Capital punishment/whole life terms

[Beechey]

Whole life tariffs should certainly exist (and already do). Don't like capital punishment, though.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

No

Never

Sometimes 

When there is absolutely nothing that can be done to rehabilitate an individual allowing them to function lawfully within society 

 

Yes, that's pretty close to where I stand.

 

I don't support capital punishment in any circumstances - even where there's conclusive proof that someone has committed horrific murders.

Needlessly killing someone is the worst thing anyone can do - and it's just as bad if done by the state on our behalf as if done by some psychopath, criminal or terrorist.

 

I also agree that there should be a hope/aim of eventually rehabilitating all prisoners, even those guilty of the worst offences....but those guilty of such offences and beyond rehabilitation should remain imprisoned for whole life.

The barrier should be set high for those guilty of the worst offences but rehabilitated, so that the public risk from their release is minimal.....but the risk isn't zero for people who've never committed any offences.

I'd also have thought that technology (electronic tagging etc.) should make it easier now to closely monitor an apparently rehabilitated serious offender who's been released.

 

On the other hand, I wonder if there are some people you could never be confident had been rehabilitated: e.g. those with a long history of repeated serious offending over many years (e.g. imagine if Fred West had lived & seemed rehabilitated)?

 

There is also an argument that "whole life" terms should apply to a small number whose crimes caused exceptional public outrage - and whose release would cause similar outrage or fear. Though I'm aware that could become unfair or arbitrary as some crimes become very high profile due to mass media coverage arousing public outrage, while others don't. I suppose that I'm just wondering whether it would ever be acceptable to release someone like Ian Brady or Peter Sutcliffe, even if experts were convinced that they accepted the full burden of their guilt, were fully rehabilitated and no longer presented any future risk?

[promised land]

41 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

If you are never told what is right and wrong, then how would someone know? I guess you also think mental health issues are a myth and don't affect a person.

 

You have to understand not everyone is as lucky as me and you when it comes to upbringing, and someone who is never shown any love and only abused, how can they show love/respect to others?

 

It's not a simple thing to just discard, however, the excuse cannot just be thrown around for any offender. There are many who have suffered all their life and have been turned into monsters through no fault of their own. Each case must be treated individually. I am a great believer in giving people chances but there must be a value at the end, not a lost cause.

 

A lot of crimes are so sad when you think how the victim and their family have been made to suffer yet on the other side someone has made a mistake that they knew no better of. I am not talking about serial killers, those people generally have some mental deficiencies/problems that need serious remedial work and often are not fixable.

 

I just think all facts need to be extracted and considered and each individual crime analysed and assessed. You cannot just group every criminal into one group.

I don’t think mental health issues are a myth, does he have mental health issues then?

 

He was married with 2 children when he committed one of these acts, a father himself so he would know as an adult right from wrong.

 

A lot of the wrong uns inside do come from broken homes, are abused themselves, are fostered, been in children’s homes but it still doesn’t give them the right to take away someone else’s live after subjecting them to horrible acts. 
 

What if like some do he does reoffend?

 

Who is to blame then? 

 

You’re not talking about serial killers, so you’d give him a second chance  as you say above, he raped and killed two young girls, how many do you have to kill then to be a serial killer?

 

If capital punishment isn’t allowed then crimes of this nature should always mean full life tariff with no parole. We are not talking man slaughter here from a Saturday night drunken punch up in town that went too far. 
 

They should get a second chance I agree but for cold blooded murders no.

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

A linked issue......and I'm genuinely not sure what I think about this one....

 

In pronouncing murder sentences, how much attention, if any, should be paid to the impact on the family and friends of the victim?

 

I can certainly see some important benefits potentially in loved ones being able to express their feelings and explain the harm done to them by the crime (if they want to express that).

There's also potential value in the criminal getting to hear that. While in some cases, they won't care or will be in denial, it might help some to accept the scale of their guilt and help with their long-term rehabilitation.

 

But what about sentencing? Imagine this scenario:

- An elderly person has been brutally murdered. The spouse expresses his/her anguish & loss in court, as do their children and multiple close friends.

