This is why we should bring back the death penalty

In murder cases, the sentence is mandatory life. The law since 2003 means that the sentencing judge sets a tariff and the entire tariff must be served before parole can be given, and the person remains on licence for the rest of their life

I thought there was a "review" which could be held 3 years before the tariff was completed, @Allisnotlost1, with the possibility of being transferred to open conditions if considered suitable?

It's not for me to speak for others, but I honestly believe some objections arise from the fact that tariffs were introduced at all. For some of us it flies in tthe face of a "life sentence" supposedly being mandatory and represents yet another chipping away at public protection

It's interesting you should say that, because I know somebody who wants assisted death in Canada and can't get it. There are all kinds of hoops you have to jump through and it takes years. You have to exhaust every single one of your treatment options, even if treatment increases your suffering. If anything it's too restrictive.
There are not many cases in which coercion is even suspected, let alone proven. That notion is based on propaganda from the anti-euthanasia fanatics.
Yes, of course coercion is a possibility. Coercion is possible in any medical procedure, but highly unlikely.

The risk of an innocent person dying is not the only reason people oppose the death penalty, so the analogy doesn't really work anyway. The other key difference is that assisted death is a definite end to the patient's suffering, but the death penalty does not end the suffering of the victim's loved ones.

Why on earth would you not look at per capita rates? Comparing absolute figures between such vastly differing population sizes is pointless. So your "fact check" was incredibly misleading and my original point stands.

My data on recidivism is still more useful than your next supposed "fact check" where you didn't mention number of years at all. I could say the recidivism rate is zero if I'm just measuring within the first 5 minutes after release from prison. I gave my source for the rates of close to 60% in the UK vs 30% in Singapore after 2 years.

If you're fact checking other people's posts, get your facts right.

And here you are again.

It’s about the death sentence, something I agree with for the worst kind of killer. I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand about that
or why you are so obsessed.

Per capita you’re correct.

On recidivism rates, your data is still not comparing like with like and that’s because the single figures given on worldpopulationreview.com are underpinned by a complex system in every case. It’s very hard to compare recidivism rates across countries. And it’s particularly difficult to compare countries where the death penalty applies for different offences, as in the case of Singapore and the US.

if you want to compare the deterrent effect of the death penalty you need to look at its impact on specific offences.

In England and Wales the sentence given is always the sentence served. For many sentences, that means some of the time is in prison and some is under licence in the community.

In murder cases, the sentence is mandatory life. The law since 2003 means that the sentencing judge sets a tariff and the entire tariff must be served before parole can be given, and the person remains on licence for the rest of their life.

She said nothing of the kind and your reaction is way over the top. She was countering a claim that she knows nothing about the subject by providing a direct personal experience, something which you lack.

Has it ever occurred to you that American TV networks choose to profile the cases which can give a closure ending, to make the audience feel better? People are less likely to want to watch cases where the victim's family said they got no closure. It's too sad. If you go to less commercial sources, you will find many who say it brought no closure. There are loads of true crime channels on YouTube, for example. I have seen families interviewed who said that.

It's incredible that anyone would think TV shows (on the big American networks no less) are a reflection of all that exists in real life and that watching them makes you some kind of expert. I'd be embarrassed to say something so gauche.

This thread isnt about serial killers….not ‘topic’, thread. 🤨 . The prisoner mentioned in the article isn’t a serial killer either

yet on you go (like a broken record)

most odd!

The topic isn’t about prison. It’s about the death penalty. I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about it. I also don’t come on and take the piss with a high and mighty attitude.

I’ll never change my mind- serial killers should have their tickets cancelled- the end. So it’s pointless going back and forth and calling me ignorant, over and over again. 🙄Like a broken record.

This is all very well, but I'm surprised no-one's addressed the most important and relevant part of the case that the Mail were sensible enough to put right at the beginning of their article - the fact that he was a cross dresser.

I mean, allowing people who murder babies to live is one thing. But perverts who murder babies AND wear their girlfriend's frilly panties? It just ain't right.

