It's a different demographic, isn't it, darlings?

[hunkermunker]

DH put it slightly differently... Bunch of bobblehat-wearing wankers, he said.

Anyway, anyone up for a death penalty debate?

Interesting that Sara Payne is against the death penalty. I admire her for upholding the courage of her convictions.

?The death penalty has to be brought back because it is the only deterrent available. It won?t bring my son back, but how many would commit these awful murders if they knew the gallows or a lethal injection was waiting? Few, I suspect,? says Damilola Taylor's father.

One word. America.

I always think of bobble-hat wearers fondly, in a Sunday afternoon rambling way - not as Sun-reading looneys TBH. The wankers bit I can relate to thou'.

I am a no by the way - on both counts (1) the re-introduction and (2) the debate.

I'm not surprised Damilola's father is rather jaundiced about British justice. But I don't expect the death penalty would have deterred his killers. As you say, Hunker, there are plenty of murders in America (and other countries that have a death penalty).

No and no.

No death penalty. No debate.

It is not a deterrent.

Why do governments kill people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong?

Edam, I can understand why Mr Taylor feels as he does, totally.

But it's a sentiment I've often heard expressed - "the death penalty is a deterrent" - when it patently isn't.

In fact, I think that if the State sanctions killing, individuals are more likely to do it themselves. But I have nothing with which to back that up...

Also keep in mind that some states in the US do not have the death penalty.

Is there any evidence re the death penalty as a deterrent? I mean actual stats - though I suppose for any meaningful data you'd need a country where capital punishment had been introduced for the first time, having not been in place before IYSWIM, and compare the before and after crime rates.

I'm in the no brigade - quite apart from the morality of taking a life, miscarriages of justice would always continue to happen. You can release someone from jail who's been wrongly convicted - but not even Sun readers could bring them back from the dead.

Oh, I know Hunker, didn't think anything else of you, was just airing my own views...

I've never understood how the process of losing a loved one in a criminal act of one kind or other confers on someone the voice of authority about judicial matters including and especially the matter of appropriate penalties.

It's understandable that Damilola Taylor's father, Gary Newlove's wife and all the other relatives mentioned in the article would feel such loathing for the perpetrator and would wish them dead. Heaven knows I might well feel the same in their shoes. Doesn't make it right, though.

Exactly, Mrs H, which is why I have such admiration for Sara Payne - all my righteous moral high-ground might well fly out the window if it was one of my kids. I think the death penalty is very wrong, but then I'm not in Mr Taylor's shoes.

Death penalty will deter some people and for some others, it will be preferable to life without parole. Obviously neither is an effective deterrent, as lots of people end up killing and get life in jail or the death penalty.

If you look at the statistics, even in US states that allow capital punishment, only a small percentage of murderers get the death penalty. As such, it would be highly unlikely to be a deterrent. Smokers have a higher rate of premature death than murderers.

Anyway, this debate should be what the state is willing to do in order to punish criminals, rather than what deters and what doesn't. It might deter people if we kill more criminals. It will probably deter more if we torture criminals before killing. It will certainly be a more effective deterrent if we torture and kill not only the criminal but also his/her immediate family.

Are we willing to see our state do any of the above to reduce crime? No. Are we willing to see our state kill to reduce crime? No (imo)

I agree with what others have said - I can't see how it is a deterrent. People who commit murders do not weigh up their chances of being caught beforehand.

I am glad that Levi Bellfield and also Steve Wright have been given whole life terms though. They are too despicable for words IMO.

The article is written in typical Sun mono-syllabic cretin speak and can't be taken seriously as far as I am concerned.

Did anyone see 'Horizon' done my Michael Portillo examining the various methods used? Not one of the methods examined were humane, painless or foolproof..

You can't go about murdering people because of abhhorrent behaviour.... isn't it just another 'smacking/no smacking' debate??

I like the way CoteDAzur put it.

On a similar note, I recall an MP stating that he would be happy to be the executioner if no-one else volunteered. Surely it would be more noteworthy if he had said he would be happy to be executed in error?

no call for public executions then?
selling tickets refreshments concessions?
good be a good source of revenue, maybe an idea for a public private partnership? or whatever they are called

Ha, ha - Public Private Partnership Executions - maybe you could think up a slogan!

I'm against the death penalty , for the 'whole life' conviction and can honestly say that if anyone hurt my child I would wait until they got out of prison and then kill him.

Many things are absolute wrongs (to me, at least) but not many make me feel as violently and physically sick as the death penalty. I can't find any justification for it, at all.

No-one has harmed my child, so I don't know how I'd feel in that position. But some states would/could have executed a man who offended against me - and I would have asked for clemency. It is just plain wrong.

Either murder is wrong or it isn't. State sanctioned murder is still murder.

When I was at uni, the example we were given of an 'observational study' was a bit of work done by some students looking at the effect of the death penalty on crimes commited in Edinburgh during the 18th Century. They'd trawled back through the records looking at reported crimes, and cross-referenced them against the dates people were hanged in the Grassmarket.

Basic result was that when you found someone guilty, and then shortly after hanged them in front of a crowd of eager spectators, you got a very slight decrease in overall crime levels for about 2 weeks. Then it rose back to normal levels until the next hanging. When crime and execution are more separated, and less public, I suspect the effect will be lessened.

BTW, two words. Kenny. Richey.

the texas death row inmates website is enough to convince that the death sentence is wrong. dna database is the way to go surely?

Killers should hang. End of. Why should we keep them alive, costing thousands each year? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth - with DNA, evidence is irrefutable. I wonder how many of you would think differently if your daughter had been murdered and raped...

Keith Bennett's mother, (the poor little boy whose body was never found on Saddleworth Moor) was often asked whether she wanted Ian Brady and Hindley hanged.

She would shake her head and say 'No. I have suffered every single day since my boy was taken, and I want those bastards to do the same. Death is too good for them.'

the taking of human life is wrong and mans law doesnt make it right