Pledge “deathpenalty”
"I will will write to the Prime Minister demanding the revokation of the EU's capital punishment bill and the restoration of the Death Penalty in the UK for capital crimes but only if 100 other British Citizens will show their support by signing my petition."
— Mr Watts, Fighting for Better British Justice (contact)
Deadline to sign up by: 20th June 2006
62 people signed up, 38 more were needed
Country: United Kingdom
More details
You came here from http://www.wattsies-rants.blogspot.com
In association with http://www.wattsie.co.uk
This pledge is now closed, as its deadline has passed. You might be interested in these other pledges:
- become a liberty activist in New Hampshire by September 30, 2011
- donate £20 to World Water Day March 2010
See more pledges, and all about how PledgeBank works.
Things to do with this pledge
Comments on this pledge
Because there are so many comments, only the most recent 50 are shown on this page.
Current signatories (
= they've done it)
Mr Watts, the Pledge Creator, joined by:
- Rich
- sarah
- Bethan Santi
- Gavin Park
- Angus
- julie parr
- Roger
- Gordon Forbes
- Julia Kennedy
- Vicky Stephens
- cherry
- David Ian Evans
- graham atkinson
- Ian Docherty
- andrew roberts
- Jason Amor
- Matt Bland
- Geoffrey Charles Leggett
- Christopher Mark Grant
- Ms J Glendinning
- Tom Welsh
- Joseph Lillie
- Aaron Loxley-Brown
- Jim Pender
- Peter Lucas
- J.B.Jarratt
- Sir Arthur Grebe-Streebling
- Deborah Gudgeon
- Michael Keegan
- Kim Fancett
- Jake
- Tom Hart.
- Sarah Peyton
- Sam Nolan
- Aaron Bridge
- H.C.Lidstone
- Nick
- Angela Howard
- Leanne
- Simon Robson
- Michael Traill
- miss julie ditton
- Dave Crosby
- Henry Gomm
- Alice
- Daniel Kerr
- Patrick Joseph Anthony Cullinane
- Emily den Haan
- Tom Gilchrist
- Paul Richards
- Francis J Sutherland
- colin williams
- Paul McPherson
- Robert Reid
- don sly
- Ben Goodger
- Jane Pye
- David smith
- 3 people who did not want to give their names
- 1 person who signed up via mobile
If somebody would like to create a counter-pledge, promising to write to the Prime Minister demanding that he reject all calls for the return of judicial murder, I'd be happy to sign it.
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
It violates the right to life.
It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.
I think as soon as you have a society which allows state-sponsored murder, it sends a message that it's ok to take a life as long as there's a 'really good' reason. If it's being suggested as a deterrant, the U.S. is a prime example that it doesn't work (with three times the homicide rate of the UK or Canada), so it can only really be justified as means for revenge.... which means it is inherently tied up with very strong emotions, which is not the best place from which to make changes to the justice system.
So, it seems to me that innocents are going to die anyway - which evil do we want?
I also wish to point out that I do personally think it is a hell of a lot more human to put an innocent person out of thier misery than to let them rot in jail for 20 years while they are innocent. If I were to be wrongly convicted of murder I certainly would like my suffering to be minimal!
"It seems to me that innocents are going to die anyway - which evil do we want?"
Does killing murderers prevent more murders taking place? All the evidence points to no - the death penalty has no effect whatsoever as a deterrent.
The fact that innocents are going to die anyway does not make it any more excusable to potentially execute innocents ourselves, and your logic is flawed because it draws on the incorrect assumption that putting murderers to death will prevent murders, when in reality, the two events are unrelated, and have no causal effect on one another.
Briefly, why the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent: there are two main types of murderer. Those who plan their act, and those who kill in the spur of the moment. Those who meticulously plan fully plan to get away with it, so being caught doesn't feature, and thus the consequences are irrelevant. Those who act in the spur of the moment have given no thought to the outcome anyway, and thus the consequences are irrelevant.
To address your point about being left to rot in jail - in some ways, I do believe that a convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment should have the option of ending their own life (with a barbiturate overdose or similar), if they repeatedly request it and are absolutely sure it is their decision.
Personally, I would rather be wrongly convicted and locked up for life, with at least some possibility of clearing my name and being freed, than wrongly convicted and executed, only to later be found innocent. If suicide was an option, even if wrongly convicted, I personally would never take it, because I believe there is always a purpose in continuing to live.
Again, you seem to believe this is an either/or situation, when in actual fact, the arguments you have presented to support the death penalty are not logical either/or situations, and don't particularly add any weight to the For case.
Furthermore, you don't address the fact that having a death penalty sends out the message that it is possible to justify killing in some circumstances. Do you believe that public approval is the major deciding factor - that if enough people think someone should be put to death, it's OK to kill them?
Far from being "tunnel visioned", I think we opponents have presented a far clearer argument than yours, which is logically incoherent at best.
