CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
24
Hang Them Give them free accomodation
Debate Score:47
Arguments:37
Total Votes:52
Ended:10/12/12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Hang Them (16)
 
 Give them free accomodation (19)

Debate Creator

Linsdip(111) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Hang killers and rapists etc

It is so sad that another young life seems to have been lost to a low life scum who probably did unmentionable things to her and then killed her to cover his tracks.  So while its fresh in your memory can we now bring back Hanging Please?????

Hang Them

Side Score: 23
VS.

Give them free accomodation

Side Score: 24
Winning Side!
3 points

Young Children are being Murdered and there is no suitable detterant. Before Hanging was abolished there were half the murders than there were immediately after it was abolished.

I say Hang Them but only when there is forensic evidence, witnesses and beyond reasonable doubt

Side: Hang Them
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
2 points

What proof have you got that the murder rate has doubled since the abolition of capital punishment? Just reading statistics makes it look that way but it's not as easy as that there are a lot of other factors to take into account.

The Home Office hasn't actually recorded a 'murder rate' for several decades, as since 1972 the crimes of murder, manslaughter and infanticide have been compiled to make a homicide rate. (This was done because a large number of such cases are switched between the three categories in response to evidence and other changes of circumstances, meaning that the number considered 'murder' can change depending upon the point in criminal proceedings at which it is measured.)

Using the Home Office's recorded crime statistics and population estimates from the Office for National Statistics, we can see that the homicide rate in 2009/10 was 11.2, compared to 6.3 in 1964, close to a doubling, if somewhat short, here though appearences can be deceptive. In 1998 the Home Office made a change to the way in which homicide was recorded by police, which had a significant impact upon the results produced.

Before 1998 multiple murders were considered as a single incident, afterwards each death was considered seperately. In 2002, the figures included the 173 murders committed by Harold Shipman, whereas if these had been committed in 1964, they would have only counted as one incident for the purposes of the Home Office statistics. In particular, it is worth noting that the homicide rate itself is not a static figure, and is frequently revised in response to developments in cases.

We also have to consider the probability of detection. If (say in 1950) a poisoner had a 50% chance of the death being accepted as natural, while improved analytical technique meant that in 2000 he had only a 1% chance, the rate of poisonings will seem to have doubled over 50 years if it actually remained constant in that period. The same applies to all other changes in police method, technology etc. Improved detection is of course not the same thing as increased criminality. For instance the number of speeding fines has gone through the roof since cameras were introduced, but I do not think that more people speed.

The Death Penalty is basically state sanctioned revenge, would it not be better to use the chance to examine these people whilst we have them imprisoned to try and find out what makes them tick. Most rapists and child molester's act on compulsions that they cant control so there is no real deterrant as they are acting on things that they cant control, a lot of inprisoned child molesters and rapists have willingly had experimental treatments to try and control these urges, obviously this would be impossible if they had been hanged and if by using these people we discover a "cure" for these compulsions then people could be treated before they get to the point of hurting someone.

Side: Give them free accomodation
Cuaroc(8827) Disputed
2 points

What happened to the whole pro life thing.

Hypocrite .

Side: Give them free accomodation
kjgallmeyer(22) Disputed
2 points

You are so stupid! You are assuming the people that use the slogan "pro life" are talking about murderers and rapists. (They are NOT!) Assumptions always make you look like an idiot Cuaroc. Maybe you ought to think before you speak next time. We are pro life when it comes to the innocent unborn humans in a Mother's womb who haven't even had a chance to make any choices. We stand behind innocent lives, not the ones who take the innocent lives.

Side: Hang Them
2 points

Yes! Hang them, burn them at the stake, give them lethal injection, put them in a gas chamber, put them in electric chair, have them stand before a firing squad, stone them, or behead them. Which ever the victim chooses, or whichever the victim's family chooses.

Side: Hang Them
kjgallmeyer(22) Clarified
2 points

These people can NOT be rehabilitated. They will do it again!

Side: Hang Them
2 points

Says who? I'm not condoning killers or rapists, for you to poorly claim that these people cannot learn from these mistakes, that's fucking ridiculous. Then perhaps you will never learn from you mistakes, right? I doubt it. I give the human the benefit of the doubt, I say help these people. They're still people just like, flesh and bones, but their minds are a little fucked up. Still, these people can be taught, or rehabilitated to be better and civilized people who do not harm nor rape.

