Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Thread gallery
11
GreenGully · 26/07/2025 11:33

randomchap · 25/07/2025 21:19

Killing people to save other peoples lives at the time of the offense is very different to killing as punishment or revenge after a trial.

One is to save lives, the other is revenge

Only one will save lives

Yes of course they are different. My point is, we sanction killing in certain scenarios, so sanctioning the execution of our worst criminals isn't too far removed in my opinion.

What you call 'revenge' many would call justice.

ilovesooty · 26/07/2025 11:24

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/07/2025 11:15

China. They are believed to have the highest amount of judicial killing in the world. People don't have human rights, so they have no right to a defence. They're shot in the head and their family have to pay for the execution including the bullet. I don't think they're killed within hours, but they have no right to appeal.

Yes, and figures for executions aren't made available either. They're believed to have the highest rate of judicial killing in the world
I was looking this up last night. In 2024, 87% of reported executions took place in just two countries - Iran and Saudi Arabia. The only country in Europe that retains the death penalty is Belarus.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/07/2025 11:15

ilovesooty · 26/07/2025 11:10

I'm still waiting to find out about countries that execute within hours of conviction.

China. They are believed to have the highest amount of judicial killing in the world. People don't have human rights, so they have no right to a defence. They're shot in the head and their family have to pay for the execution including the bullet. I don't think they're killed within hours, but they have no right to appeal.

ilovesooty · 26/07/2025 11:10

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/07/2025 10:49

It's not feasible because that's not how the law works. There's no point us continuing this exchange as I view your opinions on this as barbarism and we're never going to agree. There are plenty of countries in the world where you can sate your desire for people to be treated as valueless, perhaps you should move there instead.

I'm still waiting to find out about countries that execute within hours of conviction.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 26/07/2025 10:49

Glitchymn1 · 26/07/2025 09:33

I don’t see why not, other countries do it for far lesser crimes.
If not the death penalty it should be solitary- they should never see daylight again, bread and water as sustenance.

@CurlewKate You don’t know much about the prison system do you. They’re off shagging and all sorts- they definitely have lives!

It's not feasible because that's not how the law works. There's no point us continuing this exchange as I view your opinions on this as barbarism and we're never going to agree. There are plenty of countries in the world where you can sate your desire for people to be treated as valueless, perhaps you should move there instead.

zerofeeling · 26/07/2025 10:43

Sirzy · 26/07/2025 10:37

Surely most people are against the idea of troops being killed but that is sadly sometimes a necessary part of war. Ideally there would be no wars but as this thread shows some people get a thrill out of people being killed and for some that extends to pointless wars!

"murder is wrong. State sanctioned murder is just as wrong" That's what you said but now you're saying that sometimes State sanctioned murder is necessary? You can't have it both ways.

ZamaZama · 26/07/2025 10:40

Zov · 26/07/2025 10:10

No it's not wrong. No line in the sand is needed. Death penalty for the worst/most heinous crimes is needed. Your argument is flawed. Executing a psychopathic killed is not the same as the killer murdering someone in cold blood. I find it farcical and worrying in equal measures that you think the two are even CLOSE to the same.

It’s arguably worse as we should expect the state and community as a whole to act according to a higher standard than a violent criminal.

Criminals give into base emotions like anger and vengeance and have no regard for the rights of others.

One poster was pretty honest early on and described her wish for the death penalty as bloodlust. Others have posted lurid fantasies about instant justice. We demean ourselves by giving into this. There are ways of dealing with these individuals that don’t degrade us as a society, so the DP is not only not needed but should be avoided.

YouWillFindMeInTheGarden · 26/07/2025 10:39

Glitchymn1 · 26/07/2025 09:52

@Internaut How do they normally manage them? They comply because they get a ham sandwich and cuppa?!
If they’re contained, one to a cell with only a tray to pass they’re bread on how are they getting close enough to kill a warden?

Besides I’d rather kill them.

Edited

You have zero idea about how prison works so why comment on it and make yourself look ignorant

’how do they normally manage them’ …. Nobody is in those conditions for long. No U.K. prison keeps people segregated for longer than necessary do you realise all prison staff have a duty of care, no matter who/what the crime is.

every prisoner has the same.food/exercise. And they have human rights.

Sirzy · 26/07/2025 10:37

zerofeeling · 26/07/2025 10:32

@Sirzy Are you against having all killing? If the UK send troops to support one side in a war do you object to that?

Surely most people are against the idea of troops being killed but that is sadly sometimes a necessary part of war. Ideally there would be no wars but as this thread shows some people get a thrill out of people being killed and for some that extends to pointless wars!

zerofeeling · 26/07/2025 10:32

@Sirzy Are you against having all killing? If the UK send troops to support one side in a war do you object to that?

windyfarmers · 26/07/2025 10:31

Maybe we should we add soliciting to murder to the list of capital offenses.

Sirzy · 26/07/2025 10:20

Zov · 26/07/2025 10:10

No it's not wrong. No line in the sand is needed. Death penalty for the worst/most heinous crimes is needed. Your argument is flawed. Executing a psychopathic killed is not the same as the killer murdering someone in cold blood. I find it farcical and worrying in equal measures that you think the two are even CLOSE to the same.

