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

What about the effect on those involved in an execution? The prison governor, who must be present, the warders who have to accompany the condemned from the condemned cell to the execution cell. The lawyers who have unsuccessfully tried to get their client a stay of execution or a reprieve. The children of the condemned who thought innocent now have to live with the shame that their parent was executed. If you support the death penalty, have a look at what happened to Ruth Ellis's son. Would you as a juror, convict in a murder case, knowing that a guilty verdict might lead to a death sentence?

”tech and forensics” are still operated by humans …

who are fallible

who are vulnerable to blackmail and threats

who are bribeable

do you see where I’m going with this?

Either killing a human is wrong, or it isn't. It isn't OK just because it's the state doing it.

Sometimes innocent people are convicted.

The death penalty is not a deterrent.

I think the death penalty is utterly abhorrent.

What about if a law is brought in that you do not agree with, punishable by the death penalty?

As a Christian, it is against my religion.

Some people may not know that it's not necessarily easy to get hold of the drugs needed to put someone to death. The pharmaceutical companies refuse to allow the drugs they manufacture to be used for executions. I learned this when studying the death penalty for my degree. Not only this, but the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent. People have always committed terrible crimes and the potential consequence of death hasn't stopped them.

Short of asking them outright, nobody has any idea what those people think..

It's also invariably the case that people who are desperate to see the reintroduction of Capital punishment, and cite "think about the victims' parents", themselves are oblivious to the fact they are agitating for yet one more set of parents to be made childless. In short, it's mindless vindictiveness and reiterates precisely why there is no place for it in any credible system of Justice.

Countries with the death penalty have higher rates of recidivism than we do. It's not a deterrent

No.

1. It's morally wrong to kill another human being - no matter what.
2. It doesn't deter serious crimes
3. Too many miscarriages of justice

Wrongful executions still happen, though. Because most of the people on death row can’t afford to pay decent lawyers to defend them.

Tempting, especially when we hear some of the despicable animalistic crimes people commit, but no.

The state should never fall to the same sewer-like levels as the criminals.

But there are some people who should never be released. Whole life terms for the very worst crimes should stand, if only for public protection.

You're welcome.

No. I'm not even going to engage with this.

I think there is an argument for it. Mainly as a deterrent.

I am not so persuaded of the risks of miscarriage of justice as if you look at the US, execution happens so long after the trial that there is such a long legal process that that risk is lowered.

Whether ultimately it is cheaper than incarceration for life is arguable given the legal costs etc but when you see the most horrendous crimes without extenuating circumstances you do wonder why we put up with paying for the perpetrators to be prison at a cost of £75k a year.

If you think that (I agree) then how can you possibly argue for the death penalty?

I can see why people say let's save the money spent on prison and use it to provide medicine/surgery that people need. There are people who are definitely innocent dying and suffering everyday due to the NHS not having enough. And as for those who say the state can't kill if it says killing is wrong, that argument is illogical (as keeping people locked up is normally wrong/illegal, but the state is allowed to do so).
But I am against it, because miscarriages of justice happen.
Agree that anyone should be allowed to choose to have their life ended, whether a prisoner or an ordinary person who is very ill.

Yes, thank you. why?

I just think there are some people who are never going to be rehabilitated

This isn't really in debate. The State already acknowledges this by dint of the Whole Life Tariff and the fact that there are some prisoners the Parole Board will never deem fit for release despite being incarcerated for long enough that they'll go through umpteen parole hearings. So, with people who can't be rehabilitated, the State keeps them in a secure facility for life, and that way ameliorates the risk they pose to society.

The Southport attacker (I wont use his actual name) has also attacked prison guards. He isn’t safe in society or even in prison so it seems. Keeping him alive causes further danger and pain to everyone in contact with him

Then that's really a question of resources, procedures, and processes. If he's a risk to prison staff, then they need to be given the means and resources to deal with that risk first of all, and then the processes developed in order to better tackle problematic prisoners until such time they cease to be such a risk. There are ways of dealing with continually violent prisoners short of just executing them.

Surely she's just collateral damage if her conviction is unsound. Why hesitate? You're OK with some people being murdered by the state in error, so what's the problem?

So you didn't read about the cases.

@PenelopeJoanSterling I would like to see zero peadophiles on earth. Although I would never want the responsibility for making a decision whether to execute them or not - it’s not my place or anyone else’s to decide who lives or dies.