Capital punishment

[Buce]

 

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder?

 

If so, for all murders? Or just certain types of murder (for example, murder of police; murder of a child; premeditated murder; murder while committing another crime)?

[stripeyfox]

Yes I think it should be an option for the trial judge upon conviction. 

 

 

[peach0000]

I always think there is some kind of doubt as to whether any particularly criminal is guilty or not. Nothing is clear cut enough to take the risk of ending a life unjustly. Also death is too good for some of the sickest criminals, they deserve to suffer for the rest of their life.

Edited 25 February 2018 by peach0000

[lifted*fox]

nope.

[Mark_w]

No.

[katieakita]

1 minute ago, peach0000 said:

I always think there is some kind of doubt as to whether any particularly criminal is guilty or not. Nothing is clear cut enough to take the risk of ending a life unjustly. Also death is too good for some of the sickest criminals, they deserve to suffer for the rest of their life.

Ian Huntley,Peter Sutcliffe a big old list and the cost to keep them comes out of a bucket money spent on them could be better served on other areas of society 

[stripeyfox]

Take someone like Ian Huntley. Safe conviction of the murder (and god knows what else) of two 10 year old girls. 

 

Zero point in keeping him alive. Lethal injection or bullet through head - not fussed.

 

Next!

 

 

[Innovindil]

I personally think it should be given as a punishment option for those who are beyond redemption. Those criminals who have committed multiple murders who have no problems confessing to them or admitting they would do it again. 

 

No reason to keep these people alive. 

[Strokes]

No but I don’t have absolute faith in our justice system, I would rather we make prisions a bit more unpleasant for lifers and career criminals.

Edited 25 February 2018 by Strokes

[peach0000]

2 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Ian Huntley,Peter Sutcliffe a big old list and the cost to keep them comes out of a bucket money spent on them could be better served on other areas of society 

I get that argument and I don't fully disagree with it but for every ian huntley and peter sutcliffe there's a birmingham six. Wrongful imprisonment can be righted but the death penalty can not. 

[peach0000]

7 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

Take someone like Ian Huntley. Safe conviction of the murder (and god knows what else) of two 10 year old girls. 

 

Zero point in keeping him alive. Lethal injection or bullet through head - not fussed.

 

Next!

 

 

I'd much rather him be kept at minimum cost in a cell barely big enough to move in with no light. 

Edited 25 February 2018 by peach0000

[katieakita]

Just now, peach0000 said:

I'd much rather him be kept at minimum cost in a cell barely big enough to move with no light. 

He will not though he will be looked after at great expense to the taxpayer. It is a really hard question though with arguments both ways.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

I always think there is some kind of doubt as to whether any particularly criminal is guilty or not. Nothing is clear cut enough to take the risk of ending a life unjustly. Also death is too good for some of the sickest criminals, they deserve to suffer for the rest of their life.

 

6 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Ian Huntley,Peter Sutcliffe a big old list and the cost to keep them comes out of a bucket money spent on them could be better served on other areas of society 

This is the only argument needed tbh.

 

In principle I might be for the DP in very specific cases, however in practice until you can have absolute proof for every single DP conviction, you're going to run the risk of executing an innocent party, and that is unacceptable IMO, unless the idea of collateral damage of that type is something that some folks would be OK with.

 

You can set an innocent man free and compensate him - you can't bring him back to life. Absolute punishments require absolute proof.

[StanSP]

I once asked an ex what she thought of capital punishment and no word of a lie she actually said 'why would someone have to go to the capital to be punished?' 

 

 

[The Quick Brown Fox]

Yep. For people that are convicted and there is irrefutable evidence it was them. 

[Izzy]

My argument for it was mostly around cost to the taxpayer for keeping lifers in prison. For someone like Huntley for example it could cost around £1.5m if he serves his 40 years behind bars.

 

On further reading, there is an argument that the death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment. I found this difficult to believe but apparently the long drawn out appeals process and extra legal costs (in the USA anyway) can apparently end up costing more than keeping the person in prison for the rest of their days.

 

I get the bit about wrongful imprisonment/Birmingham six etc, but I really struggle when certain murderers show no remorse and clearly take pride in what they've done. I can't see the benefit to anyone in keeping these animals alive.

[Webbo]

There are good arguments for and against but I tend to lean towards against.

[Guest the fox]

Yes (for the death penalty!)
Most killers should get slept. But there are of course exemptions. self defense, a kill in the heat of the moment or retaliation killing (imo) shouldn't warrant the death penalty.

As for child killers/rapists, even death is too kind for them!