I personally agree with you that a much longer jail term is the best solution and assisted suicide a very viable option.
As far as deterrent is concerned I'm afraid that I do disagree. The fact that aggresive, violent criminals repeatedly choose none-aware, naive and viciously ignorant targets as victims shows that they are afraid of retribution (by choosing a weak foe). They act impulsively because they don't believe they will be caught. This gives them freedom (psycologically) to act as they please.
I guess I mistakenly concluded that since you did not say outright that you oppose the death penalty, and that since you were seeking to squash the arguments of it's opponents, you (maybe somewhat reluctantly) support it.
There is no way to avoid the death of innocents - sick and twisted people (as well as soldiers acting under government orders, we should note) will always end up killing innocent people. What I cannot support is the killing of MORE innocent people, and that is what supporting the death penalty entails. More killing can never result in a positive outcome.
As for your deterrent point - I'm sure you can tell, I'm going to disagree with you again, as I believe your logic is flawed.
That a violent rapist or murderer would pick a weak target means they have planned not to get injured or killed in the process of committing their crime, just in the same way as they plan to get away with it.
If, as you say, they have the psychological freedom to act as they please, then why will they give a damn about the possibility of being executed if caught? They will not care, because they fully expect to get away with their crime - the consequences are irrelevant, since the outcome is pre-planned. (Or as I already said, in the case of a spontaneous murder - the outcome is not even considered.)
The death penalty is not a deterrent to criminals - it only seems like it to regular people who try to apply rational thought to something that is inherently irrational.
For the criminal planner-I don't believe that these people think they will execute their plans perfectly and so don't ever see a death sentance as a punishment applicable to them and therefore a deterrant. I do however believe that they weigh up the risks. I think they go through the process like everyone else of thinking "Action A will give me N happy points, but the consequence of being caught will give me N bad points" As long as the good out weighs the bad then the action is a good risk to take. The problem I think is that our current punishent system almost always lies of the lower end of the consequential scale and so I'm not ruling something like the death penalty out as acting as a major deterrant.
With regards to the spontaneous criminals - the type of people who attack on the street, like it or not, these people don't act spontaneously. Geoff Thompson is a very good author whom you might like to check out. He shows quite adequately that there is a psychology behind violent attacks and a process that an aggressor always goes through. His ideas are based on the harsh reality of life on the streets and recorded videos showing violent people cycling through a predictable set of agressive stages. What this shows is that these people are constantly weighing up the risk of a violent encounter, backing out if the risk of serious injury to themselves is very probable. Currently police arrest is a factor in their calculations but they do not get hurt so it rates low on the consequences. (Other things like boasting to friends {and thus social standing} far outweighs any police punishment). With this in mind a death penalty suddenly makes police involvement a great risk.
I personally believe that social standing is by far the biggest factor in deterring many of todays aggressors and so punishment that affects them on this level would be the best option - much better than the death penalty that would give them fame. Any opinions on this form of punishment?
I think a quick google for homocide rates for countries with and without the death penalty will show that it isn't! And if it doesn't stop more murders - why have it? I'm opposed to it and and not because of a 'tunnel visioned' stand point about killing innocents (although I think it's a major issue that can't be swept away so easily!). All available evidence shows it will not cut violent crime.... so why bring it back? It costs more in the US to go through the appeals process for a prisoner on death row than it costs to keep them in jail for life...
So - it won't stop crime, will cost the taxpayer more (AND innocent people may be put to death). Aside from someone saying that a murderer 'deserves to die', and i don't think anyone can assume the authority of being the country's moral compass, I can't see a convicing arguement for bringing it back. And in this situation - the emphasis MUST be on proving beyond a doubt that re-introducing it will be beneficial, rather than the other way around.
That's just it though, isn't it? You death penalty supporters are typical of the kind of people who think murder can be justified - that if you have a good enough reason, it's OK to kill someone.
Matt, you would not put these people to death yourself, and if you did, under your own system, you should be put to death for it - and rightly so, if that is what you seriously propose.
You supporters are the pitchfork vigilante brigade, more than happy to murder someone if you have a "reason", yet you don't see your own hypocrisy that using this kind of flawed logic gives murderers everything they need to justify their actions.
Killing can NEVER be justified, it's the only line that makes any sense. You cannot justify it, for any reason, otherwise you allow murderers to do the same.
"He killed my loved one, so he must die"... no, it doesn't work like that. Public approval is not the deciding factor in whether death is an appropriate punishment, because death by default can never be an appropriate punishment, assuming you want to remain consistent in your argument.
While I would never defend the scum who raped that baby girl, *IF* we stoop to their level and enact a similar lack of humanity (as in, if we KILL another human, as a punishment for whatever reason we think justifies it) then how are we in any way better than murderers or rapists themselves? How do we have any moral high ground to label them "murderer" when we would murder them? No reason can be used to justify killing another human - it is the only way not to be a hypocrite in this.
