The Politics Thread 2019

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

As a matter of interest, why is it expensive? Surely not more expensive than keeping someone in prison for the rest of their lives (or whatever).

Numerous factors really, such as :-

1. Legal costs involved being more expensive owing to the nature of the offence/potential punishment. You don't want Lionel Hutz rocking up to defend you in that circumstance. In the US, most cannot afford their own representation and consequently the state have to assign and pay the costs. 

2. Most prisoners on death row are kept in solitary confinement or similar for long periods of their sentence leading up to the execution, which is of course expensive in itself because you are only looking after one individual prisoner.

3. Jury selection is critical and consequently more time consuming and expensive too.

4. Appeals - naturally there are numerous appeals to overturn the punishment. 

5. Trial length is 3/4 times as long - again, because the decision is so final you need as much certainty as possible. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, David Guiza said:

Numerous factors really, such as :-

1. Legal costs involved being more expensive owing to the nature of the offence/potential punishment. You don't want Lionel Hutz rocking up to defend you in that circumstance. In the US, most cannot afford their own representation and consequently the state have to assign and pay the costs. 

2. Most prisoners on death row are kept in solitary confinement or similar for long periods of their sentence leading up to the execution, which is of course expensive in itself because you are only looking after one individual prisoner.

3. Jury selection is critical and consequently more time consuming and expensive too.

4. Appeals - naturally there are numerous appeals to overturn the punishment. 

5. Trial length is 3/4 times as long - again, because the decision is so final you need as much certainty as possible. 

 

It's a tired argument though.

 

The system trying to show that it is not killing them simply because it wants rid.

 

It could easily be less costly. - Normal trial, execution. cash saved, extra space in prison for another offender without building a new one.

[fuchsntf]

7 hours ago, the fox said:

Therein lies the problem, man. Where is the line drawn between enough evidence to administrate the death penalty compared to a lifetime of imprisonment? Can we say that the evidence is strong enough to put the defendant in a prison for the rest of his/her life (which many argue that it's a harsher sentence than the death penalty) but not enough to administrate the death penalty? 

 

No one should face the death penalty without having, like you said, an absolute proof against them but shouldn't that apply to lifetime imprisonment? A lifetime in prison should mean that the accuser had against them an absolute proof.

 

 

What I'm trying to say is, If a person is against the death penalty as a concept then fair enough. But IMO, I can't see how an evidence can be strong enough to put someone in prison for a lifetime but not strong enough to administrate the death penalty.

@leicsmac  & yourself,with others have brought up very good points....

 

I believe the emotion on the street, for those waiting to see either Life imprisonment,or capital  punishment,is not for the one off crime,

but born on the frustration of seeing Perpetual aggressive  criminals,serial killers,and repetitive sex criminals ,going through & effecting our lives,

understanding we ourselves most importantly wanting to protect our own close society and our very 'own'...

and not having to Live in fear,no matter what part of the society we live in.

I am in Principal vor the DP,und LI.,in such cases,but still tend to  err  with  the thoughts of @leicsmac.

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, FIF said:

It's a tired argument though.

 

The system trying to show that it is not killing them simply because it wants rid.

 

It could easily be less costly. - Normal trial, execution. cash saved, extra space in prison for another offender without building a new one.

You must understand that a trial that could result in the death of the defendant has to be more rigorous and comprehensive, and therefore more time consuming, than any other trial? The complexities are endless and even after all that time there can still be room for error. 

 

We all know they love a lawsuit in the states, imagine the size of one if any error was made due to a swift trial and execution .

[Innovindil]

Imo, the death penalty isn't there to provide a deterrent, it's pretty widely known that not many criminals care about the punishments they'll reveice, I think it's there to provide absolute certainty that the true monsters among us won't get any opportunity to hurt other people again. 

 

Take the 3 guys that ran around London stabbing people for example, they were guilty beyond any doubt and the decision was made to use lethal force to stop them. If they had been apprehended non-lethally they'd be chilling in a jail now. Again imo, we are all better off with them dead. 

[Buce]

@FIF

 

I've just gone to reply to a post you made an hour or so ago, and it's no longer there (the one where you questioned whether people should be punished for crimes they couldn't help commiting). Did you think better of it and delete it or have the mods deleted it?

