theocd wrote:Honestly, I am pro death penalty, particularly as the UK doesn't have it any more. We used to, 3 years ago you could still get executed here but hey that moron Brown (or was it Tony) quietly got rid of it without telling anyone. (Seriously in the UK you could, in 2005, still get executed for High Treason and Arson against Her Majestys Ship Yards - that's why our Navy were so great, you touch our ships we kill you)

After abolition of the death penalty for murder, die-hards began a tradition requiring the Commons to hold a free vote on a motion during each Parliament proposing the restoration of capital punishment. This motion was always defeated. However, the death penalty still survived for other crimes:

causing a fire or explosion in a naval dockyard, ship, magazine or warehouse (until 1971);
espionage[5] (until 1981);
piracy with violence (until 1998),
treason (until 1998), and
certain purely military offences under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, such as mutiny[6] (until 1998). Prior to its complete abolition in 1998, it was available for six offences: 1) serious misconduct in action, 2) assisting the enemy, 3) obstructing operations, 4) giving false air signals, 5) mutiny or incitement to mutiny, and 6) failure to suppress a mutiny with intent to assist the enemy.
However, no more executions were carried out.

There was a working gallows at HMP Wandsworth, London, until 1994, which was tested every six months until 1992. This gallows is now housed in the Galleries of Justice in Nottingham.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 abolished the offence of arson in royal dockyards.

The Naval Discipline Act 1957 reduced the scope of capital espionage from "all spies for the enemy" to spies on naval ships or bases.[9] Later, the Armed Forces Act 1981 abolished the death penalty for espionage.[2] (In 1911 the Official Secrets Act had created another offence of espionage which carried a maximum sentence of fourteen years.)

Under a House of Lords amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, proposed by Lord Archer of Sandwell, the death penalty was abolished for treason and piracy with violence, replacing it with a discretionary maximum sentence of life imprisonment. These were the last civilian offences punishable by death.

On 20 May 1998 the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." The last remaining provisions for the death penalty under military jurisdiction (including in wartime) were removed when section 21(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 9 November 1998. On 10 October 2003, effective from 1 February 2004[10] the UK acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances,[11] so that the UK may no longer legislate to restore the death penalty while it is subject to the Convention. It can only now restore it if it withdraws from the Council of Europe.

As a legacy from colonial times, several islands in the West Indies still had the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the court of final appeal; although the death penalty has been retained in these islands, the Privy Council would sometimes delay or deny executions. Some of these islands severed links with the British court system in 2001 in order to speed up executions.

I apologise if I have caused any offence but i am strongly opinionated person on this subject matter,

Mango wrote:Just an aside, how many of the anti death penalty folks posting on this topic are pro-abortion?

spartanghost wrote:
Thats different. Soldiers kill Soldiers. Soldiers are prepared to die on the job. it's their job. murderers kill people who arent prepared to die, and who had no reason to be killed.

Some US state (I think it was Texas) had some thing awhile ago that in cases of heinous crimes if there are 2 or more credible eye witnesses then you dont get an appeal, they just mash ya quick. I like that idea. if you have cases where the 85 appeals are moot, it should cost very little to put them under.

Frazzled wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:It's much worse to throw someone in a cell for the rest of their life. Can you imagine being locked in a 4x4 room, with the bare minimum to live with, no outside contact, for the rest of your days?

Frazzled wrote:

Frazzled wrote:On the positive we've hit on most of the big topics in one fell swoop: death penalty, abortion,, even a bit of gun control. Add in Texas uber dominance in Mexican food and we have the unholy trin er Quadrilogy.

For me the death penalty is a barbaric reminant from a less enlightened society. It is my belife that everyone has a chance of redemption and can atone for what they have done.

Frazzled wrote:

Thats different. Soldiers kill Soldiers. Soldiers are prepared to die on the job. it's their job. murderers kill people who arent prepared to die, and who had no reason to be killed.

Respectfully, I disagree.

They are still robbing the other person of their human rights. Plus I'd proffer very few are actually prepared to die. How do you prepare to die?

How about cops?

Frazzled wrote:

Thats different. Soldiers kill Soldiers. Soldiers are prepared to die on the job. it's their job. murderers kill people who arent prepared to die, and who had no reason to be killed.

Respectfully, I disagree.

They are still robbing the other person of their human rights. Plus I'd proffer very few are actually prepared to die. How do you prepare to die?

How about cops?

Mango wrote:Not apples and oranges, In one case you kill and adult human being. In the other you kill an unborn human being.

Mango wrote:
In both cases a human being was killed.

Mango wrote:
What is the difference between having the "choice" to execute an unborn child and the "choice" to execute a murderer, traitor, or violent rapist?

Greebynog wrote:

Mango wrote:Just an aside, how many of the anti death penalty folks posting on this topic are pro-abortion?

Apples and oranges. Abortion is an entirely different and highly complex issue. But, if you must know, I'm 'pro-choice' or whatever ridiculous label has been ascribed to that side of the debate.

spartanghost wrote:
Thats different. Soldiers kill Soldiers. Soldiers are prepared to die on the job. it's their job. murderers kill people who arent prepared to die, and who had no reason to be killed.

Some US state (I think it was Texas) had some thing awhile ago that in cases of heinous crimes if there are 2 or more credible eye witnesses then you dont get an appeal, they just mash ya quick. I like that idea. if you have cases where the 85 appeals are moot, it should cost very little to put them under.

That's an absolutely terrible way to run a justice system. The problems with eye-witness testimony are numerous and well documented. Executing people based on such a flimsy pretext is certain to end with innocent lives lost.

brad3104 wrote:I know this is off topic...and sounds a bit horrible. But wars are needed every so often. I know it hurts to hear but the population problem in this world has gotten out of control. If there were no wars could you image how crowded it would be. Man I think families should be limited to 2 kids. But thats another topic.

spartanghost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Thats different. Soldiers kill Soldiers. Soldiers are prepared to die on the job. it's their job. murderers kill people who arent prepared to die, and who had no reason to be killed.

Respectfully, I disagree.

They are still robbing the other person of their human rights. Plus I'd proffer very few are actually prepared to die. How do you prepare to die?

How about cops?

Allow me to rephrase. In most cases, if a soldier doesn't kill the other soldier, he's going to end up dead. And if a soldier is in a warzone and isn't prepared to die, they're in the wrong place. Put another way, By robbing the enemy soldier of his human rights, the first soldier has defended his own. Wouldn't you agree that someone's own human rights are more important to him than an enemy soldiers? Obviously if everyone on the planet put everyone else's life above their own that would solve the problem, and we wouldnt be having this conversation.

Cops are another situation as well. Cops are not necessarily trained to kill, and their job is not to go out and have a decent chance of dying every day they're on the job. Yes, Police officers die on the job, but again, they know the risks. Cops (usually) only kill if they absolutely have to. And again, it's usually the criminal, or them, or innocents.