Why can’t we just hang scum like this?

If you really think that is what prison is like nowadays, you need to educate yourself. More often prisoners are in their cells 23 hours a day because prisons simply don't have the staff to sort things out like education and library visits.

If you read the thread, you'll see I've already addressed that point.

Don't be absurd. There was absolutely no doubt with Axel Rudakabana.

It's interesting philosophically isn't it...

How many innocent people killed is too many?? ..

One in a hundred, a thousand, a million?? ...

Can we sacrifice these people in order to have death penalty?

(PS I'm firmly against state executing people for this reason)

It's true we sacrifice people on hospital waiting lists from lack of money... And bloody incompetence.... The NHS wastes huge amounts of money which could be spent on clinical activity.. ... We're clearly OK with this as a nation.. Otherwise why aren't we manning the barricades?

Sally Clark would have faced the death penalty. She was innocent but was initially jailed for murdering her two children, who, it was later discovered, sadly died of natural causes

Life does mean life.

Your error is assuming that life means "life in prison".

Sentences are not only custodial. Once out of custody someone serving a life sentence will be under strict conditions and monitoring and can be recalled to prison for any breach, for the rest of their life.

I understand the death penalty has flaws in it, but sadly the justice system doesn’t do anything to punish and prevent when a rapist who has ruined a life gets out in a three months.
people like this monster should receive life and die in prison. People would feel less aggrieved if life really meant life not “out in 10 years”

The recent probably unsafe conviction of Lucy letby springs to mind..

She'd have been hung in 1950s Britain.... My guess in next few years, her conviction would be ruled unsafe.

He very obviously didn’t have the right though, did he? He has been convicted and sent to prison.

You convict someone with degrees of doubt. You convict or you don’t convict.

@randomchap 18yr old a few weeks back in this country Thomas waller. He was abusing kids in the bathroom and making videos

Which case was this?

I know someone whose son was murdered, very brutally, neither parent wanted the murderers to hang, the 2 convicted are out now, still with around 30 or 40 years of their lives left.

Hanging doesn't mean less murders or child abuse & many victims families don't want the death penalty.

Should the state demand a hanging but the family doesn't, whose "rights" would be respected?

On referendums, the last time we had one, it was hardly a success.

Have a read of what happened to Richard Huckle. Then Ian Watkins. Ian Huntly is still alive but he's had a couple of attacks, one of which slashed his throat.

This latest one will not be having an easy time. Prisons are overcrowded, things that shouldn't happen are happening.

100% I agree that’s exactly what they deserve all of them, but this country is weak

He'll be out in a few years, look how long that teen who did the same got 8 years I think. Is that really a sentence to fit these sort of crimes? He'll be out up at the tax payers expenses and out to do similar in the future I bet.

State-sanctioned executions are not the same as individuals murdering people, just as the state imprisoning people is not the same as an individual locking someone in their basement for years.

I am sure that I would be able to do so. Having killed animals before (for food, or out of necessity) and having found it to be a mildly upsetting experience each time, I honestly think executing a paedophile would be easier than an innocent animal.

It would be an unpleasant job, and no doubt carry some degree of psychological toll, but there would be a certain satisfaction to knowing that you are removing a monster from the world.

On a practical level I'm not in favour of giving the state the ability to kill people, and yet in these cases where a person's guilt is incontrovertible, I find it hard to argue against the death penalty - without expensive, drawn-out appeals. Just sentencing and then execution as soon as 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.

People will of course react strongly to that statement, but considering the number of people (including children) who die because their specific cancer treatment isn't publicly funded, who die because the mental health services don't provide enough care, who die because essential medical services are delayed by waiting lists, and other failures of the public health system, we are clearly fine with the state allowing innocent people to die.

So yes - I'm divided on the matter, but in principle I'm not against the death penalty for cases where the perpetrator is incontrovertibly guilty.

So prison is for cases where there is doubt i.e. not guilty?

Just put them in a cell, solitary confinement with no visitors or interaction with anyone, ever. And leave a cyanide capsule in there for them as "an option".

He's despicable, but we got rid of the death penalty for good reasons.

I think convicted paedophiles/rapists/murderers should be given the choice. Long prison sentences or lethal injection.

How exactly are the human rights of the victims protected or upheld by executing the perpetrators?

What about the "human rights" of victims of crime? Don't they count?