Page 26 | AIBU to ask whether the death penalty should apply for certain crimes in the UK?

PenelopeJoanSterling · 2026-07-13T22:04:03+00:00

Because the topics got mixed up on my previous thread i thought id ask here, for certain types of crime in the uk, would you be either for or against the death penalty for certain crimes and why ?

TheCurious0range · 13/07/2026 23:20

Also there's the longer term cultural impact, it indicates that there are situations where extreme violence and killing are permissable. That's not a society I want to live in and I've worked with some of the most dangerous offenders in this country.

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:20

randomchap · 13/07/2026 23:19

So you're advocating killing innocent people? For the greater good.

Are you on the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance from Sandford?

Show quote history

it was in relation to you asking about how many errors

OP posts:

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:19

ColdAsAWitches · 13/07/2026 23:19

You've been watching too much sci-fi channel!

Show quote history

that idea is from cold war soviets history of closed cities proper history and nothing fictional about them

OP posts:

randomchap · 13/07/2026 23:19

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:16

which ever is the greater good, same way the military plans operations where sometimes theres collertial damage but the greater good overall

Show quote history

So you're advocating killing innocent people? For the greater good.

Are you on the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance from Sandford?

ColdAsAWitches · 13/07/2026 23:19

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:16

ok what about using closed cities for them then it keeps them apart from society ?

Show quote history

You've been watching too much sci-fi channel!

WhatAMarvelousTune · 13/07/2026 23:18

the errors should be min

Oh well that’s alright then. I’m sure the fact that there might be minimal errors would be a huge comfort to the guy wrongly killed.

TheCurious0range · 13/07/2026 23:18

Countries that have the death penalty do not have lower rates of recidivism. So no. It doesn't act as a deterrent, so it's just state endorsed murder.

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:16

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 13/07/2026 23:15

we have the means to free society from those criminals ?

Yes, they are called "sentencing" and "prisons".

ok what about using closed cities for them then it keeps them apart from society ?

OP posts:

JHound · 13/07/2026 23:16

hoppitywhoosh · 13/07/2026 23:09

In cases where they can be no doubt of guilt and the crimes are heinous then maybe. Southport attacker for example. Why should we pay for such an evil waste of space?

If we had it I doubt he would qualify as even when it was legal here we did not execute minors.

GimmieABreakOr3 · 13/07/2026 23:16

I think yes for a very small minority of serious cases where that person where there’s 100% evidence.

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:16

randomchap · 13/07/2026 23:14

How many errors are acceptable to you?

Show quote history

which ever is the greater good, same way the military plans operations where sometimes theres collertial damage but the greater good overall

OP posts:

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 13/07/2026 23:15

we have the means to free society from those criminals ?

Yes, they are called "sentencing" and "prisons".

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:15

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 13/07/2026 23:13

We happily "pay" for it, because part of the contract citizens have with the State is that the State doesn't murder those of us it deems aberrant. Instead, the State uses a proportion of its income to incarcerate and rehabilitate on the citizenry's behalf.

Besides, one look at somewhere like the States would show that it's a total myth that executing people is cheaper than incarceration to begin with. Then you have to factor in that it would make the UK a pariah state in many of our neighbour's eyes, and account for the loss or prestige, soft power, influence, and likely trade.

Edited

Show quote history

ill admit i forgot the optics part of it,

OP posts:

randomchap · 13/07/2026 23:14

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:08

that i understand but with better tech and forensics today, the errors should be min ?

Show quote history

How many errors are acceptable to you?

MrsShawnHatosy · 13/07/2026 23:14

No.

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:14

25 votes so far and 8% im not unreasonable

OP posts:

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 13/07/2026 23:13

hoppitywhoosh · 13/07/2026 23:09

In cases where they can be no doubt of guilt and the crimes are heinous then maybe. Southport attacker for example. Why should we pay for such an evil waste of space?

We happily "pay" for it, because part of the contract citizens have with the State is that the State doesn't murder those of us it deems aberrant. Instead, the State uses a proportion of its income to incarcerate and rehabilitate on the citizenry's behalf.

Besides, one look at somewhere like the States would show that it's a total myth that executing people is cheaper than incarceration to begin with. Then you have to factor in that it would make the UK a pariah state in many of our neighbour's eyes, and account for the loss or prestige, soft power, influence, and likely trade.

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:12

Divebar2021 · 13/07/2026 23:10

No. There’s a reason it was abolished. I worked in the police for 25 years and even though I feel viscerally i don’t want certain offenders to live it doesn’t mean I wanted to be part of a process where people were executed.

but then as a police officer or working in the police force and knowing the blight that extreme criminals are on society, then how can people justify it if we have the means to free society from those criminals ?

OP posts:

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:11

hoppitywhoosh · 13/07/2026 23:09

In cases where they can be no doubt of guilt and the crimes are heinous then maybe. Southport attacker for example. Why should we pay for such an evil waste of space?

its cases like that, that made me create the thread to debate or see the publics views on how they can justify the resources being used on criminals like that

OP posts:

Divebar2021 · 13/07/2026 23:10

No. There’s a reason it was abolished. I worked in the police for 25 years and even though I feel viscerally i don’t want certain offenders to live it doesn’t mean I wanted to be part of a process where people were executed.

PurpleAxe · 13/07/2026 23:10

Some actions/crimes absolutely deserve death, either as punishment or simply to remove the person as they are too damgerous to have in society. In the same way you would put down a rabid dog.

However, I do not trust any government with this level of power. All governments are inept and/or corrupt and can not be trusted.

So while I wish plenty of people dead, I do not support the death penalty and accept that life imprisonment is probably the safer option for society for the worst people.

concertinacornflake · 13/07/2026 23:10

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:10

this one is for many people to debate my question was simple, im not trying to convince anyone i am intrested in the general publics points of view

Show quote history

There's opinion polling on the topic.

Frequency · 13/07/2026 23:10

It seems to be working well in America. Their murder rate per capita is much lower than ours, right?

Original poster

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:10

iwasboredinbed · 13/07/2026 23:08

FFS, not you again.

I hope nobody engages in this thread because you’re just not capable of holding a debate

this one is for many people to debate my question was simple, im not trying to convince anyone i am intrested in the general publics points of view

OP posts:

hoppitywhoosh · 13/07/2026 23:09

In cases where they can be no doubt of guilt and the crimes are heinous then maybe. Southport attacker for example. Why should we pay for such an evil waste of space?