So some murders are more acceptable than others? We can employ people to be murders and that’s ok but it’s wrong when someone murders? I just don’t get the logic.

muder is wrong. State sanctioned murder is just as wrong.

Zov · 26/07/2025 10:12

SuburbanSprawl · 26/07/2025 10:02

Ah, okay.

So killing people isn't wrong. It's all about context.

Well done, you got it.! 👏 Give yourself a pat on the back from me!

CurlewKate · 26/07/2025 10:11

Glitchymn1 · 26/07/2025 09:49

Not her as we don’t know. Rose West/Fred, Levi Bellfield Hindley- what was the point in keeping her alive. I just don’t get it. Maybe just the serial killers then.

But we did “know” about Lucy Letby. There are plenty on here who would have had her dead by now…

Zov · 26/07/2025 10:10

Internaut · 26/07/2025 01:16

It is still wrong. We have to draw a line in the sand. We cannot have a society where we say that killing people is the most serious offence there is, but which itself cold bloodedly kills people by appointment.

No it's not wrong. No line in the sand is needed. Death penalty for the worst/most heinous crimes is needed. Your argument is flawed. Executing a psychopathic killed is not the same as the killer murdering someone in cold blood. I find it farcical and worrying in equal measures that you think the two are even CLOSE to the same.

SuburbanSprawl · 26/07/2025 10:02

Zov · 25/07/2025 22:43

Not when it's a murderous psychopath who has killed people - especially children.

Ah, okay.

So killing people isn't wrong. It's all about context.

Sirzy · 26/07/2025 09:56

Glitchymn1 · 26/07/2025 09:49

Not her as we don’t know. Rose West/Fred, Levi Bellfield Hindley- what was the point in keeping her alive. I just don’t get it. Maybe just the serial killers then.

But at the time of her conviction there was little doubt in most peoples minds. Certainly not in the juries minds. Some people want conviction and death the next day so that makes mistakes even more likely to occur.

If it were to be considered you would need a very robust system for appeals and as has been pointed out many times that costs a lot more than life imprisonment

Glitchymn1 · 26/07/2025 09:52

@Internaut How do they normally manage them? They comply because they get a ham sandwich and cuppa?!
If they’re contained, one to a cell with only a tray to pass they’re bread on how are they getting close enough to kill a warden?

Besides I’d rather kill them.

Glitchymn1 · 26/07/2025 09:49

Nopenousername · 26/07/2025 06:47

The risk is low but the stakes are high. What about Lucy Letby? Sentenced to 15 whole life term and a year on there is doubt over her convictions..

Not her as we don’t know. Rose West/Fred, Levi Bellfield Hindley- what was the point in keeping her alive. I just don’t get it. Maybe just the serial killers then.

YouWillFindMeInTheGarden · 26/07/2025 09:39

Internaut · 26/07/2025 09:37

If not the death penalty it should be solitary- they should never see daylight again, bread and water as sustenance.

How easy do you imagine it would be to recruit and keep warders if that was our system? Would you fancy looking after a load of violent criminals who have literally nothing to lose by killing you?

Spot on!

mumsnetters can be so naive. Silly sweeping statements but don’t think through to the detail

Internaut · 26/07/2025 09:37

If not the death penalty it should be solitary- they should never see daylight again, bread and water as sustenance.

How easy do you imagine it would be to recruit and keep warders if that was our system? Would you fancy looking after a load of violent criminals who have literally nothing to lose by killing you?

Glitchymn1 · 26/07/2025 09:33

MiloMinderbinder925 · 25/07/2025 18:08

I see. What you're suggesting is that the death penalty isn't applied in every grevious case but now and again, when we're 'sure'. Do you think that's feasible?

I don’t see why not, other countries do it for far lesser crimes.
If not the death penalty it should be solitary- they should never see daylight again, bread and water as sustenance.

@CurlewKate You don’t know much about the prison system do you. They’re off shagging and all sorts- they definitely have lives!

Sirzy · 26/07/2025 09:02

Different families will feel differently. That’s normal and you can’t generalise.

but a justice system shouldn’t decide upon punishment based on family wishes. It should be based upon justice. Otherwise you could have two identical crimes punished differently because of the families wishes and how would that be fair?

Never2many · 26/07/2025 08:50

NaiveDuck · 26/07/2025 08:18

Lol you are making assumptions. None of my research is from 'youtube'. But from the actual families statements themselves.

Ooh so you’ve been and spoken to them? You personally?

no? Didn’t think so.

EyeLevelStick · 26/07/2025 08:41

NaiveDuck · 26/07/2025 08:18

Lol you are making assumptions. None of my research is from 'youtube'. But from the actual families statements themselves.

Way to miss the point. You have not seen statements from all victims’ families. You have only seen the statements that support your view.

The fact that you have not seen statements from families that do not support your view does not mean that all families support your view.

And I would suggest that the sources of the statements - YouTube documentaries or some such - have cherrypicked the statements that supported the view of the filmmaker.

Swipe left for the next trending thread