Hanging is an old school style anyways, fuck that we're in the modern day and age, we're not hanging people in the streets for crimes. Be gone with the old way of thinking, at least as far as death penalty is concerned. Death penalty needs to go away, when the government allows and kills these people, they are no longer innocent of that, they created themselves to be the murders just like the ones they're killing!

Side: Hang Them
2 points

I wouldnt go quite that far but tend to agree as long as there is no reasonable doubt kill them and watch the murder rate fall over night

Side: Hang Them
modorichie(152) Disputed
2 points

So what you want is revenge then yes? Not justice.

I don't understand how people who think god gives life, believes they have the right to take it away. It seems such an oxymoron to me.

Side: Give them free accomodation
kjgallmeyer(22) Disputed
1 point

First off, yes I agree God gives life to all children (at conception). When one ages, they become aware of right and wrong at some point. If one chooses the life of known wrong and takes someone elses life, then yes, I agree with the law that his life should be taken from him. Maybe you don't live in a state with capital punishment...thats fine and well. I'm under a state who does believe in capital punishment. God also tells us to be good citizens, being good citizens also entails following and upholding the laws we have.

Side: Hang Them
1 point

I think our justice system is much to lenient in regards to punishment of scum who injure, molest and murder children. I don't think there should be any mercy or compassion for those demons, hanging would even be to good of a death. It's befuddling that there are attorneys capable of defending these monsters or advocates who lobby for their fair and humane treatment. I understand that some religious types believe in mercy for all but in these circumstances they should step aside and allow these savages to be punished by men who don't concern themselves with compassion; only justice and revenge.

Side: Hang Them

I have long opposed the notion of capital punishment. I hold it to be uncivilised, immoral and unjust. In the arguments which are to follow, I shall contrive to demonstrate the causes which impel me to repudiate the penalty.

The inefficacy of the punishment

In the exercise of the death penalty, no attempt is made to reform the criminal, seek redress for the victim, or to eliminate the causes of the crime. These are, as any candid reader shall agree, the most judicious ends to which the system of law may aspire.

Nor am I convinced that the penalty of death, or indeed of any other kind, is sufficient to dissuade those who are susceptible of murder from perpetrating it. We may readily observe, that in all those nations in which the death penalty was exercised, or continues to be exercised, only the softening of legislation has reliably reduced its use. Videlicet, that the death penalty was, due to the frequency of the relevant crimes, exercised regularly, and in itself never reduced their frequency.

The reason for this is, in my estimation, the inability of vindictive punishment to mitigate the circumstances which impel men to crime. Hanging a thief has never combated poverty. Electrocuting a murderer has never cured insanity, nor cooled the blood of mankind. What then, is the use of this punishment, which achieves the same effective end as incarceration? For in competently incarcerating a man and in killing a man, is the public not equally protected against his machinations?

The triumph of expedience over justice

By the implementation of a capital punishment, a government absolves itself from its moral obligation to promote effective justice, or contend with the difficulties which arise from the restraint from expediency. These are, principally, the cost of incarceration, the outrage of the public, the satisfaction of the rights of the criminal and how the same might be reformed.

The first is, to any government, an egregious expense, which is difficult to justify to a turbulent public. When public sentiment is resolved to the destruction of a criminal, there is little possibility of convincing it that his life ought to be preserved, especially at at public expense. For it is intolerable enough that he might be suffered to live despite his crime; the notion that he might be sustained by the means of the same public against which his offence was made is more repulsive still.

Yet where in the mandate of government is licence given to decide the worth of a man, even a low and criminal one? What restraint can there be against the powers of a government which may dictate the price of life itself? Is not the right of all human beings to life assured by universal declaration?

When, in the perpetration of a crime, does a criminal waive these same rights? What distinction is their to be made between a crime which may retain these rights and one which may dispel them? I am persuaded that there is no restraint which must so necessarily be exercised against a government, as that which protects against the subversion of the rights of its citizenry. Men should not live in fear of that law but under its protection; be they benign or nefarious, it is the principle of law that all men are equally entitled to the rights which law is designed to ensure.

No more than law can, absent the need for recompense, confiscate the legal property of the convicted, can it be justified in confiscating life, which is the universal property in which all men are equally invested.

Conclusion

By the force of the arguments which are above described, I am impelled to the conclusion that capital punishment is not just. It is not effective and it is not warranted. I am convinced that law should never be the instrument of vengeance or of low reprisal; that government should hold no Imperium over life. The law should be "inexorable to the pleas and lamentations of its prisoners, but deaf as an adder to the clamour of the public".

