NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think the Death Penalty should be allowed in your country? If so, give reasons. If not, give resons. OR ELSE!

Though it would be a lot easier, you (=the government) would be degrading to the level of the criminals themselves. So no death penalty

Sometimes it kills innocent people, which is slightly worse than locking them up and accusing them of a crime they didn't commit.

The death penalty is mearly state sanctioned murder

The UK joined the rest of the civilised world in abolishing it decades ago.
Too bad the US still follows the shining examples of such bastions of democracy and human rights like Saudi Arabia and China.

No death penalty ever.

These are my reasons:

1. If killing's bad, what gives the executioner the right to kill?

2. Killing in cold blood is held to be even worse and as executions tend to happen years after the crime was comitted it's hardly heat of the moment.

3. What if they're innocent?

4. Some people claim it's a deterrent. If that was so then NO-ONE would have been murdering by the end of W's term as Texas governor! It would also mean that us Europeans would be risking our lives everytime we step outside.

Sometimes it kills innocent people, which is slightly worse than locking them up and accusing them of a crime they didn't commit.
I gotta tell ya If I was found guilty of a capital crime that I didnt commit I would rather be speedily executed than spend 2 decades gettin assraped before the mistake was discovered.

Nope, as it is a complete waste of life. People make mistakes.

Myrth mate, we of the old United Kingdom suffer from a large number of people who would like to see the death penalty returned; were it not for the lack of direct representation between the people and parliment then the masses would likely succeed in bringing it about

Of course not. The right to life is inalienable, and once you say it can be alienated by killing someone or interfering with kids, there's nothing stopping a future even more extreme government saying that you can be killed for being a socialist or parking violations. It has to be all or nothing.
Also, since Britain's acceptance of the European convention on human rights, we aren't allowed. The rest of Europe would kick off.

Even if I supported the idea of the death penalty for serious offences-which I don't- then I'd have to accept that it would not be the utilitarian thing to do, since the move from seeing the death penalty as something we abhor to something we condone would outweigh any possible peace-of-mind advantages to having serial killers dead rather than locked up.

Furthermore, the deathpenalty makes miscarriages of justice impossible to reverse.
It's essentially an outdated, retributivist idea, and we're above it.

People should be given the choice: incarceration or the death penalty.

As it stands, though, I'd say "no" to the death penalty.

The UK joined the rest of the civilised world in abolishing it decades ago.
Too bad the US still follows the shining examples of such bastions of democracy and human rights like Saudi Arabia and China.

And the U.S. is the only western country to execute people who comitted thier crimes as juveniles, along with such enlightened states as Somalia, China, Congo, Iran and Pakistan.

Myrth mate, we of the old United Kingdom suffer from a large number of people who would like to see the death penalty returned; were it not for the lack of direct representation between the people and parliment then the masses would likely succeed in bringing it about
Hooray for MPs ignoring the will of their constituents !

Do you think the Death Penalty should be allowed in your country? If so, give reasons. If not, give resons. OR ELSE!
Listen to this. It is logical.

The death penalty should NOT exist because:

Why kill someone who has imprisonment for life? They are equally as harmless if they are dead or in prison confinesment for the rest of their life. Much of the death penalty is based around emotion and the concept of "deserve" Deserve is an emotion of anger and revenge. It is not a real idea that solves things in society.

Maybe you say the death penalty will show everyone else that we mean it and it'll give them criminals fear and teach them not to do it in the first place. Well, most who commit murders or atrocities are depressed, or don't really care about life. They don't care if they die. The death penalty won't have an effect on those people.

Maybe you say it costs too much money. First of all, if you have a kid, and you are running out of money, you don't KILL him just because you don't have enough money to support him! No matter WHAT he does!
Second of all, believe it or not, the death penalty overall costs MORE than life imprisonment costs. Do the research, look it up.

Also, since Britain's acceptance of the European convention on human rights, we aren't allowed. The rest of Europe would kick off.

I humbly accept your point; though I also add in a sensationalistic manner- untill the next Torygovernment

I gotta tell ya If I was found guilty of a capital crime that I didnt commit I would rather be speedily executed than spend 2 decades gettin assraped before the mistake was discovered.

Speedily executed? Ha! They stay on death row for years.

