Metropol

Apples and oranges.

What people say in polls (in the USA) clearly has no correlation to the number of sentences being overturned, or indeed to the number of people sentenced to death. So whether its "popular" or not is irrelevant to what a criminal thinks about the death sentence.

Even if 90% of the public backed it, it would make no difference to the justice systems handling of cases; therefore its effectiveness as a deterrent is unlikely to be enhanced.

Chie wrote: So *almost* a quarter of people would undermine the law if the death penalty was enforced here. I think that's still too many people. If 90% of the population supported the death penalty then I would say it's reasonable to bring it back. But they don't, so we shouldn't.

Surely you should base your opinion on whether you think it’s acceptable, not what other people think.

Lets say, you didn't have the aid of opnion polls and you were in charge would you personally bring it back?

wells wrote:Surely you should base your opinion on whether you think it’s acceptable, not what other people think.

Lets say, you didn't have the aid of opnion polls and you were in charge would you personally bring it back?

Well we know Chie detests focus groups. They "cause carnage".

wells wrote:

Chie wrote: So *almost* a quarter of people would undermine the law if the death penalty was enforced here. I think that's still too many people. If 90% of the population supported the death penalty then I would say it's reasonable to bring it back. But they don't, so we shouldn't.

Surely you should base your opinion on whether you think it’s acceptable, not what other people think.

Lets say, you didn't have the aid of opnion polls and you were in charge would you personally bring it back?

No. Because to do so, I'd have to be a dictator.

We live in a democracy, and if 90% of voters wanted the death penalty, I would give it to them. Conversely if 90% of people were against it, I wouldn't. There has to be overwhelming public sentiment behind the law, otherwise it's completely ineffectual.

Personally I don't want the death penalty in the UK. However, the scope of my opinion does not extend to the judicial affairs of other countries. They can do what they like, I don't care. Who am I to go marching over to wherever and tell them that the British culture is superior to theirs, and that they must change their laws? It would be practically imperialist.

Chie wrote:We live in a democracy, and if 90% of voters wanted the death penalty, I would give it to them. Conversely if 90% of people were against it, I wouldn't. There has to be overwhelming public sentiment behind the law, otherwise it's completely ineffectual.

Personally I don't want the death penalty in the UK. However, the scope of my opinion does not extend to the judicial affairs of other countries. They can do what they like, I don't care. Who am I to go marching over to wherever and tell them that the British culture is superior to theirs, and that they must change their laws? It would be practically imperialist.

You don't have to go marching anywhere to say that you disagree. Interesting to see you say, "I don't care".

I wonder, would you mind awfully doing a personality test for us? Its called the Briggs-Meyer test, and it was done by several of us here a few years ago.

http://www.metropol247.co.uk/forum/view ... 07&start=0

The test is here: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

It takes about 5 mins.

I only ask, as I'm something of a "champion idealist", so I do tend to "care" about things I see that bother me.

Yes but what use would saying 'I disagree with what you do in your country' do?

Your Type is: INFJ

Strength of the preferences:
Introverted 44%
Intuitive 25%
Feeling 62%
Judging 33%

Idealist Portrait of the Counselor (INFJ)

Introverted iNtuitive Feeling Judging

Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:

* moderately expressed introvert
* moderately expressed intuitive personality
* distinctively expressed feeling personality
* moderately expressed judging personality

I felt some of the questions were either too awkward, ambiguous or limited so I copied the list and added annotations in brackets to clarify some of my answers:
http://up.metropol247.co.uk/Chie/test.txt

Counselors have an exceptionally strong desire to contribute to the welfare of others, and find great personal fulfillment interacting with people, nurturing their personal development, guiding them to realize their human potential. Although they are happy working at jobs (such as writing) that require solitude and close attention, Counselors do quite well with individuals or groups of people, provided that the personal interactions are not superficial, and that they find some quiet, private time every now and then to recharge their batteries.

Interesting. That's why I questioned you saying you "don't care". I *think* there's a part of you which sets out to shock or be (at a push) obstreperous. But your personality type, according to this, is one I haven't dealt with as much as other types.

Incidentally, everyone finds some of the questions vague or tricky to answer. I should have said don't overthink your answers, and if in doubt go with your immediate instinct. If you take a long time over it then it can invalidate it quite a bit.

Chie, if 90% of people decided there should be no taxes, should taxes be abolished?

Gavin Scott wrote:Incidentally, everyone finds some of the questions vague or tricky to answer. I should have said don't overthink your answers, and if in doubt go with your immediate instinct. If you take a long time over it then it can invalidate it quite a bit.

Okay. I clicked the first answer that came to mind anyway.

marksi wrote:Chie, if 90% of people decided there should be no taxes, should taxes be abolished?

They wouldn't, because they would be abolishing the NHS, education, national defence and benefits. And the criminal justice system. If they really, really want to say goodbye to all that, then yes, let them eat cake.

They'd soon be demanding for taxes to be reinstated.

The death penalty's efficacy as a deterrent (if we may get back on topic, please) must surely be measured by the murder rates in this country.

Such statistics are available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... 99-111.pdf - the relevant ones are on page 15. Note that as the report was compiled in 1999, statistics are only available up to 1997.

But for those who can't be bothered, I shall attempt a table:

These statistics show the murder rate steadily falling up to the early 1960s, and then rising rapidly over the next 10-15 years. It is of course pure coincidence that the last execution in the UK was in 1964, and the death penalty was finally abolished for murder in 1969 - isn't it?

Parbold 103.53 wrote:The death penalty's efficacy as a deterrent (if we may get back on topic, please) must surely be measured by the murder rates in this country.

Such statistics are available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... 99-111.pdf - the relevant ones are on page 15. Note that as the report was compiled in 1999, statistics are only available up to 1997.

But for those who can't be bothered, I shall attempt a table:

Code: Select all

Year     Homicides (per million of population)

1900      9.6
1910      8.1
1920      8.3
1930      7.5
1940      ---
1950      7.9
1955      6.3
1960      6.2
1965      6.8
1970      8.1
1975      10.3
1980      12.5
1985      12.5
1990      13.5
1995      14.5
1997      14.1

These statistics show the murder rate steadily falling up to the early 1960s, and then rising rapidly over the next 10-15 years. It is of course pure coincidence that the last execution in the UK was in 1964, and the death penalty was finally abolished for murder in 1969 - isn't it?

Well I'd have to counterpoint that with the rise of gun ownership, gang culture, rise in general population, shorter tempers, and weird goings on in the village of Midsomer.

On the original question, unequivocally NO. The death penalty is abhorrent.