 

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

1) Given people can still recall (and discuss here) the name of the last person executed suggests that it does give them some sort of fame.

2) Teaching that killing is wrong, by killing, is..... 

3) There have been a significant number of "murderers"  released in Oz in recent years because the recent modern evidence has since proven them innocent.

4) It is proven that it is NOT a deterrent

 

 

 

 

I couldn't recall anyone in particular and had to look up the last hanging at Crumlin road jail in Northern Ireland (even though I had just visited there !) ...   not really sure how that is even relevant Oz ? ...   fame would probably not have any bearing on whether someone murdered someone else imo ...

 

 

2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

 

 

Well, the simple answer is that it's a lot easier to unlock a door than it is to bring somebody back to life.

 

Aside from that argument, there's also the following, as others have alluded to:-

 

1. No evidence so suggest that the death penalty is any greater deterrent than life in prison. America is example enough of that. Plus the fact that so many criminals kill themselves before they are caught/sentenced, or even kill themselves in prison suggests the same. Unless it's Epstein in which case even he was surprised by his suicide. 

2. How can any state proclaim that murder is wrong, if the punishment is murder? Who administers the lethal injection/pulls the lever/fits the noose etc? Why is it morally acceptable for that person to kill?

3. As @Buce mentions, there are countless examples of mistrials, false imprisonment etc. Along with those cases already mentioned, there was also an infamous one of Barry George who was alleged to have killed Jill Dando and spent years in prison only to eventually be let off.

4. It makes a public spectacle of killing and the killer become a martyr to some. It's like going back 100+ years in time. It's barbaric. 

5. We would be joining a list of pretty shady countries who still have the death penalty. The US is only Western country for starters. 

6. For those penny savers out there - it's expensive. 

 

Regarding whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent or not ...   not sure how you can prove it Oz, and DG mentions America which I'm not sure is a good example.  Every country is different. We, as a country, and as a people, are very very different from our American cousins ..   just look at the recent news to see how cheaply they value life ...  they started as the wild west and have gone downhill ever since !   This is my take on it ...   there are a high proportion of people in our society that believe that our jails are 'soft' and do not deter at all ...   you can have a reasonable time, watch a lot of tv, interact with fellow cons, go down the gym, use the system to get single cells, comfy beds, better food etc ..  and come out after barely doing half your sentence.  Whether thats entirely true or not is irrelevant ..   a lot of people think it.  In America it is very different and jail life is much much harsher ..  lots of solitary confinement, more brutality from other inmates and the guards, and very long sentences.  IF, potential offenders here knew that IF the evidence was overwhelming and beyond doubt (subjective but still workable), they might be executed ...   then I firmly believe they would think twice about their actions.  Even if that saves just some innocent lives then it would be worth it.    I don't think as DG says it would make a martyr of anyone, isn't a public spectacle ..  and yes it is barbaric but then so is murdering someone in the first place ! ...   even more so if it a serial killer or child killer for example. 

 

Believe it or not I'm not actually sure if it should be brought back or not, but, if crime rates continue to soar, more and more people are killed ..  then as a raft of measures to combat that ...  and if it was properly discussed and overwhelmingly agreed by the population, and government ...   then I would be comfortable with it.

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

I couldn't recall anyone in particular and had to look up the last hanging at Crumlin road jail in Northern Ireland (even though I had just visited there !) ...   not really sure how that is even relevant Oz ? ...   fame would probably not have any bearing on whether someone murdered someone else imo ...

 

 

 

Regarding whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent or not ...   not sure how you can prove it Oz, and DG mentions America which I'm not sure is a good example.  Every country is different. We, as a country, and as a people, are very very different from our American cousins ..   just look at the recent news to see how cheaply they value life ...  they started as the wild west and have gone downhill ever since !   This is my take on it ...   there are a high proportion of people in our society that believe that our jails are 'soft' and do not deter at all ...   you can have a reasonable time, watch a lot of tv, interact with fellow cons, go down the gym, use the system to get single cells, comfy beds, better food etc ..  and come out after barely doing half your sentence.  Whether thats entirely true or not is irrelevant ..   a lot of people think it.  In America it is very different and jail life is much much harsher ..  lots of solitary confinement, more brutality from other inmates and the guards, and very long sentences.  IF, potential offenders here knew that IF the evidence was overwhelming and beyond doubt (subjective but still workable), they might be executed ...   then I firmly believe they would think twice about their actions.  Even if that saves just some innocent lives then it would be worth it.    I don't think as DG says it would make a martyr of anyone, isn't a public spectacle ..  and yes it is barbaric but then so is murdering someone in the first place ! ...   even more so if it a serial killer or child killer for example. 

