Why can’t we just hang scum like this?

IMO if someone commits a crime that is so heinous, like this one, IMO they automatically forfeit the right to get any older.

However, we have abolished the death penalty, so if anyone wants to bring it back they should start lobbying their MP about it.

I wouldn't be interested in a man that couldn't support me if I wanted to have children. I also would rather claim UC if I was in this position, than send my baby into childcare

None of the above.

You’ve made some really great points there ! 👏

You do understand that it is a necessity for thousands of women and that being a sahm is a privilege that not everyone can do

There are huge advantages to the death penalty - cheaper, world safer, you name it. Dodgy convictions are very, very, very rare.

But murder’s wrong. So we suck up the expense and effort of prison.

Gaol’s the least worst option.

I mean this is a naive post because for most it isn’t a choice. How are people supposed to keep a roof over their heads?

I assume you…

Don’t have children,
or
Had them years ago when everything was cheaper
or
Have family support so didn’t need to use nursery
or
Have a rich partner so are a SAHM
or
Don’t work

…..

There isn't a case of abuse in a nursery every week. This is rare, thankfully, and that's why these cases make the news. It's unkind to try to make parents feel guilty for using a nursery.

State ordered murder isn’t the solution. There’s no cure for paedophilia though so I think we should adopt the system some states in the US have and castrate them plus lock them up for life in a secure facility. Not like a prison but a residential home of kinds.

I think he should be fixed

And yet wars have been, and are, fought globally, with entirely ordinary people killing other people en masse, often over nothing more than land and resource rights.

War aside, there are definitely cases where it is considered morally acceptable to end another person's life.

That's not to say that the state should have the right to execute its own citizens, though.

I will never understand why people choose to leave their babies in the care of complete strangers. Babies cannot tell you what has happened to them. Every week there is another case of abuse in a nursery somewhere. This one is chilling.

There are certain crimes (this being one) that are too heinous to be ‘forgiven’ and I’d be happy to see the death penalty because it would save the tax payer millions.

People talk about civilised societies don’t use death as a punishment and I agree do most crimes, but there is no good in a human who does stuff like this animal. No one made him, he wasn’t coerced or made to, he used his free will so there is no excuse. I would happily see people who commit such atrocities to defenceless children hung drawn and quartered.

I suspect some who are religious vigorously reject the death penalty because only god can take a life, but as an atheist that holds no clout for me.

The argument it might be an innocent person is a fair one in some cases, but when someone admits it and the evidence is overwhelming then that can’t be the deciding factor.

Again I don’t think all crimes should have the death penalty and I include murders and rapists in that, incase there was a miscarriage of justice, but there are certain ones (like above) where I think it’s the best option. I would also bet my house on the fact that if taken to the public vote the majority of the British public would agree in cases like this

Obviously not.

But a person I love being wrongly imprisoned for life would be hellish too, and that happens now. I also wouldn't find it acceptable if someone I loved was raped or killed by a rapist or murderer released on parole, I wouldn't find it acceptable to be denied cancer treatment on the basis of cost, etc. There are many situations in which innocent people suffer or die that are judged to be acceptable losses by society.

And the justice system should not be run on appeals to emotions, such as your argument.

As I said, I'm conflicted on whether the death penalty would be a net positive or net negative, but I don't think the slim possibility that a tiny number of innocent people might be executed is a good argument against it. There are other, better arguments against it.

Obviously not, on an emotional level.
No one would be happy to be an innocent person executed, just as no one is happy to be told they won't be given a cancer treatment that could extend their life for years, but instead are offered palliative care because it's cheaper to let them die.
No one would be happy to have a family member who is a prison guard killed or maimed by a prisoner who is imprisoned for life for no point other than because the state doesn't want to kill him. No one would be happy to be raped or killed by a prisoner who was given a life sentence, but released on parole.

There is always going to be unnecessary, unfair death and suffering. The question is, what option is least harmful to society as a whole, and what option creates the most harmonious society? I don't know the answer (as I said, I'm conflicted), but I do think worrying that a tiny percentage of innocent people might die is the wrong thing to focus on. Innocent people always die.

As for your last paragraph - I said specifically in cases where the evidence is incontrovertible, such as being apprehended literally red-handed, in the act. Not in cases where framing is possible.

I'm aware that even in those cases where the evidence appears incontrovertible, there might be a margin of error, but I find it statistically acceptable that a very, very, very small percentage of innocent people might be executed.

@OtterlyAstounding, would you find that statistically acceptable if the person executed is you or someone you love?

I do wonder about disingenuous posts like this, where the OP makes one brief post, tosses it into the ring and then buggers off and makes no further comment.

I am trying hard not to infringe MN rules of operation, but it's not exactly unknown for people to post in bad faith for political reasons, 'stir the pot'.

Anyway OP, assuming this is a genuine post, we don't have the death penalty: it's barbaric and I think very lowly of countries who still kill people in cold blood like this. We must not stoop to the level of some of the terrible criminals we have to deal with. Mistakes can and have been made.

Even when we had the death penalty, it wasn't available for crimes like this.

If you're going to extend it beyond homicide, where do you draw the line?

All convictions are beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, they have to be found not guilty. Its the very cornerstone of justice.

Evidence suggests that when a jury knows the defendant could hang (or die by other means) they're less likely to find them guillty. So, if we had the death penalty, he might actually not have been convicted.

While I want scumbags like him to suffer endless torture, I can’t get my brain to accept the death penalty. Aside from the obvious possibility of wrongful conviction, there’s the hypocrisy. How can it ever be morally acceptable to end another person’s life? Who wants to be that person who lives with having deliberately and calculatedly ending another person’s life, whatever they have done? So many people think they could do it, but I reckon it would be pretty hard. Impossible for most.

I suspect you only find the execution of innocent people acceptable if you are not one of those executed.

The Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4, who would have been executed had it been an option, were arrested and framed purely because they were Irish.

Anyone that harms a child should lose their life, just like they have taken that child’s, whether that is physically or emotionally.

Watkins wasn't killed because he was a paedophile.

No. That is why he is going to be in prison for a long time.