- A second elderly person has been brutally murdered. The spouse predeceased him/her, as did all close friends and they never had children. So there's nobody close to express their anguish & loss.

Should the murderer in the first case get a heavier sentence because of the harm done to others? Or does that wrongly place higher value on certain lives due to the chance of circumstances?

[nnfox]

Rehabilitation is an interesting topic.

 

I'm all for giving people a second chance but it is not for the state to rehabilitate offenders.  The state can help and signpost offenders. But rehabilitation can only work if 1. Offenders want to be rehabilitated and 2. They have to put the effort into making the necessary changes to their own lives.

 

Unfortunately there are many who can't or won't do their bit and there comes a point where the state have to draw the line.

[KrefelderFox666]

4 minutes ago, promised land said:

I don’t think mental health issues are a myth, does he have mental health issues then?

 

He was married with 2 children when he committed one of these acts, a father himself so he would know as an adult right from wrong.

 

A lot of the wrong uns inside do come from broken homes, are abused themselves, are fostered, been in children’s homes but it still doesn’t give them the right to take away someone else’s live after subjecting them to horrible acts. 
 

What if like some do he does reoffend?

 

Who is to blame then? 

 

You’re not talking about serial killers, so you’d give him a second chance  as you say above, he raped and killed two young girls, how many do you have to kill then to be a serial killer?

 

If capital punishment isn’t allowed then crimes of this nature should always mean full life tariff with no parole. We are not talking man slaughter here from a Saturday night drunken punch up in town that went too far. 
 

They should get a second chance I agree but for cold blooded murders no.

 

 

 

I don't think you really read my post properly, or I am misunderstood. I merely said that ignoring upbringing and issues at home cannot be discarded and simply tagged as a relentless murderer. I am talking generic as this thread is not specific to Pitchfork. In my opinion, his crimes are deemed enough to keep him locked up but I cannot make that judgement as I know next to nothing about him or his behaviour during imprisonment. Many factors need to be considered for each crime and whether someone is deemed "safe" to release.

 

Either way, I would prefer to see life imprisonment with no parole over a death penalty.

 

I am all for rehabilitation and reintegration into society if managed and it is safe. They should be given a chance to give back to society if that can be safely achieved. If not, keep them locked away.

[nnfox]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

A linked issue......and I'm genuinely not sure what I think about this one....

 

In pronouncing murder sentences, how much attention, if any, should be paid to the impact on the family and friends of the victim?

 

I can certainly see some important benefits potentially in loved ones being able to express their feelings and explain the harm done to them by the crime (if they want to express that).

There's also potential value in the criminal getting to hear that. While in some cases, they won't care or will be in denial, it might help some to accept the scale of their guilt and help with their long-term rehabilitation.

 

But what about sentencing? Imagine this scenario:

- An elderly person has been brutally murdered. The spouse expresses his/her anguish & loss in court, as do their children and multiple close friends.

- A second elderly person has been brutally murdered. The spouse predeceased him/her, as did all close friends and they never had children. So there's nobody close to express their anguish & loss.

Should the murderer in the first case get a heavier sentence because of the harm done to others? Or does that wrongly place higher value on certain lives due to the chance of circumstances?

Victim Personal Statements reflect the impact that the crime has had on the victim and/or friends and family.  They get read out after a guilty verdict has been reached but before sentencing and the Judge should take it into account (along with sometimes many other factors) when passing sentence.

 

In your first example, it may lead to a tougher sentence.  In your second example, as there is no impact to significant others, then it won't.  But the lack of the victim personal statement won't lead to a more lenient sentence.

[ajthefox]

The death penalty isn't a deterrent, isn't financially or logistically beneficial over life sentences and more importantly than either of those, is morally wrong in my opinion. A state that takes peoples lives is just fundamentally wrong.

 

I understand the emotive part of this discussion, but I am always baffled at how many people say an eye for an eye. 

