is there anything wrong with capital punishment for seriously heinous and disgusting crimes?

[t~God~Bless~t]

This question is mainly talking about the UK. surely, people such as the Soham murderer Huntly does not deserve to breathe the same air as us, so why let him? the introduction of the death sentence would probably cut down crime more than an ASBO or something would. the mere threat that the country as a nation might fight back against the filth and scum that walk our streets could deter chavs/yobs from commiting their offences. does anyone agree with me out there or am i just too cruel? if so, please say way, i am genuinely interested.

[ttDavies]

I don't think so, I think we need to get more medivial in execution methods. Burning at the stake, firing squad, you name it. Enough with this sissy lethal injection nonsense.

[tttpicklesttt]

For your question about whether or not capital punishment is wrong, I would say that it really comes down to what defines "seriously heinous and disgusting". What DOES define "seriously heinous and disgusting"? The different answers that you get from that question alone is the primary reason that capital punishment is case by case in a lot of areas. As for your idea that crime would be reduced in the presence of the death sentence, I'm not so sure. I live in the States (where the death penalty is enforced), and statistically speaking, capital punishment has had a minimal effect on [capital] crime reduction. This is because the inmates' stay in prison is extended in a way. It takes a [long] while for each case to get through the system. In a sense, they get a full life, and they accept being in prison (on the way to death) because death is inevitable. I don't think you're too cruel, I just think that you'd love to live in a safer world. =]

[tJBt]

First take a look at how the US death penalty system has worked. Homicide rates are higher there than in the UK, and, within the US, higher in states with the death penalty than in those without it. Here are some other things you'll see, with sources below:127 people on death rows released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs (before and during the initial trial) of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.Sourceseath Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo. org, for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.orghttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo. org/COcosttestimony.pdf page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensivehttp://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-survivor.html for statements of victims’ families