likely to convict, and more murderers get away with it, and walk free - they don't get punished at all, and are able to commit further crimes up to and including murder in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.