 

Believe it or not I'm not actually sure if it should be brought back or not, but, if crime rates continue to soar, more and more people are killed ..  then as a raft of measures to combat that ...  and if it was properly discussed and overwhelmingly agreed by the population, and government ...   then I would be comfortable with it.

 

" One of the leading justifications for the use of the death penalty is that it deters crime. This claim has been repeatedly tested by researchers. The majority of research from both the US and worldwide has found no evidence of a deterrence effect."

 

https://humanrights.brightblue.org.uk/blog-1/2016/4/22/does-the-death-penalty-deter-crime

Edited 14 August 2019 by Buce

[LiberalFox]

3 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

I couldn't recall anyone in particular and had to look up the last hanging at Crumlin road jail in Northern Ireland (even though I had just visited there !) ...   not really sure how that is even relevant Oz ? ...   fame would probably not have any bearing on whether someone murdered someone else imo ...

 

 

 

Regarding whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent or not ...   not sure how you can prove it Oz, and DG mentions America which I'm not sure is a good example.  Every country is different. We, as a country, and as a people, are very very different from our American cousins ..   just look at the recent news to see how cheaply they value life ...  they started as the wild west and have gone downhill ever since !   This is my take on it ...   there are a high proportion of people in our society that believe that our jails are 'soft' and do not deter at all ...   you can have a reasonable time, watch a lot of tv, interact with fellow cons, go down the gym, use the system to get single cells, comfy beds, better food etc ..  and come out after barely doing half your sentence.  Whether thats entirely true or not is irrelevant ..   a lot of people think it.  In America it is very different and jail life is much much harsher ..  lots of solitary confinement, more brutality from other inmates and the guards, and very long sentences.  IF, potential offenders here knew that IF the evidence was overwhelming and beyond doubt (subjective but still workable), they might be executed ...   then I firmly believe they would think twice about their actions.  Even if that saves just some innocent lives then it would be worth it.    I don't think as DG says it would make a martyr of anyone, isn't a public spectacle ..  and yes it is barbaric but then so is murdering someone in the first place ! ...   even more so if it a serial killer or child killer for example. 

 

Believe it or not I'm not actually sure if it should be brought back or not, but, if crime rates continue to soar, more and more people are killed ..  then as a raft of measures to combat that ...  and if it was properly discussed and overwhelmingly agreed by the population, and government ...   then I would be comfortable with it.

Surely you want policy to be based as far as possible on actual evidence? 

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

" One of the leading justifications for the use of the death penalty is that it deters crime. This claim has been repeatedly tested by researchers. The majority of research from both the US and worldwide has found no evidence of a deterrence effect."

I've just said we are not like the US.   

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Countryfox said:

I've just said we are not like the US.   

 

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

" One of the leading justifications for the use of the death penalty is that it deters crime. This claim has been repeatedly tested by researchers. The majority of research from both the US and worldwide has found no evidence of a deterrence effect."

 

https://humanrights.brightblue.org.uk/blog-1/2016/4/22/does-the-death-penalty-deter-crime

 

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

Surely you want policy to be based as far as possible on actual evidence? 

 

The evidence is that life is becoming cheaper and cheaper in this country and we seem unable to stop it. 

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

And we are not 'worldwide' ...   or Iran ...   or anywhere else for that matter, either ......     and we have one of the softest penal systems in the world.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

And we are not 'worldwide' ...   or Iran ...   or anywhere else for that matter, either ......     and we have one of the softest penal systems in the world.

