With people like andy11?Persuasion and reason or insults and confrontation.
Which has more success?
Neither.
What about a referendum
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Neither.
Sponsored Links
D
Deleted member 18243
There's no comparison - America is a different kettle of fish with its right-to-bear-arms and all that.
The only comparison that matters is that between pre- and post- abolition Britain.
No innocent people have been executed in post-abolition Britain.
Several have been jailed.
Several have been jailed.
Not several, but many!
But even one innocent person executed is one too many!
And the state never admits it's mistakes, as the near impossibility of getting compensation for a miscarriage of justice shows!
Sponsored Links
I guess it happens in many countries, I dont how the UK compares
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-jail-miscarriages-of-justice-in-Britain.html
S
sodthisforfun
No it's not.
You said that the death penalty puts off people killing others, end of.
Read this then.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/13/fifty-years-hanging-britain-death-penalty
"When the death penalty was first suspended in 1965 and then abolished in 1969, the roof didn’t fall in. During 1964 there were 296 murders in England and Wales, including the murder for which Evans and Allen were hanged. When the gallows were mothballed in 1965 there were 325 murders. It’s true that annual homicide rates then rose for the next quarter of a century, reaching a peak of more than 1,000 in 2002 (when 172 murders were attributed to Harold Shipman alone), but since then they have fallen back precipitously and homicides are now at their lowest level in about 30 years. The overall population has, of course, increased significantly in that time.
The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent against people committing murder is one of the most stubborn myths about the death penalty. Global research by the United Nations and numerous academics has repeatedly shown this to be untrue. It’s also very hard to square a belief in the “deterrence effect” with the fact that in the US, for example, death penalty-using states such as Texas have significantly higher homicide rates than states where the death penalty has been abolished."
You think you know more than all the researchers and academics?! Blimey!
Where the UK fails badly is that if a miscarriage of justice is proved, in virtually every case compensation is refused...
And if you are innocent and maintain that stance, then you are unlikely to be released if the 'crime' is a serious one...
The UK hasn't moved that far away from the ducking stool mentality!
What I really hate is the family courts -huge power and no way to appeal.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/the-sinister-power-of-britains-family-courts/
If I said that, I might be accused of being anti-UK
People have to realise that our judicial system is effectively run by the state for the state, given that we have no written constitution!
D
Deleted member 18243
The Guardian chooses its researchers and academics. Other researchers and academics are available. (Researchers and academics can say whatever you want them to say.)
If you're against the death penalty, what would you have happen to murderers instead - are you happy with the current system where we spend a fortune keeping them in soft prisons for years?
How many murders have their been this year to date?
How many attempted murders have their been this year to date?
Got the pre- and post- abolition figures?
(I won't accept anything from the Guardian.)
So on top of prison cost, you would like millions paid to lawyers as there is no doubt the process would end up with a 'death row'.
And then there is the ethical dilemna....do we really want state approved murder?
D
Deleted member 18243
No, I'd hang the lawyers first.
Seriously though, what a wet opinion to hold - that you take such things to be inevitable.
S
sodthisforfun
Ok, so let me get this straight.
You won't accept things from the Guardian.
You won't accept academics or researchers including the findings and research from UNITED NATIONS (!) because the Guardian happened to pick up on the story.
You won't accept any proof from overseas because you think the method of killing each other is somehow important.
I think the reality is more basic - you won't accept anything you don't want to hear. No matter how much proof is shown to you or what ever and yet you've shown no proof that the death penalty actually works. It's been wicked conversing with you Andy, but I fear it's wasting my time.
A wet opinion is somebody who likes his simplistic kneejerk solution to murder, but then isnt interested in looking deeper into the issue nor accepting factual evidence.
I guess you like a bit of shallow pub talk, but stick your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing a more indepth discussion.
Sponsored Links
