Why can’t we just hang scum like this?

I completely agree!

If the evidence was strong enough which of course it isn’t in some cases yet people still get convicted and that is concerning.

For example I don’t believe Lucy Letby is guilty and I think this will come out as the biggest miscarriage of justice in history. IMO the evidence was manipulated to fit an agenda and she was scapegoated. It was circumstantial so that’s why I wouldn’t be for it in general but I don’t believe all guilty verdicts are wrong.

Thank you! Exactly. Frankly, I'm still not even 100% convinced that the death penalty should be brought back - I'm kind of on the fence - but I can definitely sympathise with the arguments in favour of it! Certainly, in particular cases, where there's not just no reasonable doubt, but there's literally zero doubt whatsoever, it's a very tempting option.

And if the legal system were to be changed in order to bring the death penalty back, why not change it further to add a narrow category of 'guilty beyond ALL doubt' to the existing 'guilty' and 'not guilty' system?

We currently have two verdicts available: guilty, and not guilty. What new verdict would you propose to cover this new standard of guilty plus?

(I'm ignoring the Scottish not proven as it's controversial and may be on the way out anyway)

Hopefully the children are too young to remember

Not a fallacious appeal to emotion, but you're still trying to appeal to emotion by saying, "What if it was a person you loved?" Many people would be against their loved ones being punished even if they were guilty of their crimes. How a loved one feels shouldn't come into it.

I can respect your argument that the state allowing people to die in other circumstances doesn't mean they should actively kill people. There is definitely a difference, there. And yet of course, it means society does still (in practice) accept a degree of unnecessary loss of life.

Fair enough, that you find the idea of state-sanctioned execution horrible. I certainly wouldn't want them doing it in hot blood, though. And I strongly disagree that killing convicted murderers makes society worse than said murderer.

It seems like your replies focusing on issues that the poster has already explained. She said she’s not for capital punishment in all situations but there are certain situations whereby she feels it’s appropriate (I share this view)

Some cases and convictions are 100% right and safe. At what point do we say yes they done it because there is video evidence in every room, 10 whitenesses, they admitted it etc etc…. Do we still say ‘It might be wrong?’ Come on now!!

Most people found guilty in a court of law are actually guilty, some of horrendous crimes.

Sounds like we are wasting time on courts, with that attitude.

It would not be a lust for revenge.
It is a just punishment and a preventative.

Preventative ? How so ? You may refer to the John Christie case to prove your point. He went on to continue to kill after someone was hanged on his behalf.

Or have we improved things since then ?

You can believe in degrees of guilt if you like. However the practicalities of the justice system are against you.

A lot of people appear to be conflating mitigation with exoneration. Someone can be guilty of a crime, but have their sentence mitigated by the circumstances. This is indeed how the death penalty was eventually abolished. It was taken off the table for some types of murder. However rather than "solving" the problem (the Home Office has always been pro death penalty) it compounded it as research found jurors - who probably had seen enough dead bodies during the war - were increasingly reluctant to send people to the gallows. An attitude which the Evans, Bentley and (erroneously IMHO) Ellis cases reinforced.

It would not be a lust for revenge.
It is a just punishment and a preventative.
Society would not be killing them; they have killed their own future.

Modern forensics surely has improved the accuracy of finding someone guilty. Those who admit guilt to heinous crimes, where there is sound evidence found by Police, motive and witnesses should be extinguished.
As a society we should not have to spend money nor thought about their existance for one minute.
Most people found guilty in a court of law are actually guilty, some of horrendous crimes.

Sad for their families but no sadder than having to think of their criminal relative allowed to live while their victims suffer for a life time or are dead.

Self-evidently my argument isn't an appeal to emotion, as it is based on someone who is certainly innocent being killed by the state. It simply is not good enough to say bad things happen to innocent people in other contexts, therefore we should specifically allow the state to kill innocent people.

I agree that the possibility of killing innocent people is certainly not the only argument against the death penalty. I find the notion of the state saying "Thou shalt not kill, but it's fine for us to do so" morally abhorrent, and I find the concept of setting up a system for killing people in cold blood really horrible. It puts us below the level of the people being condemned.