[Alf Bentley]

35 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Victim Personal Statements reflect the impact that the crime has had on the victim and/or friends and family.  They get read out after a guilty verdict has been reached but before sentencing and the Judge should take it into account (along with sometimes many other factors) when passing sentence.

 

In your first example, it may lead to a tougher sentence.  In your second example, as there is no impact to significant others, then it won't.  But the lack of the victim personal statement won't lead to a more lenient sentence.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know but imagined that it worked something like that.

 

I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, it seems only fair that some account should be taken of the impact on important third parties - the lives of loved ones damaged by deep personal loss.

On the other, it seems unfair to the second victim, whose murderer ends up with a shorter sentence than the first victim. Also unfair to the perpetrator of the first murder, who gets a longer sentence because his victim happened to leave close family.

[fox_up_north]

My views on this are fairly coloured by my own experience but I will say this - I am glad that the person involved in what has affected me died as I am not convinced I wouldn't just do something to them.

 

I would genuinely love to be able to say "ok, just leave them in prison" etc and view that as enough. But I can't. I want them to be killed, buried and forgotten. Nothing can bring back that person.

 

I will clarify that was has affected me wasn't something like a gang killing or anything. I feel those are different but when you're discussing someone who has actively sought to hurt, truly make people suffer, then I am 100% in the shoot them and get it over with camp. Does that make me a smaller person? Probably but I can sleep a little better. 

[Matt_Lcfc]

Interesting topic. Disagree with capital punishment, I think that the risk of injustice is too high.

 

Further to this, there are better ways to serve justice *in my opinion.* More money needs to go to prisons as there are people committing Grade A crimes but getting reduced sentences. Increase capacity and hand out life sentences to criminals who are a threat to society, possibly? 
 

Rehabilitation is another option too - this would be useful in certain cases but I still hold the view that some people are simply unfixable so may be a waste of resources.

 

Fundamentally, I think that the death penalty is a slippery slope in a modern-day liberal society. 

Edited 7 June 2021 by Matt_Lcfc

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

The whole reason capital punishment was rightly abolished in the first place, is because of millions of historical miscarriages of justice. What type of reparation is suitable if you've taken incorrectly applied the death sentence? There isn't one.

 

Evidence was always supposed to be irrefutable before capital punishment was applied, yet there were still mistakes. Contaminated evidence, bent policemen, bent prosecutors and judges, amongst many other factors, have always been there and always will be. For every 1000 cases that find the correct perpetrator, how many, through mistakes or corruption don't? I don't know, does anyone?

 

In this digital age, with programmes such as 'Making a murderer' fresh in peoples minds, I'm struggling to see how anyone could campaign for it's return. At the very least, that programme showed the lengths the authorities will go to, whether correct or not, to ensure convictions. There's many other programmes out there which highlight not just mistakes, but almost desperation by authorities to convict people despite the evidence, often hiding vital pieces of information from defences.

Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and many others were executed incorrectly (certainly by todays standards). The possibility that could happen to anyone else, should consign the death sentence to a time before the 21st century, as it does now.

 

This is the only argument that matters really. You can free a person from jail and compensate them for their lost time; you cannot bring them back to life.

 

As the death penalty is an absolute punishment, it requires absolute proof. Even in this digital age, we do not have this - or even anything close. We have "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is fine for most convictions, but it isn't absolute.

 

And until the day we have that absolute proof, using the death penalty implies that one is accepting the death of innocent people as collateral damage of using it (because it will happen and has happened).

 

That is unconscionable to me.

 

 

Edited 8 June 2021 by leicsmac

[Gordon the Great]

12 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Whole life terms are sound. Capital punishment should never return.

 

I get there are evil cvnts out there who will never repent for the horrific crimes they've committed, but if we stop believing there is a chance (however slim) that murderers will show contrition for what they've done at some point during their natural life in prison then we're essentially giving up on ourselves as a society.

