[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]
1. We know the risk is miniscule because it's uncommon for new evidence to come to light after someone has been executed. I think it's ridiculous to see there being a high risk of someone being mis-punished. The worst comes to the worst, there's ambiguity and the guy gets sent to jail instead. That will happen anyway, and even at that the damage is irreversable. It's just the way it is. 2. A life sentence isn't that much diffrent than death.
3. This is all well and good until they escape, or are released early on "good behaviour". This has happened before, and it will happen again. This will only become more of a problem as prisons become more and more overcrowed, espically in Britain and smaller countries.
4. I'm questiong how accurate soemthing can be when someone suggests that killing a murderer will not reduce crime rates when we KNOW offenders will actually re-comit crimes quite often. Common sense tells us that those findings are largely false, and ignore something soblatantly obvious. There's a reason I take everything I hear with a massive pinch of salt.
5. And the system isn't very faulty at all. That's your opinion, and frankly, I think its wrong.
Teenaged
1. Well how could more evidence be brough to light since the supposed criminal is already dead? It wouldnt matter, would it? :|And again you havent shown how we can be sure the risk is indeed miniscule.
2. Thats an arbitrary and subjective opinion. Of course you do realise that you should be comparing the two (life sentence and death sentence) with other criteria and not by what is preferrable by the one who is punished, right?
3. Then make jails harder to escape. :? Is that really an excuse now? And when I say sentence for life, I mean for life. No releases for good behavior. Only in light of new evidence. Then build more prisons or as a government countries should find ways to prevent its citizens from becoming criminals in the first place.
4. Yes the prison system as it is does not make people come out of it better than they were, but is that really an excuse? "Hey my non-cruel penalty system does not make you a better person because I forgot to make it effective so I'll just kill ya instead". :|
5. Which you havent proven....
Occasionally new evidence is brought to light that re-opens an old trial. Usually if it's been inconclusive. It can happen. Honestly though, you can't prove that it's not anything more than minisculeeither. What it comes down to is this. How often are people who are on life sentences released on the ground of being falsely accused? Not many, so what's the diffrence between a life sentence and a death sentence when they are designed to do the same thing? As far as I'm concerned worying about that is pointless. I'm not going go hunt down hard figures because I'm not bothered enough to do that, but through logic it becomes clear that it's just simply not that big an issue. If there's a very verysmall chance of someone being proven innocent after being convicted, then there's a very very small chance of someone being proven innocent after they have been killed.
All opinions are subjective. Fact of life. What it comes down to is this. The sentences are used to fufill the same role, to keep a high risk convict in a position where they can not re-comit a crime. Spending your entire life in prison is not exactly a good exsistance, it's a large punishment. Death is only a small step up from that. In terms of punishment they are more or less on the same level, only one ismore effectivethan the other. Whether you kill them or keep them in the same place for a long period of time, at the end of the day it will have the same effect.
Now were back at overcrowding. Where do you think the funding is going to come from to expand security? It's a serious issues, prisons are costing far too much. We need to do something about it soon before it becomes worse. The more criminals you place in the same prison building the greater the enviroment you create for a possible escape. No one can afford to expand prisons, we're at a dead end. Mabye you don't realise this, but Britain has virtually no space left in prisons, and no money to build more. They have actually had punishments based on that fact and because of that we have seen people re-offend when they should have been behind bars. That is far from ideal.
What are you trying to say here? That we should take re-offending lightly, because, well we can't really do anything about it? No, I see no reason for that when the problem can be avoided alltogether by simply killing the worst criminals rather than have them released into the public domain.
I don't need to prove anything, that's not the point of debate, contrary to what you and everyone elsemight believe :P. Trust me, no one ever proves anything in a debate.Your simply stating your opinion, I'm stating mine. You think I'm wrong, I think your wrong.
Log in to comment