You death penalty supporters are seriously incapable of logical thought, so I'm not surprised you don't understand this.
Matt Bland, you are calling for bloodthirsty and violent revenge, which makes you no better than the people you condemn.
Close your Daily Mail and open your eyes for once, or at least don't be such a bunch of total hypocrites, and learn how to make an argument based on consistent facts and logic, not emotions such as anger and revenge.
Justice is not about revenge, and it can never be if it is to remain just.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this until I'm blue in the face - when will you people GET IT?
One thing that I would like to bring up is the fact that after the abolition of the death penalty in this country....all the other penalties under it were "diluted".
An example of this is mugging. If a person uses a weapon to "mug" someone surely it is armed robbery and would have recieved a sentence of at least 15 years when the death penalty was in place.
If we are to keep the status as it is, then we have to have a deterant and at present I do not think that there is one in place.
Maybe one other thing we might consider is the modern use of DNA when dealing with murderers. There is now in place a foolproof way to determine if a person is guilty or not.
All too often we here of murderers being released to re-offend.
There is nothing outdated, illogical or incompatible with modern society that says that we do not need protection from murderers.
If a person is sentenced for whatever crime and then released early only to re-offend then what sort of message does that send out to society.
This is even worse when the person goes on to commit another murder. It means that we are not protecting our society as we should.
When as a society do we stop looking to give more help to the criminals and start to put more resources into protecting society and helping the victims of crime.
It is silly to think that old fashioned sentences do not work. Take a look at crime figures. Harsh sentences are indeed a deterrent to crime.
I am reluctant to throw this one into the arena but tell me this if a person completely disregards another humans rights and murders them, what proportion of rights should we then allow the murderer to enjoy?
Up until now a recent photo would be a more accurate way of determining whether someone is who they say they are.
Even with recombinant DNA analysis only a few hundred base pairs can be analysed out of thousands. This is hardly foolproof.
And indeed, your DNA sequence is unique amongst all DNA sequences of any human that has ever lived and will live for quite some time to come. Unless you have an identical twin, in which case you do have someone who has the same DNA sequence. But apart from that, your DNA sequence is yours and yours alone.
Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, I'm struck by the differences between the fors and againsts. Those in favour have put forward some interesting, stimulating, arguments. Whether you agree with them or not, they appear to have a reasonably well-thought-out position.
On the other hand, the againsts haven't really provided many reasoned arguments as to why the penalty shouldn't be reinstated... A comment along the lines of "Can't have hanging, 'cos that's nasty" doesn't really contribute to a debate.
I'm not declaring myself for or against. What I'd really like to see are some closely-reasoned, insightful, and cohesive arguments against.
If anything, I couldn't disagree more with your observation - the anti side of this debate have clearly stated why the death penalty doesn't work and can't be justified, but the pro side aren't interested in logic or justice - just bloodthirsty revenge.
Civilised countries do not kill their citizens under any circumstances, because to kill as a punishment suggests that killing can be justified in some cases, when that is exactly the opposite of the "message" that these "hang 'em high" gleeful proto-fascists supposedly want to send out.
If murder is never acceptable under any circumstances, then murder is never acceptable under any circumstances - end of story. If you support the death penalty, you simply have a very poor and inconsistent grasp of logic.
So, far from what you're saying, that the pro-death-penalty brigade have made a good case, I would submit that they've made an utterly non-existant case based on nothing but raw emotions, the desire for revenge, and plain illogical reasoning.
They don't appear to be interested in debate, justice or what really works as a deterrent, they just want to kill "criminal scum" so they don't have to pay to keep them alive, despite the fact that by the end of the appeals process etc it actually costs more to kill someone in the USA than to imprison them for life.
So, here's some questions supporters of the death penalty must be able to answer:
1. How will you ensure that nobody is ever wrongfully put to death?
2. Are you 110% prepared to be mistakenly put to death as an innocent person wrongfully convicted? (Or are you OK with it as long as it only happens to someone else?)
3. How do we compensate someone who is wrongfully executed?
4. What is the deciding factor in whether killing a human can be justified - public opinion, peer approval, or some other factor? Explain the legitimacy of this deciding factor.
5. Do you believe it's OK to kill people in some circumstances? If yes (as you surely must, if you support the death penalty), do you not see that this same logic could also be applied by a (potential) murderer in order to justify their killing - since killing is obviously acceptable in some circumstances (according to you)? Do you not believe it is clearer to state outright that all killing is always wrong, and that no killing can ever be logically justified?
6. Explain how the death penalty acts as a deterrent in these scenarios:
6a: Someone who takes the time to plan a murder in meticulous detail, including how they will completely get away with it and never be caught?
6b: Someone who spontaneously (eg. through sudden rage or similar) commits a murder, with no consideration of the outcome or consequences?
