Because why should someone who has committed Murder have the opportunity to reform when the victim has no second chance and the victims loved one's have to continue as before without their loved one?
[QUOTE/The purpose of a government in a society is to ensure stability, and the abolition of capital punishment has really not affected that in a bad way. Reform has actually improved it, too.[/QUOTE]
The purpose of a Government is to protect the people and ensure Justice is done. I would suggest that abolition has affected this negatively.
If you want to see a society with no chance of rehabilitation, look at the glorious US prison system. That's what happens when you shove a bunch of people together and consider them write-offs, and apart from being morally reprehensible it's extremely expensive.
I cannot comment on the US prison system as I don't know enough facts about it. Please elaborate on what, in your view, makes it "Morally Reprehensible"
The average cost of a prisoner is in the tens of thousands of pounds per year; the average cost of putting someone to death is in the order of $3 million.
Only because of the endless, drawn out, appeals process where defence lawyers cause delay after delay with appeal after appeal, often on the most tenuous of reasons, with cases being referred to higher courts, before being referred down again, and so on and so on. I concur that the Americans should overhaul and streamline the process.
Also, your statistics are wrong:
According to this
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/historical-crime-data the murder rates are:
1952: 400
1962: 299
1972: 476
1982: 618
1992: 687
2002: 891
2012: 512
So yes, an increase, but not the drastic one you're claiming. You're forgetting that it's become easier to convict people with advances in technology, too. Fingerprinting only became reliable in the '70s, for example, which massively helped convictions. I mean, the 'violence against a person' convictions have increased from ~2000 in 1900 to 650,000 in 2000, and so it's pretty clear that it's become much easier to prove things. I don't think even the worst naysayers would argue that violent crime is 300 times worse than it was 100 years ago...
I make no claim as to the 100% accuracy or otherwise of my statistic's, especially as I did the maths which isn't my strongest subject, but I notice the figures provided in the link you posted refer to "Homicides", as opposed to Murder, which includes Manslaughter and Infanticide. The figures posted are also, I believe Homicides reported, and not convictions?
http://http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN03805
The above document is one I referred to in my previous post.
The graph on page 2 shows the Homicide rate goes up and down from year to year, but also shows the rate increased vastly after abolition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What cases do you mean, and why are they different?
I mean all cases, but I was referring to Dennehy, Lee Rigby's killers and April Jone's killer, etc as being especially abhorrent.