A quick google shows that 25 people were executed in the USA in 2024. That's out of a population of around 350 million people.

Singapore executed 9 people in the same year. That's out of a population of 6 million.

Clearly, Singapore executes more people per capita than the US.

Recidivism rates increase as time go by. You have to give the number of years after release along with the percentage. I used the rate after 2 years. I got my date from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country

Also, sentence given is different to sentence served. It is completely normal for prisoners to be released early before completing all of their sentence.

I don’t support the death penalty because innocent people will die. It doesn’t reduce crime. It doesn’t act as a deterrent. With all the appeals etc it is not cheaper than keeping them in prison. The standard of evidence of higher so fewer people will be convicted meaning more murderers walk free.

I would also be concerned that people would expect it to be done to paedophiles or any other sex criminals. I’d be concerned this would make perpetrators more likely to kill their victims after attacking them (killing them means it is less likely they’re caught and the punishment is the same either way).

It is completely normal to have a very strong reaction to a case like this. I am often in tears reading articles like this. However I don’t believe that our justice system should be formed based on emotional responses and a need for revenge.

I think it should be formed based off evidence of what actually works and what reduces crime. Countries that focus on rehabilitation, on reducing poverty, social care and early interventions have less crime than countries with the death penalty.

I find the whole baying for blood thing a bit disturbing, especially when someone questions the value of working with offenders. This kind of work prevents (some) of these crimes happening in the first place which - in terms of the horror of a story like this - is some of the most valuable work that can be done.

This post is like fact check bingo.

The USA executes significantly more people than Singapore.

The recidivism rate for murder is around 0.001% in the UK. The overall recidivism rate is 26%, that’s for all people completing all sentences who go on to commit any further crime.

The Singapore recidivism rate is actually around 20%.

I bet you can’t find a single person who was released from a murder sentence after 10 years. The average tariff in 2021 was 21 years. Murder with a weapon taken to the scene is a starting point of 25 years for a knife, 30 for a gun.

Do you think the threat of the death penalty would have stopped him from doing it? Of course it wouldn't.

Of course he should be punished, but the death penalty has never been a deterrent.

Why does it make sense to believe the death penalty plays a role?

The recedivism rate is higher in the USA than the UK.

The recedivism rate is even lower in Norway than Singapore.

You seem to be cherry picking.

It’s at the top of actives!

You see, you have come onto a new thread to start again.

I believe this has been or will be abolished.

Yes, I agree there are other factors at play e.g. income inequality, education etc.

Also, how often the death penalty is actually used - not often in the US, more often in Singapore.

As I've said before, I'm not in favour of the death penalty due to the potential of innocent lives being lost, but I do think it can reduce crime.

The recidivism (reoffending) rate after 2 years in the UK is around 60%. In Singapore it's around 30%.

It makes sense to believe that the death penalty plays a role here. If a murderer is released after 10 years (many are released much earlier!) there's a much higher chance of them killing again than if that same murderer was executed after the first crime - making their reoffending rate 0.

Not necessarily, only for sexual/sadistic or terrorist motives.

The distinction between murder and manslaughter is intent, not motive. Motive can go some way towards corroborating intent, but it's intent that counts.

ETA: in England and Wales, at least. It may be different in Scotland.

😅

Motive ist taken into account when e.g. distinguishing between murder and manslaughter. It also makes the difference between crimes of passion and premeditated murder.

Ah ha, cherry picking ... I see you. 👀

I am never going to change my mind about how I feel, so I can't see the point in the needless back and forth arguing. Death sentence should be brought back IMO for the most heinous crimes. An opinion isn't wrong, no matter how some people try and make out it is. I believe we need to bring back the death sentence. THAT is a fact. (That I believe it.) You can't change that. I'm not going to change a lifelong opinion, because a random on the internet tells me my opinion is 'wrong.'

Anyway, I agree with other pp that your opinions keep wavering, and I'm not sure you even know what you believe!

In Scotland, they have innocent, guilty and not proven.

"Not proven" seems a bit of a cop-out to me. It's like saying "We think you did it, but we can't prove it".