 

Putting my tinfoil hat here but i would hazard a guess that most people who vote "No" for the death penalty don't believe in the after life so they want to punish them while they are still alive. Imo, sub-humans who rape and kill kids should have their human rights and constitutional rights droped and be sent to a place befitting for them!

 

Edited 25 February 2018 by the fox

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

My argument for it was mostly around cost to the taxpayer for keeping lifers in prison. For someone like Huntley for example it could cost around £1.5m if he serves his 40 years behind bars.

 

On further reading, there is an argument that the death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment. I found this difficult to believe but apparently the long drawn out appeals process and extra legal costs (in the USA anyway) can apparently end up costing more than keeping the person in prison for the rest of their days.

 

I get the bit about wrongful imprisonment/Birmingham six etc, but I really struggle when certain murderers show no remorse and clearly take pride in what they've done. I can't see the benefit to anyone in keeping these animals alive.

3

It's a difficult one, isn't it?

 

How sure do you have to be that someone did do something worthy of the DP? How sure can you be, when the legal process can only rely on second-hand witness testimony and forensic evidence, both of which can be faked or coerced given the time and application?

 

Where exactly is the line drawn?

[Alf Bentley]

Important as a potential miscarriage of justice is, I disagree with the idea that it is the only or main reason to oppose the death penalty.

 

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances because life is precious and killing people is the worst thing anyone can do.

I cannot see any justification for the state, on our behalf, telling even the most brutal of murderers: "You have killed someone in cold blood, the foulest possible crime. To show you this is wrong, we're going to kill you in cold blood".

 

The vile murder of Drummer Lee Rigby is the most obvious example. There cannot be any serious doubt as to the guilt of the culprits: multiple witnesses, culprits stayed at scene with bloody knives, and were videoed saying why they did it before fighting the police (can't remember whether there may have been CCTV footage, too?). Despite their 100% clear guilt, I'd oppose their execution. Murder, whether by individuals or the state, is very wrong, as I see it.

 

I'm not a pacifist. Like most, I'd like to see as little violence as possible, but could imagine killing in self-defence, to protect a loved one or in a justified war (hopefully never going to happen). For me, capital punishment is just wrong. Should the state also employ professional rapists, I wonder, to act on our behalf by raping those who have been securely convicted of rape? No, that would be lowering ourselves into the gutter with the criminals and we aspire to higher values than them, surely?

 

As regards punishment, which is the greater punishment, a quick death or decades, potentially a lifetime, with deprivation of liberty - and, in some cases, realisation by the criminals of the gravity of the offences that they have committed?

OK, some will never care about what they have done. But imagine the torment of fully realising and feeling the guilt for having destroyed other people's lives and having to live with that for the rest of your life.

 

I take the point about the cost of keeping someone in prison for life. But there are other ways of addressing that. In some cases, assets and property can be seized. And I wouldn't oppose the idea of making prisoners serving a life sentence work (in the prison) and pay most or all of their salary in compensation to victims and/or to fund their keep. In general, prison costs could be reduced by making less serious criminals do community service instead of being imprisoned (not killers, dangerous criminals or those with a high risk of absconding, obviously).

[a_k_b]

Its a yes from me. But they must have irrefutable evidence they are guilty.

 

We are far to soft in this country on crime

 

 

[Izzy]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's a difficult one, isn't it?

 

How sure do you have to be that someone did do something worthy of the DP? How sure can you be, when the legal process can only rely on second-hand witness testimony and forensic evidence, both of which can be faked or coerced given the time and application?

 

Where exactly is the line drawn?

You're right Mac, it is a difficult one. 

 

I guess I'm talking about extreme and rare circumstances. If something like what that nutter Brevik did in Norway happened here for example (or the latest cvnt in Florida with the school shootings), it's obvious to everyone they were running around with guns killing people. I can't see how you could have a false conviction in these cases and for me the death penalty should be an option to a judge here.

 

[Jaspa]

No. You cant say an act is completely abhorrent and carry it out as a culture, even if 1/1,000,000 death row inmates are wrongly convicted and put doown its murder.

 

Send the definite 100% verifiable ones off to a desolate island together in the Indian Ocean I say, let them have it out with eachother there and dont let a soul be born there or let out. Military patrols and zero press.

[Rogstanley]

If we had a real problem with murder and capital punishment was proven to be an effective way of dealing with that problem then maybe.

 

As it stands I don’t think either of those things are true, so what’s the point? Killing someone doesn’t reverse the harm they caused.

[Vacamion]

 

Used to always say yes.

 

For a few years now, No.

 

We are better than that.