 

worldwide

adjective

world·wide | \ ˈwərl(d)-ˈwīd

 

\

Definition of worldwide

 (Entry 1 of 2)

: extended throughout or involving the entire world

worldwide

adverb

Definition of worldwide (Entry 2 of 2)

: throughout the world

 

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldwide

 

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

worldwide

adjective

world·wide | \ ˈwərl(d)-ˈwīd

 

\

Definition of worldwide

 (Entry 1 of 2)

: extended throughout or involving the entire world

worldwide

adverb

Definition of worldwide (Entry 2 of 2)

: throughout the world

 

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldwide

 

 

Your linked article is 90% about the US and also mentions Iran ...   and not much else ...   it also says 

 

"Comparing the crime rates of countries which retain the death penalty and countries which have abolished it is problematic. This is because the vast cultural differences between countries can obscure trends and relationships."

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Buce said:

@FIF

 

I've just gone to reply to a post you made an hour or so ago, and it's no longer there (the one where you questioned whether people should be punished for crimes they couldn't help commiting). Did you think better of it and delete it or have the mods deleted it?

 

 

I didn't remove it Buce, no idea why it would have been. Just posing a question for discussion.

 

22 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

" One of the leading justifications for the use of the death penalty is that it deters crime. This claim has been repeatedly tested by researchers. The majority of research from both the US and worldwide has found no evidence of a deterrence effect."

 

https://humanrights.brightblue.org.uk/blog-1/2016/4/22/does-the-death-penalty-deter-crime

But justifications are just people trying to argue for what they want. We all know that the DP isn't about deterring - it's about justice or revenge or whatever other word people want to use that means if you kill you should die.

 

If there was a referendum on the DP in the UK, all of the mainstream politicians would be behind no DP but I reckon the vote would be for the DP and by a far larger majority than Brexit. We may think we're modern day futurists but deep down we are very caveman!

[ozleicester]

38 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

The evidence is that life is becoming cheaper and cheaper in this country and we seem unable to stop it. 

and you are broadly supportive of cheapening it further by introducing an antiquated and flawed policy of state sanctioned murder

[Countryfox]

5 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

and you are broadly supportive of cheapening it further by introducing an antiquated and flawed policy of state sanctioned murder

 

No not at all ...  but as I said if the majority wanted it back I wouldn’t be totally uncomfortable with that decision.

[leicsmac]

Wow, this has generated quite an interesting discussion.

 

10 hours ago, the fox said:

Therein lies the problem, man. Where is the line drawn between enough evidence to administrate the death penalty compared to a lifetime of imprisonment? Can we say that the evidence is strong enough to put the defendant in a prison for the rest of his/her life (which many argue that it's a harsher sentence than the death penalty) but not enough to administrate the death penalty? 

 

No one should face the death penalty without having, like you said, an absolute proof against them but shouldn't that apply to lifetime imprisonment? A lifetime in prison should mean that the accuser had against them an absolute proof.

 

 

What I'm trying to say is, If a person is against the death penalty as a concept then fair enough. But IMO, I can't see how an evidence can be strong enough to put someone in prison for a lifetime but not strong enough to administrate the death penalty.

Senor Guiza has done a lot of answering for me above, but what I will add is that I guess it comes down to how one feels about death v life imprisonment and how bad one is compared to the other. Personally I think the former is much worse for my own philosophical reasons, but I can understand how some folks might think differently.

 

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

There are some “bang to rights” examples that are way beyond any question of doubt and so “evil” as to warrant the death penalty imo. For example some of the recent shooting sprees in the US.

I'm going to sound pure tinfoil hat here, but without actually witnessing the event first hand we have no absolute proof that those people were responsible for those events. We have second hand reported testimony and evidence saying that they were, but all of that is falsifiable. My point it that when you're dealing with an absolute punishment, the evidence should be likewise absolute, and while those death-worshipping white supremacist pond scum did all all likelihood do what they did, there is still doubt - it may be miniscule but it is still doubt, unless you witness the event personally. And with that doubt comes the risk and the inevitability that at some point, a person is going to be convicted and executed for a crime they did not commit.