6c: Any other kind of murder scenario you believe could exist - so that's one that's both unplanned, and not spontaneous. (Personally, I don't believe there exists such a scenario, but I'm willing for you to argue otherwise.)
There's more arguments, but I'll just be repeating myself, and since none of the supporters even seem to attempt to answer the questions that I have asked them time and time again, I think I'm pretty much wasting my time.
You'll notice I don't even go near human rights or "death is unkind" or anything like that. I argue from the point of view of logic only - that the death penalty can never make consistent logical sense, and that those who claim otherwise are severely lacking in rationality.
So far, nobody has even attempted to counter my points. Come on death penalty supporters - lets actually have some DEBATE here, or is it that you won't get drawn into a debate, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on?
Keen to do a bit of killing, are we, Arthur? You and the "murdering scumbags" are just different branches of the same tree.
That you've managed to contain your urge to kill until public approval gives you the go-ahead still makes you utter scum in my book.
How can you ever justify killing another human? If you can, you are no better than a murderer yourself.
Oh, and how about you answer some of my questions above, since you're so up for killing people? Or is it just that you really don't care about justice, as long as you get to teach some "scum" a lesson?
Once again, I'm challenging just ONE of you supporters to ANSWER MY BLOODY QUESTIONS, but the silence that has now gone on for weeks would seem to imply that you morons are incapable of (or uninterested in) holding a debate... though you'd certainly like to kill a few people if you thought public opinion would allow you to get away with it.
Your lack of humanity makes me sick. This country is too good for fascist scum like you.
2. In line with Q1. If there is ANY doubt, then death penalty would not be suitable.
3. Q1 & 2 if followed imply they would not have been executed as a result.
4. If a murderer is put to death, then they will 100% assuredly NOT kill again... If they are released, well, some people never change. Example - paedophilia - these people cannot change, it is the way they are from a genetic level.
5. To go off topic, if no killing can ever be justified, where does that leave killing by the army of enemy forces? Should we have surrenderd to the nazi's because it would have been morally wrong to murder their soldiers (not all of whom wanted to fight under Hitler...)
6a. Brady/Hindley: 1965 murdered Edward Evans. After their arrest a 3 page document was found in Hindley's car planning the murder in explicit detail. (If you need proof of this: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial4/moor...)
6b. Isn't this one usually classed as manslaughter. Murder is generally classified as the "Pre-meditated unlawful killing of a human being by a human being"
Even for some people that probably have no intention of getting caught, there is the possibility that they are caught, and, if sentenced for life could be released early on appeal (life not meaning life)
Can't have Brady, Hindley and Charles Bronson walking the streets.
Luckily Schwarznegger had some sense when the got rid of Stanley Williams, who had murdered a fair number of people in cold blooded shootings. Arnold Swarznegger is still Terminating (pun intended)
Questions Answered! :)
I thought that was what we were trying to stop!
You can't kill to stop killing... We kill the killers... then some killers would have to kill us... and then killers wold have to kill them... and so on... and that is entirely too much killing going on.
On the other hand we could simply put the killer in a cell by himself for life and he would kill no more.
No, I won't, ever. In fact, I have made it expressly known to my relatives that should I ever be murdered, in however horrific a manner, and if the death penalty is an option (for example in another country), that under no circumstances is it to be used and that they must make my wishes known. It is my absolute demand that nobody is ever put to death in my name, however brutally they murder me. (And yes, I was mugged about five years ago, but I don't hold grudges, only pity. I also now hold a senior grade in Jujitsu, so anyone stupid enough to mess with me in the future is going to have a nice visit to the hospital to contemplate their actions.)
By the way, what is your obsession with yardies? Are all muggers and drug users Jamaican?
Sir Arthur Grebe-Streebling: "I turn now to your description of myself as "fascist scum" which I find highly offensive."
Well I make no apologies if calling you what you are offends you. You can't advocate the death penalty, saying things like "show them who is boss" and not sound like a total fascist.
Sir Arthur Grebe-Streebling: "Dave ,in my opinion, you are an uneducated "goody goody twerp" and anyone who disagrees with your sentiments is a fascist."
Uneducated? Tell that to my Computer Science degree, and a lifetime of tackling ignorant views wherever I encounter them. I made a number of arguments that highlight how logically inconsistent the death penalty is, and you think I'm uneducated? Only a simpleton fascist scumbag such as yourself really WANTS to kill people (and you clearly do WANT to kill people - just look at the language in your original posting) who have killed other people, because educated humans know that all killing is always wrong, and that killing can never be justified (either morally or logically), even as a punishment for killing.
Sir Arthur Grebe-Streebling: "Let me ask you a question. Many years ago Adlof Eichmann was captured and tried for war crimes and executed.Would your chickenshit liberalism have spared such a monster?"
