The Yorkshire Ripper question?

Well, I think it is the only definition and it is my answer to 'do you still feel the same way about him being hung [sic] for his murders?'

That's what opinion means isn't it.

I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. One one hand, I think it's barbaric and uncivilised; it doesn't bring the victim back; it hurts the perpetrator's family very much, who are innocent; and I'm not sure that being locked up for life isn't worse than being executed. It gives the perpetrator's family a lifetime of grief for something that isn't their fault.

On the other hand, if a perpetrator put someone I loved through something horrific and killed them, I'm realistic enough to know that I might well be baying for their blood.

It's all very well not to believe in the death penalty when it's not YOUR mother or daughter or sister who's been raped and tortured to death.

As long as an innocent life can be executed by a miscarriage of justice, I won't ever support the death penalty.

I'm always intrigued what constitutes no doubt and who decides that?
I mean false confessions never happen do they?
That poor mum who lost three babies to a genetic condition that a dr claimed in court couldn't have been anything other than murder.
She would have been hanged
Only she was innocent
The medical evidence was beyond doubt....until it wasnt

DNA proves nothing. There are many times where the presence of DNA would not prove that any crime had taken place.

Surely it's a worse punishment for the murderer to spend their life in prison than to be executed and have done with it all? I never understand this logic. (Against the death penalty btw.)

Edited to add examples: people were angry when Harold Shipman and Ariel Castro died by suicide because they were seen to have escaped justice. How would it be any different from that?

“ It's the fact that the government would be saying "killing is wrong, apart from when we do it".

Don’t they say that already though?
Governments kill people by the million in wars. Look at Iraq for example.

Thank you. And I’ll rephrase. I believe the OP is being deliberately misleading, goading us and seems to be loving riling people up with their misinformation. Or OP has very, very limited comprehension skills and doesn’t believe in being factual

Ugh. Sharing the story has shown his ugly mug. That has put me off my afternoon snack.

It should be used but for the most disturbing crimes where DNA or other evidence cannot be argued away.

So for example Iain Huntley should have absolutely been sent to the chair where as Lucy Letby could be innocent who knows? I’m 95% sure she did it but there’s a niggling doubt.

I'm going to go completely against the grain here and say that I'm all for the death penalty. In cases where there is overwhelming amounts of evidence and the criminal will be sentenced for the rest of their life, I feel it is more humane to end their life and their suffering.

Unless you can suddenly pass a new law that means this one individual can be given a lethal injection or whatever, then it's just part of the justice system.
We don't have capital punishment here and I'm glad we don't. Housing him in prison is a necessary evil. Should all serial killers be killed off by the state? I'd imagine many people wouldn't argue with that but you can't just change the rules overnight.

Jesus, that's awful. The poor families, having to listen to the judge coming out with that.

Perhaps those so enthused by the death penalty could move somewhere where it still exists.
China, Iran, North Korea?
all lovely this time of year I hear and such bastions of democracy and human rights
Sure you'd all love living there

The prosecutor, Sir Michael Havers, said during the trial:

'Some were prostitutes but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women.'

I agree.

Because the police and the general public only started to care once he moved on from killing sex workers to killing 'nice' girls.

People are hanged, not hung.

And I don't care what it cost to keep Sutcliffe in custody.

The death penalty is wrong.

You clearly admire efficiency when it comes to the state killing people. So did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and other despots throughout history, such a choice of role models to tell your children about.

Are you just making stuff up? It wasn't 11 billion, and whole life orders do still exist.

In theory I agree with the death penalty. I believe it is a legitimate sentence for certain crimes.

However, in practice I don’t think it should be carried out, due to miscarriages of justice, of which there have been too many.

Is that the same logic as you would apply to the death penalty? So long as we usually get it right, what does it matter if a few mistakes are made and some innocent people lose their lives along the way? We can brush it off by remembering all the times we didn't make mistakes. 🙄

For me it's not even a question of people being wrongly convicted, although clearly that's an issue. Neither is it a question of what someone "deserves". I don't think anyone would have been crying over the demise of the Yorkshire Ripper. It's the fact that the government would be saying "killing is wrong, apart from when we do it". Or "killing is wrong, except when you do it to a bad person". It encourages the idea that life is cheap, or that vigilantism is potentially OK because after all, these are bad people. It also affords WAY more power to the government of the day than I would want them to have. Literally the power to choose whether someone lives or dies. No thanks.