Perhaps, it's not high on the public agenda

Speedily executed? Ha! They stay on death row for years.
Thats why I specified would "rather be speedily executed" ......... (Ha!)

Thats why I specified would "rather be speedily executed" ......... (Ha!)

Touche!:D

Myrth mate, we of the old United Kingdom suffer from a large number of people who would like to see the death penalty returned; were it not for the lack of direct representation between the people and parliment then the masses would likely succeed in bringing it about

Highly unlikely.

The UK joined the rest of the civilised world in abolishing it decades ago.
Too bad the US still follows the shining examples of such bastions of democracy and human rights like Saudi Arabia and China.

Some see it the other way, naturally. Some see it as barbaric for a nation such as France or the UK to refuse to administer punishments that reflect the nature of the crime. However, if the will of the people in either of those nations is against the proscribed punishment, the conscience of the people should be heard in the governance of its citizens and criminals, in my opinion.

Highly unlikely.

An awsume comeback, though the internet dosen't seem to be teeming with information, I may have to go find a book

Some see it the other way, naturally. Some see it as barbaric for a nation such as France or the UK to refuse to administer punishments that reflect the nature of the crime. However, if the will of the people in either of those nations is against the proscribed punishment, the conscience of the people should be heard in the governance of its citizens and criminals, in my opinion.

That on the otherhand is a fairly well phrased, if a little emotive, argument

Some see it the other way, naturally. Some see it as barbaric for a nation such as France or the UK to refuse to administer punishments that reflect the nature of the crime. However, if the will of the people in either of those nations is against the proscribed punishment, the conscience of the people should be heard in the governance of its citizens and criminals, in my opinion.

"An eye for an eye will make the world go blind."

An awsume comeback, though the internet dosen't seem to be teeming with information, I may have to go find a book
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crime/_story/0,13260,942118,00.html

Some see it the other way, naturally. Some see it as barbaric for a nation such as France or the UK to refuse to administer punishments that reflect the nature of the crime. However, if the will of the people in either of those nations is against the proscribed punishment, the conscience of the people should be heard in the governance of its citizens and criminals, in my opinion.

Actually, here in Britain anyway, about 60% of people support the death penalty. It's one of the rare examples that show that occasionally the government really do know what's best for the people.

"An eye for an eye will make the world go blind."
Imagine how much sense that would make if the whole world was guilty of capital offences.

Imagine how much sense that would make if the whole world was guilty of capital offences.

It's not? *looks up from doomsday device prototype* :confused:

Actually, here in Britain anyway, about 60% of people support the death penalty. It's one of the rare examples that show that occasionally the government really do know what's best for the people.
Yeah and if 40% of the British public were in favour of the death penalty but the government decided to ignore the 60% who were against it because they "knew what was best for the people" you would have no problem with that?

Imagine how much sense that would make if the whole world was guilty of capital offences.
Actually, only *half* the world would have to be guilty of capital offences. The capital offenders poke out the eyes of the innocent, and then the innocents poke out the eyes of the capital offenders (althought this may take a few attempts on the part of the innocents).

There are cases in which the death penalty is appropriate. Yet if someone is strapped to a chair and electrocuted or if someone injects a poison into them, isn't that cruel? If someone did that "in private", meaning it wasn't a state or national execution, wouldn't we consider that sick and degenerate, and somehow worse than if they had just shot someone? The executioner rarely even knows the accused, and yet he kills him.
Some people may deserve death, but noone should have the legal right to give it to him or her.

Actually, only *half* the world would have to be guilty of capital offences. The capital offenders poke out the eyes of the innocent, and then innocent poke out the eyes of the capital offenders (althought this may take a few attempts on the part of the innocents).
and since half the world being guilty is just as likely as the whole world being guilty I agree with everything you say;)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crime/_story/0,13260,942118,00.html

Thanks for the link, I was concentrating on trying to find a reliable update on what's going on in Afghanistan; that place is of the main stream media radar

Yeah and if 40% of the British public were in favour of the death penalty but the government decided to ignore the 60% who were against it because they "knew what was best for the people" you would have no problem with that?