Would your authoritarian death sentence be any morally superior than the man you condemn? What gives you the high-ground to pass judgement for killing others, if you then go on to kill him? So no, I would not kill him, I would lock him away for life and let him really have time to reflect on what he's done, and feel well and truly guilty. What an easy way out of true punishment death is. Lock them up and throw away the key, by all means - a lifetime inside with no possibility of ever being released, now that's a real punishment.
Sir Arthur Grebe-Streebling: "No sir,In the UK today we are faced with drug-crazed individuals who murder to pay for their next fix of heroin or crack cocaine and the majority will not change and will go on murdering and rob using knives and guns."
We're also faced with proto-fascist crazed individuals such as yourself, who think that killing people can be justified. How about you shut your Daily Mail and open your mind for a change?
To kill criminals reduces our humanity down every bit as low as a murderer themselves, and thus, we have no right to pass moral judgement if we too would stoop to that level in order to pass it.
Again I say: you are a fascist, whether you realise it or not - look up the definition, examine your authoritarian views (particularly in your original posting), and maybe you'll realise why I point it out. Not all supporters of the death penalty are fascists, but you certainly are (or strongly appear to be).
Wattsie - I'll deal with your answers to my questions tomorrow, but thanks for actually making the effort to put your side across - at least I actually see where you're coming from now.
If so... wow, that would be quite a sight!
If not, what are you doing signing:
http://www.pledgebank.com/djlicense
Seems you're yanking someone's crank here. Or is it that you'll just sign any old plege whether you agree with it or not ?
You've certainly been rather busy on Pledgebank...
Apparently you're planning to setup and help run a geekcamp somewhere in Europe, wave your middle finger at every CCTV camera you walk past, write to Robinson's to ask them to reinstate their Grape & Melon High Juice cordial, stop buying tabloid newspapers and plenty of other things too.
Are you one of those weirdos who gets off on signing random online pledges?
I've stopped thinking you're a fascist, but started thinking you're a rather oddball prankster.
Still, you made me laugh. :-)
I'm with John Jorgenson who said,
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind!"
Back to the original point:
Capital punishment is sooooo wrong! Not going to go in to the reasons (they have already been stated, and stated well)
I would however like to add the thought of where/when is the line crossed? If the fascists out there really wanna go down the "they killed so we'll kill them route", where does the eye for an eye crap stop? Does the legal system hire a gang to administer rape to rapists? Another to take stuff from a robbers house?
SOOOOO wouldn't work. I agree that punishments must be made to law breakers, but by far the fairest (for us as well as the criminal) is prison. After all what more punishment than to stew for life with nothing but your own mind? - Even the most sane and innocent person couldn't hack that!!!
In spite of which, even the pragmatic (for which, read "amoral") argument fails - the evidence all shows that the death penalty doesn't reduce murder or violent crime.
Why the **** was I pointed at this pledge? Is the Pledgebank website having a laugh?
It might well be...if muderers were locked away for life, but all too often we hear how they are let out early to repeat murder.
Clearly the present system is failing to protect the general public from the offenders in the first place and then discracefully allowing others to become victims to the same offenders.
Why don't we keep them in prison and just chuck them a fresh victim in every now and again....maybe the people bleating for the human rights of murderers would like to line up and volunteer?
The last paragraph of your posting is nothing but a straw man.
The present system is failing to protect the general public from the present system!!
It takes a sick society to breed sick people - how about we fix THAT, because clearly adding yet more hatred and violence to the mix has never worked, and will never work.
It is my honest belief that if we truly addressed the imbalances, exploitation and hardship that our society forces on people, with the exception of total psychopaths (meaning those who are utterly incapable of empathy with other humans), very few crimes, and ESPECIALLY very few murders would actually take place.
If it wasn't for the way a materialist, capitalist society relies on exploitation and suffering, leading to poverty, desperation and a huge class divide, PC Sharon Beshenivsky would not be dead. In fact, she would never even have become a police officer, because it's largely only due to capitalism that there exist the type of imbalances and exclusion that can lead to average people resorting to crime, creating the "need" for a body to prevent that crime.
Get rid of capitalism, all forms of exploitation and remove the means of those who would declare themselves our "boss" or "leader", and you will not need a police force to prop up the broken system.
In a truly caring society, there will not exist the imbalances that lead to crime, therefore crime will not exist among normal people.
As for the psychopaths, in a truly caring society, they would be looked after with understanding and compassion, not excluded and swept under the carpet until it's too late and they end up in isolation with their problems, killing people.
You want an end to crime? Fix the society that causes it, by ending exploitation and poverty, and making everyone's existence fulfilling and worthwhile.
Of course, politicians will NEVER come up with this solution, because the only way it can work is if we get rid of them - THEY are the problem!
Still, that's my solution: fix society, remove the seeds that lead to exploitation and people not caring about others, remove the scenarios where crime can occur by living in such a way that nobody ever reaches desperation or poverty, and there will be virtually no crime.
