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

Well, I'm totally consistent - I vehemently oppose leaving the ECHR. It isn't jut about the death penalty, it is also about workers' rights, women's rights, anti-discrimination and all that good stuff that some folk would just love to do away with.

It was the Soviets who pushed for Nazis to be executed. Had it been a solely British or US endeavour, it's likely there would have been no executions and life imprisonments instead.

It's understandable since the purpose of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was eradication and not just conquest, and there is no doubt whatsoever that had the Nazis captured the Soviet leadership they also would have been executed, but there was a lot of resistance to the Soviet push for executions on the part of both the Brits and the US. I think for Soviet leadership it was important to be able to show to Soviet people that those responsible were dead and were not coming back.

Why does looking after victims require killing perpetrators?

I am not against AI. It has its place doing the time consuming donkey work. But without a human, that work will not be up to scratch.

You're proposing blending fallible AI and fallible humanity as if that will.make reintroducing the death penalty safe from miscarriages of justice. That idea is so howling mad I can only assume you are joking.

Sounds like something from the hunger games... You killed them, so we'll kill you in retaliation.

With Hitler already dead by his own hand it’s not hard to see the executions of the Nazi leaders as purely retributive justice, IMO.
And as this was some 80 years ago it looks less relevant today.

No, not least because there have been far too many miscarriage of justice.

Minimal?! How many wrongly executed innocent people is acceptable in your view? What is the threshold?

Sanctioning state murder cheapens human life. It is simpler, safer (and cheaper) to stick to the principle that every human life is too precious to be wiped out.

The Southport attacker is a good example of someone I would have like to see the death penalty. I am sick of tax payers funding these inhuman people to carry on breathing. A civilised society looks after its victims in my opinion. This is not what ours does at the moment.

Completly opposed. In all cases.

No comment needed...

Golly gosh, PenelopeJoan has been doing some speed reading of AI-generated blurb on "political philosophy" - coincidentially, just 24 hours since I politely suggested she read some political philosophy.

Thing is, reading is no good without understanding. And, sorry sweetheart, you don't understand Socratic or Platonic dialogue through skimming a half page of AI blurb thrown up because you typed the question "What does Socrates say?" into your laptop. Regurgitating AI blurb doesn't make you a Philosopher.

There have been some OMG jury decisions. Has there really? Do tell, explaining why they were "wrong" in the context of the structure of the English/Welsh judicial system and English Common Law.

people think juries are the bread and butter when actually they are worse than what ai would be in some trials. A bold claim about what people think. Evidence, please. An equally bold, and highly subjective, claim about the merits of an "AI trial", so again, evidence.

and ill admit i dont know apples from pears, but im learning. Another suggestion: go away, start learning from the centuries of written texts produced on the subject of crime and appropriate punishment - which will encompass everything covered in this thread - draw your own conclusions, based on actual research and come back to debate on the basis of knowledge. See you in about a year, perhaps two.

🤣

Yeah... I think you've encapsulated your intellectual process.

AI is useful where there is a right and a wrong answer with no requirement for nuance or understanding. It's a computer programme. It's true or false, off or on, 0 or 1.

It has its uses, medical diagnosis, for example, but it needs sense checking by a human. And it falls flat where nuance or actual understanding is needed.

We are not where you think we are with AI, not yet. It's a fast-paced industry, especially with developments in quantum computing, but we are nowhere near developing a system with any real understanding, intelligence, or independent thought capabilities.

I don't support it. The justice system is in shambles and there is too much danger of an innocent person being executed.

Also, there isn't the evidence imo that having a death penalty lowers crime rates.

The AI you read, as a English speaker, will not have trawled sources from the 7,000 + languages in use around the world. The "points" it makes are culturally-specific, much as "IQ" tests are culture-specific. It's not expanding knowledge across intellectual or cultural boundaries. It's providing a precis of what is already known within those boundaries.

What AI regurgitates is what a human has programmed it to do. It produces the end result for you, as a user, quicker than a human could assess and write out for you. But speed doesn't neecessarily = good information. You, the user, are still responsible for judging the worth of the information.

Given that yesterday you posted three articles that directly undermined the claims you were making (which, therefore, you clearly hadn't read before posting) this last point has possibly gone way over your head. AI is a tool, with specific, limited uses, not a replacement for human effort. Tools are mechanical. As @Frequency points out, they cannot substitute for human understanding of context, morals, nuance, history - all of which are essential components of decision-making in many areas, including trials.

As for "how good/effective have jury trials been for society?" How old are you, 13? Stop wasting the time of posters who've bothered to respond thoughtfully to you by posting teenage inanities.