[Detroit Blues]

I understand how some people might think the death penalty would work in theory, but in practice, it is worse for society than life imprisonment. Just a few quick reasons:

• It costs more to the US legal system to execute a prisoner than it does to incarcerate them for life. Most of this is due to appeals.
• The methods of execution are cruel and inhumane. Many times the lethal injection does not work, and those that have survived the injection have reported the intense pain that they felt, but they were not able to move/talk/etc.
• Many of those executed have been proven to be innocent after the fact. Had they been imprisoned instead of executed, they would have been released. 
• Generally a good lawyer can get the convicted to avoid the death penalty. This creates a system where those too poor to afford quality legal counsel end up disproportionately executed.

Edited 14 August 2019 by Detroit Blues

[Charl91]

My view on the death penalty is quite simple.

 

Morally - I'm all for it (in exceptional circumstances). No problem 'putting down' mass murderers, and the like. We do it to animals after all, and as a person without any religious beliefs, I don't believe that all human life is sacred, or unquestionably superior to that of all animals. I don't think there's a 'moral' problem with the death penalty as a concept.

 

In reality however, I'm against it, simply because I wouldn't trust any Government/Courts enough to put it in to practise flawlessly, and it'd have the potential to be abused and unjust. It could never be done in a fair and just manner, thus I'd never support it.

Edited 14 August 2019 by Charl91

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

My view on the death penalty is quite simple.

 

Morally - I'm all for it (in exceptional circumstances). No problem 'putting down' mass murderers, and the like. We do it to animals after all, and as a person without any religious beliefs, I don't believe that all human life is sacred, or unquestionably superior to that of all animals. I don't think there's a 'moral' problem with the death penalty as a concept.

 

In reality however, I'm against it, simply because I wouldn't trust any Government/Courts enough to put it in to practise flawlessly, and it'd have the potential to be abused and unjust. It could never be done in a fair and just manner, thus I'd never support it.

Yep.

 

In fact it might even be said that it isn't possible for it to be put into practice flawlessly, no matter how good the government implementing it was.

[the fox]

7 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” ―  J.R.R. Tolkien. The Fellowship of the Ring

 

 

In the UK, we had a series of high profile cases in the Seventies where groups of Irish republicans were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving many years, their convictions were quashed as being unsafe after it was found that the Police fabricated evidence and obtained confessions through duress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven#Maguire_Seven

 

If we had the Death Penalty, those innocent men would have been beyond redress. The Death Penalty is an absolute punishment that cannot be reversed - what @leicsmac is saying is that for an absolute punishment, there should be absolute proof of guilt.

 

 

Don't think the quote applied to the point I've tried to make. What I'm trying to say is, what makes an evidence strong enough to put someone in jail but not administrate the death penalty.

 

Would those people get the many years they've spent in prison back? Lifetime in prison is in most cases an absolute judgment condemning people to stay in a cell for the rest of their life. Are people OK with that even if it meant that innocent people (no matter how small of a number they represent) are put in a cell for a crime that they didn't do. Just look at the links you put. Those people got out of prison but what about the people who weren't Lucky enough. How do  people who support lifetime imprisonment feel about innocent people rotting in a prison unfairly? People get outraged about animals in captivity but not fellow humans.

 

 

For the last part, is it OK to throw people in jail for the rest of their life without absolute proof? Because it seems to me that it's the argument used for lifetime imprisonment and against the death penalty.

 

 

(Edit: I'm OK with people who are against the death penalty, my only worry is the standard used to allow for lifetime imprisonment)

 

 

Edited 14 August 2019 by the fox

[the fox]

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Well, the simple answer is that it's a lot easier to unlock a door than it is to bring somebody back to life.

 

Ironic seeing that most people who face life in prison see both as humanely impossible.

 

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

. No evidence so suggest that the death penalty is any greater deterrent than life in prison

Dead men tell no tails and all that. Plus, a person doing life won't exactly say "yeah, I think being dead isn't as worse as living in prison *wink* *wink*"

 

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

How can any state proclaim that murder is wrong, if the punishment is murder? Who administers the lethal injection/pulls the lever/fits the noose etc? Why is it morally acceptable for that person to kill?

How can any state proclaim that kidnapping and putting people in imprisonment is wrong, if the punishment is imprisonment? Might as well make the crime of kidnapping and forcing people to confinement legal by that logic.

