The Yorkshire Ripper question?

I agree. A member of my family teaches literacy in a Midlands prison and she said the basic food provision for young men - it was mostly young men - isn’t sufficient.

I remember reading that what deters criminals isn't the severity of the penalty so much as the likelihood of getting caught, because it doesn't become real to them unless and until they're caught.

I don't think the death penalty would deter the sort of people who cold-bloodedly murder. And for those who do it in hot blood - it doesn't deter them becuase they act on an impulse.

Rampton Luxury????
When I was a student mental health nurse I had a placement at the regional medium secure unit so a step down from Rampton which is high secured and it was grim ,far from luxurious.
In what way did you find it Luxurious?

I think (having read it several times!) that they're saying that far more convicted murderers are released and then go on to commit murder again is far higher than the number of people who are wrongfully executed. Presumably trying to suggest that its better to execute everyone convicted of murder, because reducing the number of people killed by released convicts outweighs the cons of executing innocent people........

Define his 'life in luxury' @Getonwitit - why was it so luxurious?

I have had 3 relatives in Prison. One was in and out his whole life from age 14, no chance of ever changing his behaviour, he was just an out and out criminal, was more than happy to be inside. Another one in for attempted murder, he was 44 and the first time he had been in trouble, learnt all about fraud when he was inside , came out and put his new skills to use. Third one was in Rampton and oh my did he live in luxury.
So yes i have had family inside and yes i still think we are too soft on them.

Sorry, I don't understand the conclusion of this? The number of people executed after a (proven) wrongful conviction is lower than the number of murderers with previous for murder? What's the connection?

I always had this arguement, but my Father (we're a family of geeks) researched and found out that the number of murders committed by convicts who've previously served time for murders is far higher than the number of people been hung after wrong convictions. I can't remember the numbers but it was far far higher, I was stunned.

Yes, agreed. I should have noted that along with other mitigating factors.

I don't support the death penalty.

This is partly because in some cases in the past there have been tragic miscarriages of justice, And also - we are asking another person to kill a human being on our behalf.

But also - I'm just as vengeful as the next person! The death penalty lets people off too easily. Much better to let them sit and think about things for many, many years. Fred West didn't pay the price, in my opinion, because he killed himself while awaiting trial.

11 billion? don't be ridiculous, that's the GDP os a small country

Point is, if you sentence someone to death, they can spend 20-30 years waiting for execution while appeals, etc, are undertaken. During that time, you would spend as much as you would if you were merely keeping them in a cell for a life sentence. And the state pays for the funeral either way
So, the economic argument for the death penalty doesn't stack up, not matter how badly you would like it to

It's an article about the desperately flawed and sexist police investigation into the crimes. Their ineptitude and stone age attitudes to women left a murderer free to attack further victims, leaving little children without their mothers. Do you take issue with it?

The proposed topic doesn't even make sense. If you mean "a part of" then what are you advocating? Should we be killing or locking up everyone convicted of a criminal offence, no matter how minor?

They started killing in 1963. So the existence of the death penalty didn't stop them.

You think that is what should have happened to Stefan Kiszko, Stephen Downing, Angela Canning, Sally Clark? Why do you want the state to kill innocent people?

I've spent quite a lot of time on prison wings. I've yet to see any luxury.

They don't have endless free access to Legal Aid. HTH.

If you think life prisoners are housed in luxury, you have a very odd idea of what constitutes luxury.

Do you want to be employed to guard violent people who are left bored out of their minds?

But there was doubt in this case. He admitted to the killings but there was a major issue as to his sanity. When we had the death penalty, we didn't apply it to the insane, and the same would have to apply if we brought it back.

Would you be happy about killing innocent people? Because that is what would inevitably happen.

Society is also what the rest of us have to live in, and I want to live in a civilised society. One where the state doesn't execute people. Even if you don't care about the rights of prisoners, don't you value your own humanity?

And, as most criminals are eventually released from prison. I'd rather they were rehabilitated if at all possible. Which involves treating them like the human beings they are.

If you spend years treating someone like they're a monster, that's what they'll become.

He should not have cost that much - what is the break down of the 10 million?

The death sentence isn't free. They don't just take them from the dock to the gallows and Jack Ketch does the business in return for the dead man's boots. A person sentenced to death spends years in prison while every possible appeal channel is exhausted at tremendous cost to the public purse. I don't have a figure, though I suppose a look at US costs for death row prisoners would give a guide.

For me it's really clear cut. I'd pay anything not to have the death penalty. And I want to have a society that values human life enough that we even treat the worst of us in a fair and dignified way because I think the alternative is much worse for everyone.