@9G55DG2 5mos5MO
A death penalty would just end the life of the criminal rather than them having to suffer in a confide area thinking about what they did rather than having an easier way out and being killed
@Eschleeee5mos5MO
You are absolutely right. One important concern is the possibility of executing innocent individuals, as the justice system isn't infallible. Additionally, the death penalty doesn't allow for rehabilitation and the chance for a person to reflect on their actions and potentially make amends. Many argue that life imprisonment can serve as a severe punishment while avoiding the irreversible consequences of execution. Furthermore, the death penalty is often more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life due to lengthy legal processes and appeals.
@Un1onSeagullHeritage5mos5MO
The death penalty serves as a powerful deterrent to serious crime. For instance, according to a study by Joanna M. Shepherd from Clemson University, each execution deters an average of 18 murders. While this doesn't undermine the importance of wrongful convictions, it does highlight another facet of the debate. What are your thoughts on the death penalty serving as a deterrent for serious crimes? Do you think the society's safety and potential prevention of future crimes could ever weigh more than the risk of executing an innocent?
@9G55DG2 5mos5MO
I think as deterrent it still wouldn’t work. Especially for someone who maybe is atheist . Also if someone may be innocent I think again it not being there stops that full stop as well as ending a life earlier and for what they would see as being convicted with no real suffering. Best kept abolished and out of our society for the overall good despite some bad
@9G5JCM5Women's Equality5mos5MO
Agree with the above. I believe our prison system needs reform too. There should be grades of prisons, defending on the crimes. I am shocked when sex offences get light sentences and stay in a 'normal prison'. Meaning they spend free time on the wing socialising, watching TV, learning skills etc.
@9G5XFHQConservative 5mos5MO
No human being is ever born perfect and everyone makes mistakes of varying degrees. Therefore no one should ever punished with one’s one life.
@9GKH2YF 5mos5MO
Same as you don't drive home from a driving test, families are in no position to make huge decisions on somebody's life when under so much emotional turbulence.
@9GKMN285mos5MO
The Death penalty should ONLY be used if the person in question has undeniably been proved of killing one or multiple people, or raping a child.
I agree as emotions are a powerful effect and in extreme circumstances can even cause some of the most level headed people to make rash and out of mind decisions
@9GGP6YT5mos5MO
Usually the accused hasn’t admitted guilt and you could be killing an innocent person. The family should not get to choose as they are personally involved in the outcome and will want to see the accused suffer, without giving it proper thought a judge who has no emotional relation to the case should decide not the family
@9G4N7B85mos5MO
Well i do not agree with the death penalty as this implies the justice system is completely accurate and is due to get the right victim each time. the system often targets minorities aswell as those in the lower echelons of society , giving harder punishments for lesser crime.
@9GJPDML5mos5MO
Punishments should be decided by an unbiased party. 'Punishments' should be focused on rehabilitation.
@9GH9YLF5mos5MO
The family of a victim will inevitably be over emotional and unable to make a rational decision about said punishment. Someone or someones who can be as objective, rather than subjective, as possible should be making the decisions.
@9GJ9CQZ5mos5MO
Just because your family member was a victim it does not mean that you have better judgement that others. Once you decide that someone deserves to die you are a murderer.
Two wrongs don't make a right, eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, also far too big of a risk of killing an innocent person.
@9FZS92R5mos5MO
Death penalties are the sign of a society which has failed its citizens through inadequate policing, justice systems and sentencing. Effective justice should seek, where possible, to balance public protection against rehabilitation of offenders. Victim's families are of course impacted, however a role for them in sentencing would drastically undermine its consistency and public trust.
@9GNT3CF5mos5MO
Death should never be a punishment, a lifetime in prison is far worse. You still lose your life you just have to watch it happen
@9FWWR7X6mos6MO
The death penalty is a disgraceful act. Having to choose life and death puts people in a terrible position of power. What if this person is actually innocent? It would be a massive irreversible injustice.
@9FYJ7WQ5mos5MO
It depends on the circumstances, accidents happen, I agree some punishments should be harsher but we are not the law we should not have a say. Being lead by emotions is dangerous.
@9FYGTHT5mos5MO
Law is complex and punishments have real consequences on real people. They should be decided by experienced Judges.
@9GHGJ6B5mos5MO
This is completely unfair to put on the family of the victim and the decision could haunt them forever.
The victim's family will be extremely driven by emotion- if applied to a smaller crime such as theft, there is a chance that the victim and their family would choose a very extreme punishment purely because they have an attachment to the case. Impartiality is necessary in choosing an appropriate punishment.
