This is why we should bring back the death penalty

Where, if at all, are you drawing the line? Are you saying every single person convicted of killing should be killed, no matter how extenuating the circumstances? Is there really no hope for that person who commits a mercy killing after years of seeing someone they love in awful pain and knowing it will only get worse?

If you are the person wrongly convicted of a murder you didn't commit, will you go to the gallows cheerfully accepting it because the overall benefit to society justifies it? How about if it is your child or someone else that you love?

The day you decide that human life should be part of a cost benefit analysis is really the day you forfeit any claim to a rational opinion.

the almost microscopic number of people who would be wrongly put to death is massively outweighed by the enormous benefits of removing these non human societal cancers from the gene pool,

There you have it. Someone who believes the sacrifice is worth it, that it doesn't matter if innocent people die as long as people get their pound of flesh. I knew we'd get there eventually.

Perfect example of why the death penalty should not be reinstated!

You would want this person as a member of your jury? I don’t think it would be a fair trial, if they think someone with opposing views is akin to a murderer.

I can’t take posts seriously that repeatedly insist the worst criminals are not human.

Also - calling avoiding the DP cowardice (proof, please, that this is a factor) and breezily arguing that the benefit of executing genuine criminals morally outweighs the risk of innocent people dying.

Big emotive statements that don’t actually say why the DP is a moral imperative.

Sally Clarke
Victor Nealon
Sam Hallam
Andy Malkinson

That small list is the tip of the iceberg. All recent miscarriages of justice who may have been subject to the death sentence following wrongful convictions.

Rationalise that.

Difficult to take seriously posters talking about putting down rabid dogs in the same breath as accusing others of meaningless platitudes….

There's no relevance at all. It's just the Mail's attempt to stir up hatred. They might as well said he votes Labour or helps at an immigrant centre - anything to confirm people's prejudices.

No, it's quite the opposite, it is a morally bankrupt society where people are too cowardly to do the right thing and remove these cancerous non humans entirely from society. They're not people, and it is very wrong indeed to inflict them on actual humans to deal with in any capacity - morally bankrupt and cowardly to make such a call.

And there is almost zero risk of wrongful conviction, however if you are going by stats (which is what you are doing when you make that part of your argument) the almost microscopic number of people who would be wrongly put to death is massively outweighed by the enormous benefits of removing these non human societal cancers from the gene pool, from the lives of real humans and giving true and fair justice to their victims.

As you are making a cost benefit analysis by mentioning the microscopic number of wrongful deaths by execution, the cost benefit analysis is hugely skewed in favour of executing these cancerous non humans.

This is a particularly horrific story, it really took my breath away and made me feel sick when I read it. It is utterly tragic and there's a lot of questions to be asked as to how this was allowed to happen and there need to be serious consequences for this man including incarceration and extensive psychological intervention.

But no, in my mind death penalty is never the answer. Too much risk of wrongful conviction and to be honest I think it's a sign of a society that is morally bankrupt. The best judge of a civilised society is how well they treat the worst of themselves. What he's done is abhorrent, at the same time we know very few crimes happen without context and often people who commit crimes (not necessarily this man but speaking in general) are vulnerable/ victims of previous crimes or abuse that have brought them to a very dark place in life. We can't simply wash our hands of people, that's a slippery slope.

I don't understand the relevance of the cross dressing to the crime.

Can anyone help?

Other than that - YABU. State sponsored murder won't bring that baby back.

No, we wouldn't, a completely pointless platitude, total twaddle that means nothing. If I put down a rabid dog, I don't become equal to a rabid dog. If I put down a child rapist or child murderer I don't become the equivalent of a child rapist and murderer. I become a person who has saved other children from being raped and murdered, delivered justice and fairness to the raped and murdered children and made the world a far far better place, and I continue to contribute to society without raping and murdering children, and being a useful and helpful society member who is not a danger to children.

When all you have is a meaningless platitude, it's best to say nothing.