Uhh... no. because it wouldn't be best. :rolleyes: ... ?!!??!

ok, since I see no-one else has argued this point...
lets take a buddhist, or even hindu point of view.
Reincarnation. You kill them, they're only going to be back in a while anyway! may as well lock them up to keep them out of the way for as long as possible.
:D

nah, seriously. I used to be for the death penalty, but I just don't think it's a viable option any more. I haven't learned anything to drastically alter my opinion, just my perspective changed slightly for no real reason. meh. I mean, it's hardly the best deterrent ever of crime, because there's till lots of crime where the death penalty is. It just seems outdated and quite an embarassingly crude way to solve a problem in society, by killing it.

Nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so.

It is of course also an admision of society failing the individual and thus also failing the victims by admiting that these crimes will happen and that the only solution is to remove the threat after the event

Its hardly the best deterrent ever of crime, because there's till lots of crime where the death penalty is.
Hmm even if the death penalty was no deterrent at all- it certainly results in a very low rate of reoffending ;)

and since half the world being guilty is just as likely as the whole world being guilty I agree with everything you say;)

Surely if only one person was guilty- someone would execute them, thus becoming guilty and requiring a further person to execute them and incriminate themselves. Thus the whole population is executed, domino style.

sheesh, how long did that take?

Surely if only one person was guilty- someone would execute them, thus becoming guilty .
The executioner would be acting within the law and hence guilty of nothing
sheesh, how long did that take?
No idea, invest in a stopwatch

One would remain, no?

Hmm even if the death penalty was no deterrent at all- it certainly results in a very low rate of reoffending ;)

how could I forget! That's what made me agree with it! I'm me again!
Of course, it does encourage grave-robbing, eh? unless you don't bother with that little side-effect =P
And lets not forget what could happen if a criminal, say one Abi Normal's, brain was used in some kind of experiment by accident? What would happen then?

(Mel Brooks.... I think I love you.)

People should be given the choice: incarceration or the death penalty.

As it stands, though, I'd say "no" to the death penalty.

That idea (the choice) sounded so good for about 8 seconds... If you are given the choice, I can see suicidal people killing smomeone so they will be executed (if they think they want to die but are unable to kill themselves).

So no death penalty, except in truly heinous crimes (mass murder, killing children)... Oh wait, then they'd have to execute Bush.

Does the U.S execute war criminals or imprison them?

The executioner would be acting within the law and hence guilty of nothing

Actually, only *half* the world would have to be guilty of capital offences. The capital offenders poke out the eyes of the innocent, and then innocent poke out the eyes of the capital offenders (althought this may take a few attempts on the part of the innocents).

And yet you accept the logic of this, which is the same thing but in two stages instead of loads.

consistency. :P

They asked the 55% who think some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes than others which ethnic groups they think are most likely.


Asian 39%
White British 19%
Oriental 8%


What's the diffrence between Asian and Oriental?

Do you think the Death Penalty should be allowed in your country? If so, give reasons. If not, give resons. OR ELSE!
("I beleive that the death penalty should stand, i believe in an eye for an eye, a life for a life")

What is your source?

Does the U.S execute war criminals or imprison them?

Treason is punishable by death, but almost never is.

That idea (the choice) sounded so good for about 8 seconds... If you are given the choice, I can see suicidal people killing smomeone so they will be executed (if they think they want to die but are unable to kill themselves).

Then why, in countries where there is a standard death penalty for murder, aren't suicidal people slaughtering everyone all over the place?

And yet you accept the logic of this, which is the same thing but in two stages instead of loads.

consistency. :P
Make sense!

One would remain, no?

Yeah, but one's no good. S/He would die soon enough anyway. Unless it was Ray Mears, who could probably survive in a depopulated world.

No. It's a draconian measure that has no place in any enlightened, peaceable society

No. It's a draconian measure that has no place in any enlightened, peaceable society

Since when have we been enlightened and peaceable?

Make sense!

Yeah, it was a bit ropey.
I meant:

If you accept the scenario in which 1/2 of the world is blinded for a crime, and then blinds the other half for blinding them, than there's no reason to dismiss a scenario where one person is blinded, thus making the blinder guilty of blinding, so they have to be blinded by someone else, who in turn becomes guilty etc. until the whole world is blinded in a domino style as nonsensical on the basis that the blinders would not be eligable for blinding, having acted within law, since they WERE eligable for blinding in the first scenario, which was accepted.

This was really just a throwaway kind of comment, I can't believe it's gone on for so long.

Yeah, but one's no good. S/He would die soon enough anyway. Unless it was Ray Mears, who could probably survive in a depopulated world.