@9FYN7CM 5mos5MO
Revenge isn't Justice. Allowing victims to determine the punishment is a terrible idea on top of the overwhelming arguments against the death penalty.
Every human has the right to life. That is a fact that cannot be compromised on. And an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
@9FWHLFC6mos6MO
While it's understandable that some people might argue that the victim's family should have a say in the punishment, it's essential to consider the broader implications of this perspective. One of the fundamental principles of justice is the idea of impartiality and fairness. Allowing the victim's family to decide the punishment could introduce bias and emotional influence into the legal system.
Absolutely not as people can get weird with it and can really torture the person who committed the crime. Can be too hard on the family of the victim to lose someone then create a punishment
@9FWNGL66mos6MO
Every individual has the right to life. Those who take it away should be punished severely but not with death.
@9FXQVPP5mos5MO
Morals don't come into it. Whilst the UK has an effective criminal justice system, it isn't perfect. We can as good as guarantee that someone innocent will be killed by the state.
@9FXJKJ45mos5MO
We don't allow people who get robbed to go and engage in vigilante justice on the burglar because we recognise that humans can be massively vindictive people who don't act in the name of justice or fairness but in retribution and selfish, righteous anger.
@9FW3NQH6mos6MO
This is a popular trial it would give too much place to revenge in the debate. The unfair act of giving death should not be punished by an unfair revenge
@9FVFBN8Liberal Democrat6mos6MO
The victim's family are not an impartial party to make that decision and should also not bear the responsibility if the defendant has been falsely accused.
@9G29DBD5mos5MO
Arbitrary punishments decided for by individuals is no way to run a justice system. It allows for people to be punished not based on the severity of the crime but on the whim of an individual. And who in the family decides do they vote?
@9FX7XNK 5mos5MO
We need a justice system and allowing greiving members of a family to inflict pain or provide sentancing could lead to unfair sentancing without logic whilst using emotion only. People don't think clear when emotion is evolved. You need an out-sider.
@9JZNCRB1mo1MO
The death penalty should never be an option. People often underestimate how absurdly expensive death row proceedings (in the United States for example) actually become. These costs are necessary to reduce wrongful convictions, and trying to cut costs in death row proceedings would inevitably increase the number of wrongful convictions. You can release a wrongfully convicted prisoner from jail, you cannot bring them back to life.
@9HRLRR63mos3MO
Once a person convicted by the state has been killed, if they are later proven to have been wrongly convicted there is no compensation adequate to the situation.
That’s not fair to the perpetrator as decisions on the outcomes on people’s lives should not be in the hands of emotionally charged individuals. Not a fair trial
@9GXB6RZLiberal Democrat4mos4MO
Same as you don't drive home from a driving test, families are in no position to make huge decisions on somebody's life when under so much emotional turbulence.
God gives life and decides when it is our time. This is why we detest one individual committing murder.....how is it different if the state do this too?
@9GZL32T4mos4MO
No it doesn't matter what the person has done they shouldnt be killed as their is no end to it if you kill someone or steal bread or then you take s pen it doesn't mean you should die .
@9FS5F546mos6MO
The family should not want to take part in the killing of someone as they should know how it feels to loose a loved one.
@9FS449S6mos6MO
The defendant in any legal proceeding has the most to lose from the outcome, in the case of the death penalty, their life. Any rights of the victim to seek justice do not override the rights of the defendant
@9FQYQRQ6mos6MO
The death penalty has so many flaws, logically speaking, giving power to emotional parties will just increase the likelihood of capital punishments being served out.
The death penalty is fundamentally unjust as it is irrevocable, if proven innocent after death there can be no restoration and no justice. Furthermore this would essentially legalise torture, as many would opt for the most painful death possible. It may also legitimise vigilantism, rather than upholding the right to fair trial
@9FLMMCY6mos6MO
You dont want grieving parents deciding on what punishment should be dished out because of course it is going to be cruel and unusual
Victims raw emotions could have a major impact on their decision as it could blind their sight of reason.
I'd never agree with the death penalty because there have been too many cases of wrong convictions. Even in the case of correct convictions, death is an easy way out for the most prolific criminals.
Not just about the victim, its about what is deserved and fair. A victim of graffiti could say they want the death penalty for god sake
@9G4N64C5mos5MO
Law is not a vehicle for retribution and should be made rationally with an aim for restorative justice.
Punishments should fit the crime however it needs to come from an unbiased source where there are no conflicts of interest.
@9FZ5XJ35mos5MO
Their argument is more emotion based meaning it'll end up as a death penalty 90% of the time while some who have been in the same situation will not get the same punishment when they truly deserved it
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...