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

I do have some sympathy with the suggestion that criminals who know they will never be released could be offered euthanasia.

I don’t think they should have any options. Some criminals really won’t care about dying especially if they’re the ones choosing it, and they could even use it as a way to taunt the victim’s family as a way to say “I’m still in control in the end”.

In 2023 alone, 20 people were killed by dogs in the UK, and yet dog ownership is still allowed, and the idea of banning all dogs to prevent approximately 10 to 20 deaths a year would be considered ridiculous.
Regardless of your opinion on the death penalty, there are many situations in which wholly preventable deaths are considered acceptable collateral damage.

I genuinely believe the only way we can improve, not just to reduce crime, but to improve overall, is through investment.

We need massive investment in MH services, early intervention schemes, infrastructure, education, and job creation. All or any of that would have a far bigger impact on reducing crime rates than reinstating the death penalty would.

Plus Maguire Seven and Tottenham Three - we're up to 20 already. Then there are the M25 "murderers" (3) and Judith Ward.

So 24 people already, and that's without googling.

Just to add to the bingo card, we've now had "taxpayer's money" and "hard-earned" money.

Ignoring the fact the bulk of Government income is not personal taxation, what about all the tax gathered from lazy folk who don't work hard? You don't get a tax rebate or knocked down a band just because you are fond of a skive.

The USA's Federal death penalty is barely ever used and almost always commuted. IIRC the Federal "death row" is a literal handful of convicts. Most of the individual States which still have the death penalty as an option are the more backward and deprived.

Singapore is also practically a one-party State in much the same way the PRC is, and it's also horrendously backward in terms of personal and civil liberties, equalities, and minority rights compared to most Democracies, so yes, I'd absolutely contend Singapore is "backward and tinpot".

No. I can understand that some victims, or their families, might want it for the most appalling crimes, but for obvious reasons their view will not be an objective one.

I do have some sympathy with the suggestion that criminals who know they will never be released could be offered euthanasia.

Do you really think there would be any take up of that? Seems a bit pointless.

Could be a good idea to give them to option to do this at the time of their sentencing, and to make it easy for them.

I’ll give you 10 good reasons why not.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four.

Do you not think their option would be to kill themselves though? Plenty of prisoners manage this.

I'm OK with some murders.

I am not OK with the State having the power of life or death.

But when some people get murdered, I just don't care. Lots of people have it coming.

I have not felt the need to murder anyone yet personally, but I can't say I never will.

I would support the death penalty being available, by choice, for people sentenced to 25+ years, who were over 21 at the time of their crime and are proven to be mentally competent. Only because whilst I understand the need for whole life tariffs in some cases, it is imo a "cruel and unusual" punishment, and allowing people to choose would be a kindness and would save the taxpayer money. The choice element takes away the need for expensive appeals.

However, I would only allow it after they had served a minimum of 5 years, so they have time to wrap their head around their sentence and do not opt for death because they fear prison.

But they obviously wont end up living next to your or me so why did you say that?

Yeah, you can't start from a principle that we'll organise it in a way that means no MOJs. There will be MOJs. So it's a discussion about the extent to which we're prepared to accept some innocent people being executed.

As a "victim" (someone I loved very much was murdered), I can categorically state that you're wrong.

Also - you are free to hold whatever views you like. But don't attempt to justify them on the basis of spurious "concern" for other people.

That's never how it works in practice, though. There is already supposed to be a high burden of proof, aka guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Letby, the PO scandal, Sally Clarke, Andrew Malkinson, and the 30-60 other criminal convictions turned over annually in the UK prove that the system doesn't work how it is supposed to work.

I know someone locally who was convicted of murder only on eyewitness testimony, no motive, no physical evidence. The eyewitness's husband did have a motive and prior convictions for violent crime, and the opportunity to commit the crime. Locally, not a single person believes the right person is behind bars.

Yes I thought it through. You don’t want to live in a country that kills people’? I don’t want to live in a country where people men like that can be living freely next to law abiding people with innocent kids. That effectively empowers men to become serial paedophile rapists.

You've asked 'AIBU to ask whether the death penalty should apply for certain crimes in the UK?' so I don't think you can take anything from the voting here as you haven't been clear in your question. Some may be voting for or against the death penalty whilst others may be voting for or against you raising the topic.

im always a bit confused as to why not wanting someone to live next door to you is justification for killing them. Did you really think about the sentence before typing it?

this is what worries me, the lack of thinking. I don’t actually really care about the dying, even if it’s a miscarriage of justice- as a poster above said people die unfairly every day and I can’t say I give them much thought on any real level- but when it’s done be people who don’t give the action the thought it deserves it’s concerning.

Miscarriages of justice? What then when an innocent person has been killed?

Lucy Letby cases are why I think it should be something that has to be applied for, individually, on a case by case basis, and meet a very high burden of proof. I do not - probably like everyone on here - know the details of the case but there’s certainly a lot of confusions and questions out there to demonstrate the need for a very high burden of proof.

But we do have that in some cases. We do know beyond a shadow of doubt who was the murderer/ paedophile rapist in that Derbyshire case, and some of the grooming gangs perpetrators are similarly undoubted. The problem has been getting past the sexism and misogyny of the system, not who’s doing what.

Pro, for some crimes.

If someone murders another perosn maliciously, or takes someone's life through something like drunk driving, their own life should be forfeit.

No. And I don’t believe that all victims would want their killer executed.

It does. However I tend to think cases like hers might not be the problem, because it was so obvious there were issues with the case well before the most recent convictions in 2024. She wouldn't have been executed after the first tranche in 2023 because she still had to stand trial for others, and by the 2024 verdict Shoo Lee was involved and the New Yorker article was out. It's the cases where the possibility of an MOJ doesn't become obvious til later that would be the biggest risks.