Side: Give them free accomodation
Linsdip(111) Disputed
1 point

It isnt revenge its prevention - if a criminal realises he could hang for his crime he will think twice about murdering the victim

Side: Hang Them
Linsdip(111) Disputed
1 point

You Say this capital punishment is not just. It is not effective and it is not warranted.

There is evidence to show that It is effective as in 1961 the murder rate was 0.57 per 100,000 pop and rose to 0.94 per 100,000 in just 10 years a 64% increase of around 190 murders per year. Ok one point to me its effective

secondly you say it isnt Just, well if sentence is passed correctly and beyond reasonable doubt most of those executed will be Justly executed and only a few would have been innocent. Far less than the 190 murdered who were definately innocent and wouldnt have been killed if hanging hadnt have been abolished.

OK another point to me its Just. Not warranted in view of the above I fail to see how it isnt warranted please explain yourself ? and are you happy to be an accessory to the murder of 190 people per annum?

Side: Hang Them
1 point

There is evidence to show that It is effective as in 1961 the murder rate was 0.57 per 100,000 pop and rose to 0.94 per 100,000 in just 10 years a 64% increase of around 190 murders per year. Ok one point to me its effective

The evidence, which I observe you do not actually provide, is not so clear as you may believe. As has been pointed out in this debate, the term "murder rate" is deceptive, and does not mean the same thing now as it did in 1961. [1]

Staying in the United States, we must acknowledge the true complexity of the circumstances, which I again observe that you do not; in that not all states have abolished the death penalty, and that in fact most states still employ it.

So, let us compare the rate of murders (as they are presently defined) in each individual state. An examination of the data will find in most cases, that the states in which the death penalty has been abolished, are in fact those in which the murder rate ranges from average to very low! [2] [3]

It is telling to note, that there is no clear correlation between rate of murder and the abolition or practice of the death penalty. Texas, the greatest practitioner of execution, has one of the highest murder rates. Louisiana, also a practitioner, has the highest murder rate in the entire country.

However, we may note a very clear positive correlation between poverty and the murder rate in the United States (compare items three and four). [4]

This data is very clear evidence for the claim which I have always made, that crime is the child of poverty and want. And it is for this reason, that I have proposed, that whereas vindictive justice is inefficacious, which has by the data which I have provided been herein established; policies which combat poverty remain our most effective deterrent to crime.

I am very sorry to inform you, that I shall now be having that point back.

ssecondly you say it isnt Just, well if sentence is passed correctly and beyond reasonable doubt most of those executed will be Justly executed and only a few would have been innocent.

This is not the meaning of justice. I made certain to illustrate in my argument, the reasons for which I consider the practice unjust, and must ask you to read it again; for nowhere in that argument did I claim that innocent people were being wrongly executed.

Not warranted in view of the above I fail to see how it isnt warranted please explain yourself ?

I did explain myself, at length. You chose to ignore about four fifths of what I said, and probably just read the emboldened titles whereby my argument was organised.

and are you happy to be an accessory to the murder of 190 people per annum?

It is amusing to note, that one who has so ably demonstrated his ignorance of the concepts of justice and legality, now passes false sentence against a man who has no connection to any murder whatever.

Side: Give them free accomodation
kjgallmeyer(22) Disputed
1 point

I can GUARANTEE that capital punishment IS EFFECTIVE! I guarantee that when that monster is killed, he will NOT hurt another innocent being again.(period)

Side: Hang Them
1 point

Based on your premise I propose a world wide capital punishment where all humans are killed to prevent all future crime. Or is protecting life more important to you than stopping crime? If it is, you provide no justification whatsoever.

Side: Give them free accomodation
1 point

I can GUARANTEE that capital punishment IS EFFECTIVE!

How, when faced with the force of the arguments which I have mustered above, you can guarantee any such thing, I admit that I am unable to conceive.

Side: Give them free accomodation
1 point

I'm against capital punishment, but not for moral reasons. It is simply more costly to the taxpayer than imprisoning criminals for life because of the courts' appeals process. Also, in my opinion, life imprisonment (especially in solitary confinement with windowless rooms) is a better punishment than a quick death.

Side: Give them free accomodation

"An eye for an eye"

- Code of Hammurabi 1780 BC

"Capital punishment for rape."

- Create Debate users 2012 AD

Side: Give them free accomodation