There is one thing for sure, there will be no referendum on the matter because everyone knows what the outcome would be. Really sorry but don`t do the bleeding hearts bit. Scum such as Pitchfork have forfeited the right to life by stealing somebody else's.............Rope.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Gordon the Great said:

There is one thing for sure, there will be no referendum on the matter because everyone knows what the outcome would be. Really sorry but don`t do the bleeding hearts bit. Scum such as Pitchfork have forfeited the right to life by stealing somebody else's.............Rope.

I'm not sure that considering the inevitability of an innocent person dying at the hands of the state (because in the absence of absolute proof that is an inevitability) under such a system is necessarily "bleeding heart", but if it is then so be it.

[Footballwipe]

1 hour ago, Gordon the Great said:

There is one thing for sure, there will be no referendum on the matter because everyone knows what the outcome would be. Really sorry but don`t do the bleeding hearts bit. Scum such as Pitchfork have forfeited the right to life by stealing somebody else's.............Rope.

Exactly. Things like this shouldn't be put to the public because there are so many nuances and bigger elements to it that people can't, won't or don't want to understand (a la previous referenda).

 

At the end of the day there's been a lot of good stuff in this thread about the potential of miscarriages of justice, corruption to set someone up. The grotesque possibility that governments use the death penalty to their own advantage if it comes into place. We've seen time and again through suicide of lifers that it's an easy way out for them. A cheap way to escape what you've done.

 

It's a stone age way of thinking, and unfortunately there's plenty of people who think like they're in the stone age. Too many people who would happily see someone killed and think "oh well" if is subsequently came to light that that person was innocent.

 

Pitchfork actively tried to avoid capture, he didn't hand himself in, he didn't hold his hands up and apologise. He should've been in solitary for 23 hours a day for the rest of his life for the heartbreak he caused those families and that community.

[Scotch]

I've always strongly believed that prison should be just as much about rehabilitation for the majority of prisoners as it is punishment and I don't think we are doing nearly enough in that regard. There is no point in locking someone up for 5 years without addressing the problems that got them there, only to see them go straight back to crime and end up back inside. It's a waste of public recourses and we should be looking at the model used by some Scandinavian countries that have a far higher level of non reoffenders. 

 

I agree with whole of life sentences in principle for more serious crime like murder but it also brings with it more challenges. If an inmate has no hope of release, they are far more likely to be violent inmates which would make prison a far more hostile place to rehabilitate anyone. 

 

I'm not in favour of the death penalty purely because I don't have faith I  the justice system to get it right 100% of the time. Simple as that. 

[Blarmy]

Capital punishment no - I believe no person has the right to kill another.  However, I also believe that some people cannot be rehabilitated and would argue that a person capable of premeditated rape and murder falls into that category.

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, Gordon the Great said:

There is one thing for sure, there will be no referendum on the matter because everyone knows what the outcome would be. Really sorry but don`t do the bleeding hearts bit. Scum such as Pitchfork have forfeited the right to life by stealing somebody else's.............Rope.

What's "bleeding hearts" about wanting to give the families of victims a chance at hearing why their loved one died? You just shout "Rope!" and then that chance is gone forever, no matter how slim. You end the life of perpetrators and you give the families, in many cases, zero chance of ever hearing an explanation or an apology - and sometimes those do end up being forthcoming when murderers have the rest of their lives to reflect on the evil they did in the past.

[Captain...]

11 hours ago, nnfox said:

Rehabilitation is an interesting topic.

 

I'm all for giving people a second chance but it is not for the state to rehabilitate offenders.  The state can help and signpost offenders. But rehabilitation can only work if 1. Offenders want to be rehabilitated and 2. They have to put the effort into making the necessary changes to their own lives.

 

Unfortunately there are many who can't or won't do their bit and there comes a point where the state have to draw the line.

3. Society is able to accept rehabilitated criminals. This is as key to changing behaviour. 

 

I don't know how much Colin Pitchfork or any other prisoner is aware of life on the outside, but seeing how Jamie Bulger's killers are routinely outed and hounded, amongst others, what value trying to reform to fit in to a society that will never accept them.

