ChatterBank1 min ago
Barry George
32 Answers
In light of the not guilty verdict on Barry George http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7536815.stm how can anyone still believe we should have the death penalty ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BillySugger. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To put it bluntly, just because there's the chance of an innocent person dying doesn't mean you should rule something out.
For those of you who think that's a rather brutal thing to say, consider your answer to the following question..
The police carry guns. There are many well documented cases of them shooting dead entirely innocent people. In view of this, how can anyone still believe that we should allow the police to carry guns?
For those of you who think that's a rather brutal thing to say, consider your answer to the following question..
The police carry guns. There are many well documented cases of them shooting dead entirely innocent people. In view of this, how can anyone still believe that we should allow the police to carry guns?
Ludwig
That is nothing like a logical argument. By your method of reaching a concusion, an elephant is grey, a filing cabinet is grey, therefore all elephants are filing cabinets.
You cannot equate a split-second decision of a police officer in a life-or-death situation with a considered carefully argued legal case presented with evidencce, and the deicision of twelve people requiring a concensus.
The police carry guns in special circumstances to protect the lives of innocent people.
The death penalty has always existed as revenge dressed up as deterrent, and this case perfectly indicates why it has no place in a civilised society.
That is nothing like a logical argument. By your method of reaching a concusion, an elephant is grey, a filing cabinet is grey, therefore all elephants are filing cabinets.
You cannot equate a split-second decision of a police officer in a life-or-death situation with a considered carefully argued legal case presented with evidencce, and the deicision of twelve people requiring a concensus.
The police carry guns in special circumstances to protect the lives of innocent people.
The death penalty has always existed as revenge dressed up as deterrent, and this case perfectly indicates why it has no place in a civilised society.
From a purely statistical point of view you could equally ask the question: How many innocents must die before we introduce an effective deterrant?
Cue all the usual do gooders saying capital punishment is not a deterrent. Bollux! It's not 100% deterrent but just delve into the archives and tell me how many murders there where in1960 compared to now.
Cue all the usual do gooders saying capital punishment is not a deterrent. Bollux! It's not 100% deterrent but just delve into the archives and tell me how many murders there where in1960 compared to now.
"Is there any statistical proof to suggest that the death penalty actually works?"
Good luck with that line of argument, sp1814.
It's raised - quite rightly - every time this debate comes up. And it gets pretty much ignored every time too.
Instead, a bit of factually-rubbish psychology gets lobbed in along the lines of 'Well, it will make them think twice before...."
Even though the facts suggest it doesn't.
Good luck with that line of argument, sp1814.
It's raised - quite rightly - every time this debate comes up. And it gets pretty much ignored every time too.
Instead, a bit of factually-rubbish psychology gets lobbed in along the lines of 'Well, it will make them think twice before...."
Even though the facts suggest it doesn't.
Andy,
My argument is completely logical. The questioner is making the point that in this case an innocent person would have died if we'd had the death penalty, and suggesting that's the main reason we shouldn't have it - ie because innocent people could die.
My response was to state that just because an innocent might die is not sufficient reason to rule something out, giving armed police as an example.
You've now introduced a moral element to the argument by saying it is unbecoming of a civilised society, to sit in a court and plan a killing, rather than doing it in the heat of the moment with the intention of protecting others, and that's a different question really.
My argument is completely logical. The questioner is making the point that in this case an innocent person would have died if we'd had the death penalty, and suggesting that's the main reason we shouldn't have it - ie because innocent people could die.
My response was to state that just because an innocent might die is not sufficient reason to rule something out, giving armed police as an example.
You've now introduced a moral element to the argument by saying it is unbecoming of a civilised society, to sit in a court and plan a killing, rather than doing it in the heat of the moment with the intention of protecting others, and that's a different question really.
Alright Ludwig I'll stand up and say that it is unjustifiable that ONE innocent person should die by judicial means just because you seem to imagine that the death penalty is some sort of deterrant when actually it is clearly not.
Take a look at the US where the death penalty exists in some states and tell me hand on heart we should introduce that back into our society.
Take a look at the US where the death penalty exists in some states and tell me hand on heart we should introduce that back into our society.
"Is there any statistical proof to suggest that the death penalty actually works?"
well, not proof but good indicators, I ask again, how many murders where there in 1960? how many in 2007? not hard is it?
It all centres around the semantics of the word "deterrant" nothing is 100% we all accept that. It does not mean that no one will ever be deterred by capital punishment.
well, not proof but good indicators, I ask again, how many murders where there in 1960? how many in 2007? not hard is it?
It all centres around the semantics of the word "deterrant" nothing is 100% we all accept that. It does not mean that no one will ever be deterred by capital punishment.
Alright clearly there were probably more muders this year than in 1960, but what about the differences in population etc. you have to find out what perceentage of the populaiton murdered someone not how many to get a sensible overview.Plus you also need to remember that more murders are detected nowadays than then owing to improved police and forensic proceeedures etc. Anyone got these stats anywhere?
-- answer removed --
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/ rp99/rp99-111.pdf
there where 6.2 per million in 1960, as opposed to 14.1 per million in 1997, no idea what last year is but the trend is rising.
there where 6.2 per million in 1960, as opposed to 14.1 per million in 1997, no idea what last year is but the trend is rising.
If we were able to look at the murder rate in say, and American state before and after the abolition of capital punishment, it would give us an indicator as to whether the death penalty is an effective detterent.
I'm guessing that if you are really either a) enraged b) psychotic or c) just plain evil, the death penalty wouldn't be much of a deterrent.
Dunno though. I'm certainly no expert.
I'm guessing that if you are really either a) enraged b) psychotic or c) just plain evil, the death penalty wouldn't be much of a deterrent.
Dunno though. I'm certainly no expert.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