Don't believe humans can exist in an egalitarian way? How come we're here today then, despite the fact that class societies with laws have only existed for around 5000 years? Humans clearly can and DID largely live in an egalitarian way outside of the existence of wealth, exploitation and laws, otherwise we would have wiped ourselves out millennia ago.
The death penalty is a broken solution to a problem that should NEVER EVEN EXIST - a problem that has been directly created by our present capitalist system. It is that system which we must dispose of, not those who get messed up by it.
You want to live in a capitalist, possession-obsessed society? Then live with the by-products of it: the fact that someone might murder you to steal your possessions. In a right-wing, wealth-based society, with laws to protect that wealth and further the divide, you will NEVER be truly safe.
Why won't the people who want to kill murderers acknowledge the total hypocrisy of their stance? Who are they to declare their moral "right" to murder someone else - even if that person is themselves a murderer? Death penalty supporters: you are the biggest hypocrites around!
Anyway, I think I'm going to stop wasting my time replying here. The death penalty will never be reintroduced in the UK, because despite what you vocal supporters might think, the vast majority of people in this country are not in favour of it. This was certainly the case last time it was on BBC Question Time, which was the week right after PC Sharon Beshenivsky was murdered.
The death penalty is the epitome of hypocrisy, and thankfully it seems that most people in this country understand that. What they sadly don't seem to understand (yet) is that if you want an end to crime, you must first end capitalism.
"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - yeah right, don't make me f*cking laugh! Politicians and the broken system they uphold ARE the main cause of crime!!
"There were more than 2,300 murders a year in New York in 1991 and well over 100,000 street robberies. London, by comparison, had 181 murders and 22,000 street robberies in that year.
Last year, there were 538 homicides in New York. That means the murder rate has decreased by a factor of five over the past 13 years. London's murder rate has not reduced at all over the same period: there were 186 homicides in the capital last year."
If you search on the internet you will see that the murder rate (i.e. deaths per set number of population) went up (more than doubled) during the time that the death penalty was suspended in the US. However within a few years it had halved (or back to its pre-suspension level). As far as I am concerned that is proof that the death penalty works, and furthermore that the maximum number of potential mistaken executions is far far smaller than the number of people saved by the deterrance of the death penalty.
Meanwhile Murders go up and up in this country. And we are hearing of more and more cases where convicted criminals are being freed early only to kill innocents.
Enough is enough, if you kill someone knowing that potentally you could be killed, you know the risk, you were aware of that, so by your actions you accept death. No arguements.
Not only that but those of us in the UK apparently live in a Democracy, and time and time again the public, in polls, give our support to the death penalty, how is it democratic if the views of the people are not recognised?
Criminals are created by the establishment which is why punishments are weak and policing inept.
Its simple divide & rule tactics and you signees have fallen for it.
You're enslaved by the taxes that you pay; the lack of leisure time; the encouragement of social ill will and a dumbing down education.
These signees are those who would join the SS.
Capitalist society and corrupt "leaders" of all types (including the corruption that has been known as "communism" in the past) creates and defines the crimes! If you want an end to crime, you must first end all forms of exploitation.
That means ending power, ending corruption, ending exploitation, ending property and ultimately (as a result of all these) ending poverty and creating a truly equal society.
In a truly caring society that put people's needs first, there would be no need to rob, steal or be envious of other's "property", since all items would belong to the whole community and be distributed based on needs.
I can almost taste the revulsion in those of you who define yourselves by your property, but it's really not as bad as it sounds. You won't be "robbed" because your needs will be met. You won't live a life of luxury, but neither will anyone live a life of poverty. All humans will work together as a community for the mutual benefit of all.
As for true psychopaths (those completely incapable of empathy), they should be cared for and looked after around the clock by a small community of helpers, not left in isolation to go off the rails and potentially murder others.
The reason we have "psycho killers" at the moment is because they are downtrodden and discarded by a society that does not give a damn about anyone else until something terrible (and thus a potential threat to the self) happens.
The ONLY reason we have crime is because we live in an uncaring society, based on exploitation and unfairness at all levels, across the entire globe.
I sincerely believe that an Anarcho-Communist society (meaning one in which there is no social heirarchy, and all individuals are of equal worth in the wider community) is the only solution to our problems.
It would not be "chaos" with no direction - it would be about the nearest we could ever get to living in a true utopia.
No greed - if you need something, the community will provide you with it.
No "work", at least not as we know it - everyone just does enough to cover their own needs, and contributes to the wider community to a mutually beneficial level. You get back what you put in.
No exploitation, no coercion - if something is agreeable and mutually beneficial, do it. If not, drop out and lose the potential benefits of taking part - it's entirely your choice.
Anarcho-communism is the real solution, although it doesn't pretend to have all the answers. Life is dynamic, and the problems we encounter will have to be solved in an organic manner.