Actually if your biblical then by the time the poulation gets down to about thirty or forty thousand then it would be rapture time and God would descend and lift those worthy few remains of humanity up into heaven.

I believe that GWB is a supporter of the rapture

Treason is punishable by death, but almost never is.
Nobody's been fried for a crime against the nation, per se, in the U.S. since the Rosenbergs were executed for espionage in 1953. And they gave the Soviets a bunch of useless information and were basically blamed for the Korean War by the judge. They were killed for their politics.

Since when have we been enlightened and peaceable?

Very good point. But I, for one, am trying to become enlightened. The Death Penalty would be a backward step in my opinion.

...and I'm fairly peaceable :mp5:

For those who think that killing someone is a good way of stopping people reoffending...

hey, here's an idea:

LOCK THEM UP FOR GOOD.

By the time the death penalty can be used on a criminal he is already in custody. He is no longer a threat to anyone if he is not released. I say it's barbaric to kill someone who isn't a threat.

If the convicted is undeniably guilty and shows no remorse, or killed in a horrific and completely unjust way...then yes, the death penalty should be the sentence. In my opinion.

I'm for the DP, but it should be reformed. Used only in severe cases when guilt is undeniable, and cut down on the number of appeals to lower costs.

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and soon the whole world is blind and toothless"

Someone who kills in the heat of the moment is unlikey to do so again, it will usually be a one-off and they will feel remorse. Therefore, yes punish and help to make sure they don't again, but don't kill.

Anyone who isn't a one off and who does it in cold blood, has some kind of problem and needs help and counselling. Not death.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They're just as bad as each other.
If murder is so incredibly awful that it should be punished with death then why is an exception made for the executioner?

Two wrongs don't make a right. They're just as bad as each other.
If murder is so incredibly awful that it should be punished with death then why is an exception made for the executioner?
Because muder is the illegal killing of another human being. Should police officers who forcibly incarcerate kidnappers be put in jail for kidnapping?

No, because kidnapping is seizing and detaining someone unlawfully. Murder & executioners are the same way.

May I add to the comparisons used to justify not having the death penalty that the only two countries in Europe and Central Asia that have the death penalty are Belarus and Uzbekistan for whom the death penalty is a sign of their brutality and repression.
Also, once the death penalty has been carried out there is no going back on it even if the person convicted of the crime is innocent. I read that a former governor of Illinois put a moratorium on executions when he suspected that a substantial number of people on death row in that state were innocent.

I don't feel like giving a reason right now *waves her limp wrists in your face tauntingly*...what are you going to do about it?

No.

If someones committed a crime bad enough to deserve the death penalty, I think it'd be a better idea to lock them up and throw away the key. Let them spend the rest of their lives regretting it, rather than kill them and put an end to it.

Of course, then theres overcrowding in prisons...but hey.

Sorry if someones mentioned that before, but I'm too lazy/tired/...lazy... to read the whole thread;)

The UK joined the rest of the civilised world in abolishing it decades ago.
Too bad the US still follows the shining examples of such bastions of democracy and human rights like Saudi Arabia and China.

Sorry Myrth, the death penalty is still on the UK statute books, for High Treason and for Desertion in the face of enemy fire. I beleive it also applies to enemy spies aprehended in wartime.

The death penalty may well have its place in cases like that of Gary Gilmore, where the defendant admits guilt and accepts/desires that the death penalty is appropriate. There is nothing uncivilised in recognising the fear of some individuals that if allowed to survive they may commit further heinous atrocities.

Sorry Myrth, the death penalty is still on the UK statute books, for High Treason and for Desertion in the face of enemy fire. I beleive it also applies to enemy spies aprehended in wartime.



It may well still technically be on the statute books, but it'd be against EU law to use it.

It's kind of along the lines a few laws that have yet to be repealed giving Englishmen the right to kill Welsh men at certain times in certain places.

If the convicted is undeniably guilty and shows no remorse, or killed in a horrific and completely unjust way...then yes, the death penalty should be the sentence. In my opinion.