If you're trying to argue that there aren't real degrees of certainty, or differing degrees of evidence, I'm not sure what to say to you. All convictions have to pass a certain threshold, but that doesn't mean some don't pass further beyond it than others.

You can euthanise men who are: caught on camera,

Even now in 2025, "AI" fakes are good enough to fool the sort of people who want to be easily fooled. How will your "caught on camera" look in 2030 ? 2035 ?

Maybe come up with a better method ?

You seem to be repeatedly arguing against points I haven't made. So I'll be bowing out, thanks.

Remember only within the last months, the news reporting of the Huntingdon stabbing originally stated that the hero - who suffered terrible injuries in helping prevent more deaths - was mistaken for an attacker ???

That's 2025, not 1825.

That's a very good point! I'm not sure it would hold up in the case of Axel Rudakubana, but you're right that even arriving on an active scene, there are grey areas and the possibility the authorities could get things wrong.

But - again - your are describing a games show justice system where you are either 100% guilty or (presumably) 51% guilty.

There is a famous comment about being pregnant. Presumably in your life you have known people who are pregnant beyond the shadow of a doubt as opposed to pregnant ?

I object in the strongest possible terms to sharing a planet with men who hurt children for sexual gratification.

You can euthanise men who are: caught on camera, caught in the act, caught by DNA, caught by disclosure by a child.

It is really simple. And a great deterrent I think.

They give chemical castration drugs to children whose parents say they are trans , but rename them "puberty blockers".

That's a whole other fight that mothers have against predatory men...

Even the police coming on a stabbing while it is taking place isn't necessarily conclusive. For example, the supposed stabber might have actually come on the scene late and be trying to remove a knife, it could be self-defence, or it could be the result of serious mental illness meaning the individual is incapable of forming the necessary intent for homicide.

My sticking point against it, is that the state is too corrupt to be given that power

There are many reasons to oppose capital punishment, and they are all equally valid apart from one. And that is the faux-naive (or honestly dim) argument that now the justice system never gets it wrong. If that is your support for capital punishment then why the hell are you wasting time on MN when you should be learning your times tables. I can't think of anything more terrifying than Priti Patel, Suella Braveman or David Lammy telling us that we now have an infallible justice system, so let them dangle.

If your argument for the death penalty is just that you like the idea of some people being killed and you aren't too bothered about the details, then at least you are being candid. Which I can respect.

But I can't respect people whose support is based on shonky research that when proved wrong results in a serious of soundbites.

My point is that if the death penalty was ever brought back, I think it should be restricted to those cases where there really is no shadow of a doubt. Just as different classes of crime carry different sentencing guidelines now, there should have to be very specific criteria for a conviction to fulfil to make the death penalty a possibility.

Why are we letting men have unfettered access to our babies?

You can't reverse someone losing twenty years of their life to prison. They will never get that time back, and nothing will make up for that lose.

Besides, my argument was in regards to people saying it's hypocritical to kill people when killing is illegal. By that logic, it's hypocritical to imprison people against their will when doing so is illegal.

But again, personally I'm undecided on state-sanctioned execution. My sticking point against it, is that the state is too corrupt to be given that power - it could be a slippery slope. Ultimately, it's probably better to have actual life sentences, not executions. But the appeals to emotion that people make about 'innocent people dying' hold very little water. The state allows innocent people to die every day by withholding medical treatments based purely on cost.

As long as you have the death penalty, you will have appeals. And as long as you have appeals you won't have justice. in fact quite the opposite.

Are all the proponents of capital punishment here claiming that their support is based on a support for justice ? And if so what are they doing right now to ensure we have justice everywhere. For all crimes - say violence against women ?

If someones support for the death penalty is within a wider framework of activism in justice, it's a worthy debating point. However, it seems to me to be more the single note issue of someone trying to learn an instrument, rather than a pleasing improvisation using scales, modes, cadence and rhythm to convey a melody of integrity and sophistication.

But that's probably just me.