Politicians, leaders and bosses will never suggest this, because it involves getting rid of the whole lot of them, as well as the whole establishment.
Now please, try and control your gut reactions and think about this with a clear, non-judgemental mind for a minute.
I know "anarchy" and "communism" are words that trigger instant bad reactions in a lot of people - but consider why this is the case. Those in power (which incldues the media) have incredible influence over the masses, and so they have naturally used that powerful influence to tarnish and rubbish alternatives to the current establishment in order to maintain their positions of power.
They live by exploiting ALL of us (including you) in order to maintain their own interest in living an easy life at the expense of others.
You want to know why there is poverty? Take a look at the rich folks living the high life - THAT is why there is poverty (or did they get that rich by being nice to everyone)?
You want to know why there is crime? Take a look at the amount of exploitation going on around you, and think about how much that can mess people up. You yourself are almost certainly exploited: What exactly does your boss do in order to make money, if not take something you've contributed to, and sell it at more than the price it cost you to make? Work as we know it now *IS* a form of coercion, exploitation and robbery - it's just one that is protected by the system. A system created by the powerful, to preserve their position.
Capitalism is not the answer - by definition it relies on the existence of poverty and exploitation. Capitalism creates "crime", by allowing exploitation at all levels that suit it to go unpunished. It defines other "crimes" that come about as a result of this exploitation - for example, someone robbing you to steal your money.
Socialism is not the answer - still way too much dependence on power, leadership (think exploitation again) and personal property.
Liberalism is not the answer - again, there is still an "elite" group who depend on their advantage (and thus control and exploitation) over the masses. Liberalism allows them to get away with this too easily.
Traditional "communism" (as you know it), and any other form of system with "leaders" is not the answer, because all leadership situations create an imbalance of power, corruption and thus the same problems of exploitation.
The ONLY solution that will work is to put people in direct control of their lives, as independent free humans in a wider community of mutual benefit by general consensus. This is the very definition of anarchist communism! (In short: "A community of equal members with no heirarchy".)
Capital punishment and other similarly fascist (meaning the state has absolute power, including over life and death) concepts are nothing but the symptoms and products of a completely broken system. Desperate measures that yeild no benefit to anyone, but allow the system of injustice to remain in place.
While there is exploitation (in whatever form: capitalist, communist, fascist, anything), there will ALWAYS be crime! The two go hand in hand.
To end all crime, you MUST end all exploitation and return society to one that cares, and puts ALL people equally above ALL else - where nobody is trampled for another's gain, and where all are of equal importance.
An anarchist-communist society is the only way that can be achieved.
So, if you've managed to stem your gut reaction to those two words for long enough to still be reading (whether you agree with me or not), perhaps you'd like to read more on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Com...
... at least before you write it off completely.
If you're saying "nice idea, but will never work", bear in mind that these kind of societies were in existance for millennia, and it's only in the last 5000 years or so that we've had heirarchical society based on power. If they hand't worked, we wouldn't be here now!
I maintain that the following stands true: If you want to live in a society where your status is defined by your posessions, then it is your decision to live with the consequences of that; namely that people, possibly including yourself, will be harmed in various ways, and possibly even killed by others intent on taking a short-cut route out of a poverty that you are directly responsible for contributing to.
That kind of uncaring society causes "crime". That kind of uncaring society defines the "crimes" by it's own standards in order to maintain the status quo.
If you REALLY want to end "crime", you have got to create the kind of society where crime cannot exist, and the ONLY workable solution to that is a people-oriented, mutually caring, sharing society: an anarchist-communist society.
The death penalty for those messed up by society is not a solution - it fixes no problems, cares for nobody and benefits none except those already in power (by various means).
They are the real criminals - robbing you and I of a full and worthwhile existence.
Get rid of them (by which I mean remove from power, and reduce to the same level as all other people), and all "crime" will vanish overnight.
And all you people who say capital punishment is wrong, then you are supporting MURDER!
And i can start a sentence with 'and' - see, I just did it... twice!
Who are you to judge another human on their actions? What makes you so morally righteous that you would condemn someone else to death? You need to think outside of the box for a minute.
What gives you - even a large group of you - the right to condemn someone else to die? Extend that to it's natural conclusion (the idea that it's morally OK for a large enough group of people to "vote" that someone else should be put to death) and you have nothing short of the purest form of fascism.
The reason we don't support the death penalty is because it *IS* murder, and is therefore every bit as horrific and condemnable as any other murder. What's more, it's an utterly fascist (meaning "the state has absolute power") idea, that has no place in a supposedly "free" society.
Nobody, and especially not the state, should be allowed to kill a person.
When you understand who makes the laws, you will understand why the death penalty isn't referred to as murder - because those who make it law can call it by another name.
Just as how civilians who are killed by our troops are "collateral damage" - capital punishment is just a euphemism for "state approved murder".