There is no way of stopping people who may/may not have committed a horrific and unjust murder from being a victim of a miscarriage of justice in the same way that you can't stop any other criminal from being a victim of a miscarriage of justice. The law is not more thorough if a crime is more serious. Also, I don't believe that anyone can be undeniably guilty (even a confession or a guilty plea can be fake or not given by someone who understands the situation) that is why we have trials. As the justice system is based on fallible people there can always be mistakes and this is why the death sentence should not be introduced to leave room for redress of errors ewven in the most horrific cases. I respectfully register my opinion.

It may well still technically be on the statute books, but it'd be against EU law to use it.

It's kind of along the lines a few laws that have yet to be repealed giving Englishmen the right to kill Welsh men at certain times in certain places.

Those laws, about the welshman, are urban legends. The death penalty ones are not. The EU laws do not overule the individual laws of the member nations, where the two conflict the national law takes precedence. (Treaty of Rome stuff) SO, the UK still has the DP, even though it would not use it I think.

It may well still technically be on the statute books, but it'd be against EU law to use it.
.
1. IIRC, the EU allows the use of the death penalty under military law during war time.
2. EU law is not binding, as far as I know, on British judiciary.

It's one of the rare examples that show that occasionally the government really do know what's best for the people.
Ja, Herr Fuhrer!

In my country (Sweden yay!) their hasen't been an execution since 1917, and it was a "Angelmaker"... a woman too :eek:
An Angelmaker is ,a often a woman, taking care of a bastard child for a fee but "malnurishes" the child to death.
The woman was convicted for the deaths of 7 children and was hang
I do not think there is any need for death penalties in Sweden, I think they scraped that punishment about 70 years ago
another thing. Sweden was the first nation EVER to abolish child abuse uuh.. I mean make it illegal since it still accurs :mad:

The death penalty is mearly state sanctioned murder Is prison merely state sanctioned kidnapping?

1. IIRC, the EU allows the use of the death penalty under military law during war time.
2. EU law is not binding, as far as I know, on British judiciary.
2. Yes it is.


Although I think that death penalty is the right way to deal with some crimes, I oppose it as a general means of punishment because of the nature of any judicial system, which can be flawed. In cases were there are no doubts about someone's crimes (because they were comitted publicly or with the knowledge of all, e.g. mass murderers, dictators, people killing off entire eco systems) I would regard death penalty as justified.

Anyone who isn't a one off and who does it in cold blood, has some kind of problem and needs help and counselling. Not death. Anyone who has more compassion for a murderer than their victims needs counselling.
If murder is so incredibly awful that it should be punished with death then why is an exception made for the executioner?
If kidnapping is awful enough to deserve imprisonment, then why is an exception made for the jailer?

The death penalty does not serve any purpose except for revenge. In my humble (non-religious) opinion, the government does not need to be in the business of revenge. Okay, my opinion is not so humble. There is no reasonable excuse for the death penalty. My opinion is not based on religion (the poll options are stupid) but reason.

I support the death penalty 100%. With the technology today, its unlikely that an innocent person would be convicted. Also, I believe in the Golden Rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Meaning, if you kill someone you WANT to be killed. And dont get dumb and say what about the executioner, what he/she does is not killing, its mopping up the worst of society. Also, dont get dumb and say what about war. A person who fought and killed a person in a war does not deserve the death penalty, because they fought and killed for their country. UNLESS, they massacre people, like what happened in Vietnam.

The death penalty does not serve any purpose except for revenge. In my humble (non-religious) opinion, the government does not need to be in the business of revenge. Okay, my opinion is not so humble. There is no reasonable excuse for the death penalty. My opinion is not based on religion (the poll options are stupid) but reason.

Cost? Housing a prisoner for life is a lot more expensive than killing him.

I am for the death penalty.
The reason is that criminals are the scum of the earth and have hurt good people. No mercy for them.
I hate criminals, I really do, so they can burn in hell for all I care. It is a damn shame that we pay to feed them and house them for so long, just kill them, bullets are not that expensive.

Yes. Punish the bastards.

why do we sterilize the needle before a lethal injection?

I support the death penalty 100%. With the technology today, its unlikely that an innocent person would be convicted. Also, I believe in the Golden Rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Meaning, if you kill someone you WANT to be killed. And dont get dumb and say what about the executioner, what he/she does is not killing, its mopping up the worst of society. Also, dont get dumb and say what about war. A person who fought and killed a person in a war does not deserve the death penalty, because they fought and killed for their country. UNLESS, they massacre people, like what happened in Vietnam.