 

I do sometimes wonder if a rehabilitation colony on an island is the right way to go, away from normal society but able to live with other rehabilitated prisoners in a semblance of civilised society.

 

But it all sounds a bit dystopian.

[Buce]

 

I find it interesting how views on Capital punishment are divided along political lines; I had a private bet with myself about which posters would favour it and which posters wouldn't, and it panned out pretty much as I expected.

 

 

[Captain...]

11 hours ago, promised land said:

don’t think mental health issues are a myth, does he have mental health issues then?

Mental health and violent criminals is a tricky one. I think it's fair to say anyone capable of committing a truly horrendous crime, like rape and murder of children, has something wrong with them up there. This is where mental health and rehabilitation gets tricky. Should someone like Pitchfork be "released" into psychiatric care? Should medication be a part of their release? I don't know enough about violent criminals or serious mental health problems to really comment. Mental health is no defence for violent crimes but understanding it could help lead to better rehabilitation.

[Alf Bentley]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This is the only argument that matters really. You can free a person from jail and compensate them for their lost time; you cannot bring them back to life.

 

As the death penalty is an absolute punishment, it requires absolute proof. Even in this digital age, we do not have this - or even anything close. We have "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is fine for most convictions, but it isn't absolute.

 

And until the day we have that absolute proof, using the death penalty implies that one is accepting the death of innocent people as collateral damage of using it (because it will happen and has happened).

 

That is unconscionable to me.

 

 

You post so much good stuff, Mac, but I fundamentally disagree with your suggestion that proof of guilt is "the only argument that matters". It's an important but secondary argument to me.

To me, the question of whether it's right for the state (or anyone else) to enact justice by cold-bloodedly killing people takes precedence over whether the state is killing people who are proven guilty or who might be innocent.

 

If proven guilt is the only argument that matters, that begs the question: what is your view if - and when - there is absolute proof of guilt in a case?

My view is that capital punishment is wrong even when/if there is absolute proof of guilt.

 

Unless you set the bar of proof ridiculously high (is there absolute proof that the world is round or that I exist?), there are some cases where there is absolute proof.

Pitchfork was linked to his crimes by DNA. One of the killers of Lee Rigby was videoed immediately afterwards, holding a bloody knife and announcing why he'd done it.

There seems no doubt as to their guilt, but execution would still be wrong, in my view. If proof of guilt were the only argument that mattered, it would be possible to have a higher standard of proof in capital cases so as to only execute those absolutely proven guilty...

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I find it interesting how views on Capital punishment are divided along political lines; I had a private bet with myself about which posters would favour it and which posters wouldn't, and it panned out pretty much as I expected.

 

 

Well it's no great surprise, generally left leaning see issues like crime as an issue of the bigger society and right leaning tend to see issues of one of personal responsibility. Which reflects opinions on fiscal and political ideals. It is interesting how this one core belief of personal vs societal responsibility reflects out to so many aspects of life.

[RonnieTodger]

Capital punishment deosn't sit right with me in terms of potential injustice, but the fact that someone like Colin Pitchfork can walk the streets again after having DNA confirm him as the double rapist-killer is absolutely sickening. He's only in his 60s too, so can probably live out another good 20-30 years.

 

It's not a second chance, it's a third.

[Scotch]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Mental health and violent criminals is a tricky one. I think it's fair to say anyone capable of committing a truly horrendous crime, like rape and murder of children, has something wrong with them up there. This is where mental health and rehabilitation gets tricky. Should someone like Pitchfork be "released" into psychiatric care? Should medication be a part of their release? I don't know enough about violent criminals or serious mental health problems to really comment. Mental health is no defence for violent crimes but understanding it could help lead to better rehabilitation.

The thing about mental health issues leading to violent crimes that no one talks about is that it becomes far more complicated to rehabilitate. 

 

We associate mentally challenged prisoners with more lenient sentences but it could be argued that longer sentences with more specialised incarceration would be more beneficial to society.

 

Most prisoners have the option to turn their life's around and become decent citizens (wether they take it of not is another matter) but those who suffer mental health disabilities don't really have that option.