Just as how eg. "tax" is a form of robbery that just isn't called robbery. Capital punishment *IS* murder, because killing a human *IS* murder.
War is murder. Soldiers are murderers. Politicians who start wars are murderers too (and in my mind, under your system they should be put to death). But of course, they won't call it that, because they make the laws to suit themselves, to "justify" and "excuse" their actions - to make their murders seem like a righteous and good thing.
Funny how the downtrodden in society are always seen as parasites on the system - when in fact, if you think about it, who is more of a parasite: politicians and bosses, or someone who was made redundant in order to protect the profits of a company, and now lives on the dole? Who is the real parasite?
You see, those in power get to make up the rules, so they can call things whatever they like.
If it wasn't for a corrupt system dependent on exploitation at all levels, THERE WOULD BE NO CRIME AT ALL.
*ANYONE* who would kill another human clearly has something very wrong with their mentality (in whatever way), and therefore requires help. That's not a "soft touch" approach - that's identifying messed up people and giving enough of a shit to help them not reach breaking point in the first place.
In a truly caring society, potential murderers would be given the help and care to ensure they never reached that point. (Or do you think it would be better to euthanase all mentally handicapped people at birth?)
Would a sane person commit murder? Hardly! Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that anyone who believes murder is OK, is clearly not all there, and in need of serious help.
The FACT is, that within a system that puts some people above others, forces everyone into a rat-race just to survive, it's inevitable that we end up with some people getting extremely messed up by all that.
Those who have a predisposition to mental illness end up not being cared for, because in the rat-race there's no space and not enough money or time to look after misfits. Brush 'em aside and forget about 'em, as long as they don't stop us making money.
Equally, those who get shafted by the system and in despair turn to the escapism of drugs or living in a total "sick fantasy" world just to cope with being alive - they too should never have to reach that point, because someone should be there to give a shit about them before it happens.
Because we, society, do not give a shit, is why we have murders. Collectively, we cause it all - by not caring until their problems directly affect us, at which point we label them "murderer" and punish them.
See it how it is:
Politicians and bosses are the real parasites in society - the real criminals, who routinely exploit the rest of us for their own gain.
ALL crime is a direct result of a society that pushes people to breaking point, because some live in luxury at the expense of others who live in poverty. (Without society's obsession with material wealth, would there be robbers, burglars, muggers? Hardly! They're just looking for a quick way up the ladder, and casting morals to the wind to get there. Powerful white-collar robbers such as fat-cat executives do the same, but simply call their form of robbery something else, because they have enough influence over the law of the land to get away with it.)
ALL murderers, without exception - even those who act out of pure cold hatred - are very messed up people, and require mental health care and help, not death.
All of us hold responsibility for the violent crime that takes place in society. If we're not doing it ourselves, we're causing it to happen. It's a direct cause-and-effect relationship! For us to live easy lives, surrounded by vast material wealth, someone else has suffered and been exploited immensely for that to happen. With that much exploitation around, it is inevitable that some poor bastards are going to go off the rails and end up in hopeless situations.
See it how it is: we're ALL of us responsible for the crime and murder that takes place in our societies, because we allow the imbalance of power and lack of care for other people that causes it to exist.
An uncaring society is the real criminal, and putting to death those who suffer the most at the hands of that type of society is the biggest, most callous crime of all.
The death penalty is murder, plain and simple.
This could happen to ANYONE. It makes absolutely no difference who you are.
Many many people have been found guilty of crimes and were later proved to be TOTALLY innocent (one very famous example being the Guildford Four).
Our justice system is NOT INFALLIBLE.
Far beside the humanitarian arguments against captial punishment (all of which I agree with), this is the single greatest reason NEVER to bring back capital punishment.
Do you want to die? I know I don't.
Obviously this arguement doesn't count with people like Harold Shipman.
Can I have your computer then? Mine's on the blink. I can pick it up tomorrow.
The taking of human life for any reason is disgusting and I cannot believe that there are so many people willing to condone and support this pledge. It honest to god gets me so angry, you all ought to be ashamed.
We cannot allow demented and violent people to have the freedom to ruin society, yet I cannot agree that killing them is a solution (Dave has clearly explained the reasons for anyone that cares to actually attempt to understand them). I disagree that life imprisonment is a solution either, as a reduced sentence in exchange for good behaviour is all that prevents prisoners from continuing to act barbarically while banged up (who'd be a prison warden if a prisoner had nothing to lose by jamming a screwdriver in your eye?)
I think hard labour offers a decent route out of this argument, as one could argue that in a high percentage of cases, violent individuals are often from a background of either insufficient or excessively random discipline. A structured and reliable form of extreme discipline would perhaps correct the mental problems some of these people have, while proving useful to society (assuming the hard labour was clearing canals etc).
Obviously keeping these people in prison overnight would still be needed, so the impact on the prison population might be quite serious.
20 years of hard work serving society is a good way to pay for a violent crime.