AIBU to ask whether the death penalty should apply for certain crimes in the UK?

But you're talking about adapting the principle for penal purposes.

If it’s not vengeful why are you doing it for the victims families?

“I'd feel as though it was my responsibility to remove from the world what I'd brought into it. I'm not sure I'd be comforted by knowing my murderous child would be spending decades locked away in prison, where he could hurt guards, or be hurt by other prisoners.”

I find this utterly bizarrre. I don’t actually think it’s true (although I can imagine you firmly think it is) what kind of parent wants to kill their child because they’ve killed?

this never happens in real life so it’s not something people in this situation seem to think

No. There's too many cases of innocent people being killed on death row.

Living in prison for the rest of your life in solitary confinement is worse punishment than death anyway. Look at people like Huntley. Constantly trying to commit suicide so he got what he wanted? That's not really justice either is it?

No reason to increase the number.

One could argue it's violent, but it's not necessarily vengeful. It could simply be utilitarian.

Absolutely all of this.

I imagine that many criminals' parents are devastated and heartbroken that their children are incarcerated at all, so I'm not sure that the feelings of a criminal's family should really be taken into account.

Personally, however, if my child went on a stabbing spree murdering small girls, I think (devastation and horror aside) I'd feel as though it was my responsibility to remove from the world what I'd brought into it. I'm not sure I'd be comforted by knowing my murderous child would be spending decades locked away in prison, where he could hurt guards, or be hurt by other prisoners. That would just be awful in a multitude of ways.

As opposed to the current situation where no paedophiles ever murder their victims?!

I always used to be against it because of the possibility of error.

Maybe I’ve become more jaded, but now I think, if guilt is absolutely certain for some of the most heinous crimes, then yes.

Some people have done things so evil they have forfeited the right to remain part of society.

The recent case of a baby being abused to death via oral rape springs to mind. I’d find it hard to justify keeping that person alive just to avoid “murdering” them. You’re removing a cancer from humanity.

There’s also a theory (and I’m sure someone here will debunk it) that western civilisation IS as polite and peaceable as it is (relatively speaking) BECAUSE there was a period of time where fairly minor crimes carried death penalties.

Small world we live in. There was more than one victim. I don't want to talk about specific cases, my post was in reply to another poster who DID want to talk specifically about this case. "Violently vengeful" ... no dear.

That would just be an incentive for paedophiles to murder their victims, as it would reduce their risk of being caught and the potential punishment would be no worse.

But also what’s being lost in this conversation is that we are not appreciating that the uk is a relatively low crime country

which brings me back to, what’s good enough? I can promise, if we were Norway, we would still be talking about whether we should kill murderers. The conversation isn’t related to levels of crime, just it’s mere existence

I don't have much sympathy for the close family of the Southport murderer, no

Well this much was self-evident given that you stated your sympathy for bereaved families then immediately agitated for needlessly creating another bereaved family.

The rest of your post is just typical of the mindless "string them up" vindictive drivel common to these threads.

I imagine the poster is thinking more of the “groomed from a teenager” gang leader than the psychopath who killed his family

I don't have much sympathy for the close family of the Southport murderer, no. Generally if people commit the most depraved, sadistic, evil acts you can imagine, they need to be gone for good.

For example, I believe this should extend to paedophiles particularly where the victim is a prepubescent girl or boy. The trauma for the victim can last a lifetime. Absolutely get rid, there is no rehabilitation. Just at least one wrecked life and out on the streets again after a few years.

It seems to work well for Norway and other Scandinavian countries, but yet again, the consensus seems to be that the UK should aim for a race to the bottom instead of spending money to improve things for the majority.

Another "my thoughts are with the families... but fuck one family in particular"

🤔

Idealism is sweet but expensive to realise that you’re being unrealistic. Most people don’t change in any significant way from intervention. Pathologies can be medicated but they never go away. Recidivism is the norm no matter what the treatment.

Absolutely YES in some circumstances like this. Get rid. My thoughts are with the victims and families.

But that is inhuman.

I appreciate the desire for punishment, there are certainly some crimes where I feel it myself but we should not let raw emotion rule the justice system.

Those sorts of crimes...the punishment does not deter.

Minimal? How many innocent people executed is too many? There's a correct answer. 1.

No to the death penalty.

We can't even grow the spine required to offer euthanasia to terminally ill people facing an agonising death. Get that utter disgrace dealt with, and then we can think about offering it to whole lifers.