Why can’t we just hang scum like this?

But again: you're either convicted of a crime or you're not. The conviction is black and white. There are no degrees of "definitely guilty, we all saw him do it", and "well he's probably guilty". There is just "guilty".

Anyone convicted of murder, regardless of the strength of the case, could therefore be sentenced to death. Even if the conviction is later quashed.

When you can reverse an execution, then you can be right.

Your move.

Regardless, the death penalty isn't hypocritical. You can find it unpleasant, or consider it immoral by your standards, or ineffective as a dissuasion tactic, but state-sanctioned execution is entirely different to murder, much as state imprisonment is very different to an individual locking another person in their basement.

That;s your opinion. It's not an objective fact. And you can discover that a respect for human life in someone (raises hand) can lead to a diametrically opposite view. However it's not an equally opposing view. Because in one case you have a dead prisoner. In the other you have a prisoner who can be released when you realised you have got it wrong.

Once again, for people who pretend they are all about the justice. Once you have hanged the wrong person, the entire system then closes behind it, and will become very resistant to any future developments that could prove it made a mistake. And for every wrongly executed innocent there will be a murderer who not only got away with it, but could kill again.

None of the execution cheerleaders on this thread found time to comment on the Timothy Evans case. Where thanks to a biased legal system, and some clap happy hangers, the real culprit went on to kill more women. And - had he not been mentally deranged - could have easily killed many many more.

I can understand why you would be reluctant to remind people of the case as it is the paradigm of why capital punishment is a crock. All that we can safely agree on is that it is a process which results in someone being killed. I will happily accept that is a 100% outcome. (Unless we get Capita to do the job. Then it will be a miracle if anyone is killed, let alone the actual condemned).

I feel as though 'traces of explosives' (which is evidence that can be falsified) isn't quite the same as the police arriving on the scene while a stabbing is actively taking place.

By that logic, prison is wrong, as it is both wrong and illegal for an individual to imprison someone against their will.

We should therefore abolish prisons, according to your reasoning.

Apparently the Birmingham 6 were as good as caught red handed as they had traces if explosives on their hands.

Newsflash: they didn't.

Of course it's hypocritical.

It's wrong to kill so let's kill those who kill

Hypocritical

My point was merely that ordinary people are very capable of killing.

cold, brutal and deliberate, the very characteristics we abhor in the perpetrator of the crime

That's not what society abhors in the case of a murderer. Someone can kill someone gently out of 'love' (euthanising a suffering love one), out of a hot-blooded rage (a drunk bar fight), or without deliberate intent (drink-driving). What is, and should be abhorred, is that in the case of murder, a person has broken the social contract and taken another, innocent person's life without sanction.

We should surely want the state to be cold and deliberate, if execution was an option. As for brutal...well, that depends on the method employed, I suppose.

Regardless, the death penalty isn't hypocritical. You can find it unpleasant, or consider it immoral by your standards, or ineffective as a dissuasion tactic, but state-sanctioned execution is entirely different to murder, much as state imprisonment is very different to an individual locking another person in their basement.

If the death penalty "worked" (it doesn't) then no one would ever murder anyone else. (Although I leave this space here > < for someone to try and pretend they have some statistical insight that shows no one was ever murdered in Britain before 1965 when we did have the death penalty).

When you agree it's no deterrent that wanting to see it enacted isn't about some regretful necessity, but a rather more unpleasant venom soaked triumph of humankinds baser instincts.

There is also a staggeringly naive bordering on thick delusion that the UK legal system is somehow perfect and free from bias. A totally hypocritical delusion where people who in any other thread would have (or have been) whining about "two tier justice" are able to forget that for a minute in their supposedly fashionable bloodlust.

We should already be well aware of how the justice system treats people depending on race and social status. Why in the name of all that is holy would someone who claims to be interested in justice (spoiler alert, no one who wants to kill prisoners is, they're all about the rope) want to add capital punishment to that mix.

If people are so desperate to see people killed, then they are always free to emigrate to Saudi Arabia (or similar) where if they are really lucky they can get a front row at a beheading and be the last thing the condemned see before their head departs their body. But don't worry - they do put down large plastic sheets to avoid a mess.

Because we are not savages.

Because it's inhumane and mistakes do happen

There can be no technical solution that would remove people from an execution. When if it's machine that delivers the execution method, people will still be needed to restrain the prisoner, move them to the execution chamber etc. And even if there was no human intervention, do you really want something built that can kill autonomously?

The UK should never have another referendum ever.

You have an MP. It's their job to represent you. If you feel they aren't, then find one who does, and get them elected.

War is arguably self defence, certainly for the cannon fodder on the ground. The ordinary people who end up involved have no choice. It’s kill or be killed. I think I would kill someone if they tried to harm my child. Or me for that matter. In the moment. But the state actively setting a date and time to kill someone is cold, brutal and deliberate, the very characteristics we abhor in the perpetrator of the crime. It’s hypocritical.

The age of legal adult is 16 in the UK @blobby10

Judith Ward confessed too, but thankfully the death penalty had been abolished by then.

I used to be very pro death penalty but, mainly thanks to years spent on MN, I am more undecided now. Yes, serial murderers and rapists and definitely all child molesters don't deserve to live but then the line gets very blurred. If you say all murderers should die then what about the DV victim who killed their abuser accidentally or in self defense? What about the motorist who through making a mistake like all drivers do at some point, ended up causing an accident when another person was killed?
And if we say all child molesters does that include men/women over 18 who embark on a sexual relationship with 15-17 year old? Technically still a child but way more adult than I was at that age in the 80s.
My mother used to say that to kill someone under the death penalty makes someone else a murderer but I think that in this day and age with so much technology around it should be possible to draw up a random program so that the computer presses the 'kill' button rather than a human
All men who commit rape or sexual assault, especially those who abuse children should have their penis removed. Yes they can live with a bloody catheter for ever and I know their 'urges' will never go away but at least they won't have a tool to use. And if they persist cut off their hands!

I agree that for some in lower paid jobs it’s not always worth it, but being out of work for 5 years will cause problems down the line and make it harder to get back in to the workplace.

15 hours free nursery starts at 3 and most people take advantage of that because it’s beneficial for their development so the vast majority of kids are attending at 3.

Every single jury verdict is based on the jurors being satisfied that the defendant is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". They still make the wrong decision and there's no way of avoiding that.

The list of innocent people who would have been wrongly executed had we still had the death penalty is a long one, I can think of at least 20 off the top of my head.

I also think that if killing people is wrong, it's wrong for the state to do it, unless it's in a war situation where there is a direct threat to the nation by another nation.

I think this is where there is a class difference so with working class lower paid employment you will be approximately £300 per month better off working than not working. Its not insubstantial but it doesn't seem worth it when the alternative is being home with your kids. That's before child care costs which I would be paying 30% of that's about £300 per month.

I wouldn't want child care for my children until they were of school age

Well you must be getting your money from somewhere?

When you say baby what do you mean? I think most would wait at least 9 months and as long as possible but for many there isn’t an option to not go to work at some point, because financially they won’t be able to live even with benefit too ups even if their partner works.

Also some woman don’t want a man to support them financially and they want their own career because if it goes tits up it’s the woman that ends up with nothing.

My children are currently small and I do all of their care.

It's also worth pointing out that most abuse isn't from a stranger but from someone already known to the family, or another member of the family.

Just because you're putting your child in nursery does not mean they are safer than leaving them with someone you know

So what did you do for childcare when your children were little then if it’s none of the above?

Very interested to hear your experience and the ‘right’ choice you made. I suspect I won’t get a reply though…. Funnily enough!