 

And what right do judges have to put people in prison for the rest of their life? Why is it morally acceptable for that person to put another in prison for the rest of their life?

 

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

there are countless examples of mistrials, false imprisonment etc. Along with those cases already mentioned, there was also an infamous one of Barry George who was alleged to have killed Jill Dando and spent years in prison only to eventually be let off.

Who will give him the years he spent in prison back? What if he wasn't lucky enough to get out? And how about the innocent who weren't us lucky?

 

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

It makes a public spectacle of killing and the killer become a martyr to some. It's like going back 100+ years in time. It's barbaric. 

And treating people like animals, jammed in a cage isn't?

 

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

We would be joining a list of pretty shady countries who still have the death penalty. The US is only Western country for starters. 

Why is that a concern? Don't think the death penalty is the only shady thing that many countries commonly have. A lifetime imprisonment with no absolute proof is pretty shady to me.

 

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

For those penny savers out there - it's expensive. 

The lifetime imprisonment would also be very expensive of the authorities looked for absolute proof.

Edited 14 August 2019 by the fox

[David Guiza]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

1. Ironic seeing that most people who face life in prison see both as humanely impossible.

 

2. Dead men tell no tails and all that. Plus, a person doing life won't exactly say "yeah, I think being dead isn't as worse as living in prison *wink* *wink*"

 

3. How can any state proclaim that kidnapping and putting people in imprisonment is wrong, if the punishment is imprisonment? Might as well make the crime of kidnapping and forcing people to confinement legal by that logic.

 

4. And what right do judges have to put people in prison for the rest of their life? Why is it morally acceptable for that person to put another in prison for the rest of their life?

 

5. Who will give him the years he spent in prison back? What if he wasn't lucky enough to get out? And how about the innocent who weren't us lucky?

 

6. And treating people like animals, jammed in a cage isn't?

 

7. Why is that a concern? Don't think the death penalty is the only shady thing that many countries commonly have. A lifetime imprisonment with no absolute proof is pretty shady to me.

 

There are many animals who endanger the ecosystem of some areas so why not just pit them in 

1. It's impossible to give somebody like Barry George back the 4/5/6 years or whatever it was that he spent in prison for a crime he didn't commit, but having the rest of his life as a free man is a damn sight better than having his conviction overturned from beyond the grave. I understand he was compensated for the same (not as much as he perhaps could have been due to some peculiarities) 

 

2. I don't quite get your point here? Apologies

 

3.  That's hugely different. Murder is a criminal and moral wrong across every society, religion, race etc on Earth, how can the state proclaim that to the case whilst murdering citizens under the King/Queens peace (as the definition requires)? The concept of prison is not just locking bad people away, it's about rehabilitating them into society. You cannot rehabilitate somebody back into society and every day life if they haven't left it in the first place. I get what you are trying to say with regard to kidnapping, but being a prisoner isn't the same as being kidnapped.
I've been into a prison and spoken to a prisoner as part of job, the gentleman in question was serving 9 years for his involvement in the murder/manslaughter of somebody in a pub. Prior to meeting him I was somewhat daunted by him and didn't particularly want to go, but even from a brief conversation with him you could sense that he had genuine remorse for his actions. Sure nothing will bring back the deceased, but taking his life serves as nothing but petty retaliation and that's a dangerous precedent for a forward thinking nation to set. 

 

4.  There arguably isn't a completely moral and just way to counteract an offence in reality, real and true justice is almost impossible to achieve on the basis that good things will often happen to bad people and bad things to good. Allowing people who have spent years training to be in their position and decided upon a case of facts presented to them, judged by 12 of their peers, seems a far more reasonable and moral solution than simply murdering the defendant. 

 

5. See response to question 1. 

 

6. They're not really 'jammed in a cage' though are they? Prisoners are treated better than almost all factory farmed animals, but that's another debate . As I mention in point 4 there isn't a solution that appeases everyone involved, but this is a better solution than irreversible death. 

 

7. Because, personally, I don't want to the UK to align with countries that hold the death penalty, many of which have it for utterly ridiculous things like being gay, being a witch etc. I much prefer to be in agreement with other forward thinking nations.