Should women get the death penalty?

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

But we don't have a "beyond any doubt" benchmark for crime - how would that work? Who defines NO doubt WHATSOEVER? Even if we were able to define such a definition, how many cases do you realistically think would fall into it? And even in the US, it costs many times more than the cost of a quiet prison sentence in the end.

I gave 2 examples above. Another would be video evidence, or when the criminal admits to it while the evidence is conclusive. Wherever the barometer is set, the point is Jimmy Saville and the like should have been put to death (if they had been found out before death of course).

[Gittins Gal]

I'd rather nobody be given the death penalty, really. Expensive, ineffective and not befitting a civilised society.

Yes, quite. All of the above.

Always have opposed it and I've yet to hear any argument to make me change my mind.

Innerestingly, Britain still had a capital offence on the statute books until as recently as 1997 - that of High Treason.

You can see why Blair prioritised the repealing of that particular law on reaching office

[mudskipper]

I gave 2 examples above. Another would be video evidence, or when the criminal admits to it while the evidence is conclusive. Wherever the barometer is set, the point is Jimmy Saville and the like should have been put to death (if they had been found out before death of course).

I thought you were a Christian?

[vwdan]

I gave 2 examples above. Another would be video evidence, or when the criminal admits to it while the evidence is conclusive. Wherever the barometer is set, the point is Jimmy Saville and the like should have been put to death (if they had been found out before death of course).

Oh, okay - so you're simply going to be the one who decides the difference between "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "Beyond all doubt", are you? And to what end are you killing these people, because it doesn't save money and doesn't stop people committing crimes.

[VectraMan]

I gave 2 examples above. Another would be video evidence, or when the criminal admits to it while the evidence is conclusive. Wherever the barometer is set, the point is Jimmy Saville and the like should have been put to death (if they had been found out before death of course).

Is their video evidence of Jimmy Saville? What makes you so absolutely certain that the evidence against him (which is witness statements) is completely conclusive?

Video can easily be faked these days.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

I thought you were a Christian?

You haven't read all my posts. I don't believe in tags of christian/muslim/jew etc. I believe in one Universal truth which all these faiths are directing you towards. Requires a lot deeper discussion. Also there was captial punishment at some point practised by all these religions...

[mudskipper]

You haven't read all my posts. I don't believe in tags of christian/muslim/jew etc. I believe in one Universal truth which all these faiths are directing you towards. Requires a lot deeper discussion. Also there was captial punishment at some point practised by all these religions...

So your 'one Universal truth' allows for taking another's life as an act of punishment/revenge?

Odd sort of religion that one.

[d000hg]

Seriously, I think the death penalty should be used in situations where it is beyond any doubt that somebody has committed heinous crimes for example Jimmy Saville or that murdering doctor (I forgot his name). Why use tax payers money to keep these people alive? The only appropriate punishment is death and let them get it in the grave.

The reality is killing someone works out more expensive.

Also... "where it is beyond any doubt" is supposed to be the criteria used for prison already. Did you want to have a new "absolutely super certain" category?

[mudskipper]

The reality is killing someone works out more expensive.

And is immoral.

[vwdan]

The reality is killing someone works out more expensive.

Also... "where it is beyond any doubt" is supposed to be the criteria used for prison already. Did you want to have a new "absolutely super certain" category?

I don't want to argue because we agree on the fundamentals, but the current criteria in a criminal court is "Beyond all reasonable doubt", not beyond any doubt: Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In civil court, it's merely "on the balance of probabilities".