No, it wouldn't, because we would have lowered ourselves to their level.

Again, if we could execute every creature in a human suit capable of this sort of behaviour the world would be a far far better place.

Bringing back the death penalty would only bring justice and fairness to a tiny proportion of these cases, but it would still be a slightly better world.

Who in the hell reported one of my posts? I did not attack anybody, so whoever did it was probably trying to shut down an opposing POV. Tsk tsk.

This might be helpful to you, @MiloMinderbinder925

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html

As you can see, the rules are very stringent, which is why a person I know can't get it. His death is not inevitable anytime soon, unless of course he commits suicide, which he has been clear to his doctors he will do if he can't get MAID. He is presently in the process of exhausting all treatment options. He's in unbearable pain constantly and nothing has helped, so who can blame him for wanting assistance to die peacefully.

I don't know why that record high number happened and neither do you. As I said, it could have been due to a higher than usual number of terminal cases. Which would mean it likely had nothing to do with it being easy to get. If that was the case the numbers would be expected to be that high, or even higher, every year. The fact that 96% in 2023 were terminal cases tends to support the explanation I proposed.

Me too!

Your original point was not specific and I responded in kind. When comparing per capita, you’re correct. I agree, pointless otherwise, but that also applies to the rest of your points.

The number of years to recidivate is one datapoint, but you also need to compare like for like on sentence type/length. Recidivism rates after 2 years are different for those who complete non-custodial vs custodial sentences, and for number of years on custodial sentences. Then to be really factual, you need to compare offence type - eg a person previously convicted of GBH who is later convicted of not paying a train fare etc. So unless you’re comparing at that granular level, you may as well use the high level combined figure, which is 26% give or take in the UK, and 20% in Singapore.

And you still have yet to show how ‘many people’ convicted of murder are released after less than 10 years.

Data from 2023 showed that 15,300 were killed via euthanasia so it's not that difficult to get. Unless you're saying that the rules were lax that year.

Yes, and at that point someone can be transferred to an open prison. Do you think that’s not prison?

Tariffs were introduced to make it clear to all how long would be served. Prior to 2003 judges sometimes made recommendations but decisions to release always sat with the Home Secretary. Those decisions were opaque and the actual time served was shorter than if has been since tariffs were introduced. The law has gone on to increase starting points for tariffs since then.

A life sentence is mandatory because it’s the only sentence that applies when someone is convicted of murder. And it’s a life sentence because it doesn’t expire until the person dies.

Often objections arise because people don’t understand the system - and fair enough, because it’s overly complicated, and it’s massively misrepresented by the media which is most people’s source of information. Of course people can object to the system as it is too, it’s just often not done from a factual starting point.

The fact is that recidivism rates for parole sentences are very low. Tariffs are increasingly longer. Most people are not moved to open prison at the tariff review, most are not released on tariff and the supervision of life licences is stringent and people are recalled very easily.

Public protection failures are far more common where someone is under minimal supervision following a lower level offence.

That data is from a single year, 2023, which holds the record high.
So it's a misleading statistic often used as anti-euthanasia propaganda.
Nor does it follow that it means it was easy to get. It could just indicate a larger than usual number of terminal cases, because 96% of those cases were for terminal conditions, with cancer being the leader.
More info;
www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/12/canada-medically-assisted-death

The main difference, of course, is that in CP there is no autonomy, making it a indisputable that it's murder, with no grey area whatsoever.
I agree it's worth exploring, which is what we are doing, and I'm enjoying the discussion.

1/20 deaths in Canada are euthanasia so it can't be that difficult to get.

Yes, I agree that there is more than one reason to be against the death penalty and more than one reason to be for euthanasia.

I just find it interesting that many people give innocent deaths as their main reason against the death penalty, along with the state getting involved in killing people.

It does strike me as contradictory if those some people support euthanasia, which also has the potential for misuse and also involves the state legislating for people to be killed.

I know they're not direct comparisons and there are more aspects at play, but I do find it worth exploring.