The Innocence Project estimates that one in twenty-seven persons executed is not guilty.

The Innocence Project estimates that one in twenty-seven persons executed is not guilty.

Yeah, personally I dont think that is that bad. And with inproving technology, that number will shrink and soon, almost never will the convict an innocent person.

why do we sterilize the needle before a lethal injection?
In case there's a last-minute call from the Governor....

why do we sterilize the needle before a lethal injection?Standard medical protocol. Even when administering the kiss of death, getting lazy about such important procedures is not an option. They must be followed without deviation. It is the same mentality by which hunters never, EVER point a gun at a living human being, even if it is known to be unloaded or EVEN if it is an obvious fascimile of a weapon. The point is to preserve the mentality that everything, EVERYTHING must be clean.

And then you have those little last-minute calls from the governor.

Yes. In the case of life sentences I think the death penalty should be used instead.

Reasons:
1) Economy
2) Humane To Victims/Victim's Family and Victimizer
3) Terror Works

1) Economy. It is a lot cheaper to kill a man than leave him rotting in jail for 75 years.
2) Humane. Instead of keeping someone locked up in a cage, we are giving them a get out of jail free card. They'd be stuck there for their life anyways, so let's make it a short life. It is also better for the victims/families because they know that no one else will suffer the same fate as them. It also relieves the load off of society, one more foul creature, that will never walk this earth again.
3) Terror works. As seen through Christian Evangelism, Despotisms and terror networks, fear works. If people are scared shitless even thinking about murdering someone because they know they get equal retribution, or committing other serious crimes, chances are, crime will be greatly reduced.

As for innocent people, the number is nothing compared to the number that will be protected when crime goes straight down the tube.

Sorry Myrth, the death penalty is still on the UK statute books, for High Treason and for Desertion in the face of enemy fire. I beleive it also applies to enemy spies aprehended in wartime.

The death penalty may well have its place in cases like that of Gary Gilmore, where the defendant admits guilt and accepts/desires that the death penalty is appropriate. There is nothing uncivilised in recognising the fear of some individuals that if allowed to survive they may commit further heinous atrocities.

From the Amnesty site:

UK abolishes death penalty completely and signs up to a permanent ban

With the passage of the Human Rights Act in November 1998, the United Kingdom joined the ranks of "fully abolitionist" countries . The UK Government had introduced a late amendment to the Human Rights Bill in October 1998 that removed the death penalty as a possible punishment for military offences under the Armed Forces Acts.

The death penalty had been available for five military wartime offences: Serious Misconduct in Action; Communicating with the Enemy; Aiding the Enemy or Furnishing Supplies; Obstructing Operations or Giving False Air Signals; Mutiny, Incitement to Mutiny or Failure to Suppress a Mutiny. The last execution under military law was in 1942. In July 1998, Armed Forces Minister Dr John Reid MP had announced that the Government would repeal the death penalty for military offences - and that this had the support of the military top brass.

The UK Government made an international commitment to the permanent abolition of the death penalty on 20 May 1999, when it ratified Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Protocol 6 is an international human rights treaty which commits a government to the permanent abolition of the death penalty. It has been ratified by all other European Union member states

I believe that a lifetime in prison is a much worse punishment than death penalty. Death is quite a quick escape compared to that. So I really don't see why it is thought to be the ultimate punishment, nor why we need to ban it.

Check this out, from the same Amnesty site:

It is almost two hundred years since Samuel Romilly introduced reforms in 1808 to abolish the death penalty for some of the 200-plus capital offences under England's "Bloody Code".

Capital offences in this "Bloody Code" included:


being in the company of gypsies for one month
vagrancy for soldiers and sailors
"strong evidence of malice" in children aged 7-14 years of age

Between 1832-34 Parliament abolished the death penalty for shoplifting goods worth five shillings or less, returning from transportation, letter-stealing and sacrilege.

Reminds me of that Young Ones episode...:

Jester: What were you caught doing?
Prisoner: Whistleing on a Tuesday, Jester.
Jester: You bastard! :D

They asked the 55% who think some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes than others which ethnic groups they think are most likely.



What's the diffrence between Asian and Oriental?

In the UK Asian refers to those from bangladesh, india, pakistan etc and Ortiental refers to japanese, chinese, korean etc.