Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

664 replies

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:04

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 ?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Greenandyellowday · 15/07/2026 22:18

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:30

that one id say not yet, the whole case is fishy at best

Show quote history

Yikes. You might have outed yourself, Penelope. Are you the new DPP?
Seeing as you write so learned and all?

Original poster
PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 22:16

Greenandyellowday · 15/07/2026 22:12

I suggest, Penelope, that you back off from goading someone about her religious belief and get back to your original (dodgy and frankly despicable) argument.

Show quote history

i only asked the question about god to learn more so they could enlighten me in their wisdom of their supreme being ?

how is that goading ?

can you define how in a democracy asking a question to learn more about someone beliefs is being disrespectful ?

OP posts:
Greenandyellowday · 15/07/2026 22:12

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:40

but how can a god stand by and let his flock get destroyed by criminals ?

Show quote history

I suggest, Penelope, that you back off from goading someone about her religious belief and get back to your original (dodgy and frankly despicable) argument.

pointythings · 15/07/2026 22:12

PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:33

it may have been trained but if it pulls analysis from lots of sources unless you assume all humans are not smart ?

Show quote history

Most humans are not smart. The average IQ is 100. All humans have inherent biases. You have but to put something - anything - into an AI to realise how incapable they are of critical thinking. They can process reams of material; they are unable to assess the quality of that material. I use AI at work - and I have not yet had a single task from it that I have not had to correct. If you think it's capable of assessing guilt without bringing about major miscarriages of justice, you are in a dystopian nightmare.

Greenandyellowday · 15/07/2026 21:55

hoppitywhoosh · 13/07/2026 23:30

I’m sure the parents of those little girls would advocate it fully.

Show quote history

How can you be sure of that?

SomeoneIsWrongOnTheInternet · 15/07/2026 21:50

I don’t agree with AI deciding cases (anyone else remember Blake’s 7?) but you’d find executioners. There are plenty of soldiers trained to kill on command.

I’m still leaning, like others, to have it as a specific option for the most heinous crimes. As I did say upthread, the example of Sally Clark helps to clarify the nature of the kind of crime that may require the option (to be clear, I would not have wanted her to be facing that penalty). It’s not unprecedented to have different degrees of murder. The French used to have a concept of ‘crimes of passion’ which were specific against individuals, rarely premeditated, and were not considered to carry the same risk to the general public as random shootings and sexual abuse of any underage female unfortunate enough to be within arms reach.

Original poster
PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:47

Frequency · 15/07/2026 21:43

Humans (at least most of us anyway) understand nuance, emotion, and morals. AI doesn't even understand what it is saying, not in any true sense of the word. It has no real notion of the complex moral and ethical dilemmas of the death penalty or the emotional harm it causes.

As for putting AI on the jury, AI cannot comprehend mens rea; it doesn't have a mind, nor can it differentiate between trauma and willful violence.

Show quote history

and how good / effective have juries been so far for society ?

OP posts:
Frequency · 15/07/2026 21:43

PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:38

from multiple sources and it does make some good points and how is that worse or better than humans relying on their own brains to come up with a good analysis ?

Show quote history

Humans (at least most of us anyway) understand nuance, emotion, and morals. AI doesn't even understand what it is saying, not in any true sense of the word. It has no real notion of the complex moral and ethical dilemmas of the death penalty or the emotional harm it causes.

As for putting AI on the jury, AI cannot comprehend mens rea; it doesn't have a mind, nor can it differentiate between trauma and willful violence.

Original poster
PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:38

Frequency · 15/07/2026 21:36

And my point is proven. AI cannot think or make complex, nuanced decisions. All it can do is regurgitate information it grabs from the web.

Show quote history

from multiple sources and it does make some good points and how is that worse or better than humans relying on their own brains to come up with a good analysis ?

OP posts:
Frequency · 15/07/2026 21:36

PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:27

"The only real argument for it is a moral one retribution."
This is not accurate.
Retribution is certainly the strongest philosophical justification, but it is not the only one.
Supporters commonly argue:

  • Retribution ("just deserts")
  • Incapacitation (the offender can never kill again)
  • Deterrence
  • Justice for victims
  • Protection of prison staff from especially dangerous inmates
  • Symbolic affirmation of society's condemnation

Whether these arguments succeed is another matter, but they certainly exist.

"Ultimately, even if you accept 'an eye for an eye', the moral argument has to fail."
This is an opinion, not a logical conclusion.
There are serious philosophers who defend capital punishment on retributive grounds.
For example:

  • Immanuel Kant argued that justice requires a murderer to receive death because punishment should be proportionate to the crime.
  • G. W. F. Hegel also defended retributive punishment.
  • Some contemporary philosophers continue to defend capital punishment as a matter of just deserts rather than deterrence.

Conversely, thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria and John Rawls have provided influential arguments against it.
There is no philosophical consensus that the retributive argument "has to fail."

Edited
Show quote history

And my point is proven. AI cannot think or make complex, nuanced decisions. All it can do is regurgitate information it grabs from the web.

Original poster
PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:33

pointythings · 15/07/2026 21:32

One wonders whether AI was involved in the school bombing in Iran.

Ultimately AI is trained by humans. Fallible, biased, often awful humans. Garbage in, garbage out.

Show quote history

it may have been trained but if it pulls analysis from lots of sources unless you assume all humans are not smart ?

OP posts:
pointythings · 15/07/2026 21:32

PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:29

then you need to study the military and their usage of Ai

Show quote history

One wonders whether AI was involved in the school bombing in Iran.

Ultimately AI is trained by humans. Fallible, biased, often awful humans. Garbage in, garbage out.

Original poster
PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:31

OonaStubbs · 15/07/2026 19:20

Do away with juries then and use AI. At the end of the day, if it results in there being fewer criminals in the world, it has to be a good thing.

personally id partly agree on that id use ai analysis combined with human special operations to run their analysis etc because i bet various military forces are and do use it too

OP posts:
Original poster
PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:29

concertinacornflake · 15/07/2026 19:54

Oh wow, this is the most foolish idea I've read in a good few days.

AI?? It can't even get the opening times of my local shop right. I really don't think it's ready to judge anything important.

Show quote history

then you need to study the military and their usage of Ai

OP posts:
Original poster
PenelopeJoanSterling · 15/07/2026 21:27

11AndCounting · 15/07/2026 18:19

There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent (the available evidence is that it is not).

There is no evidence that the death penalty saves costs (in fact, the evidence is that it is more costly).

The only real argument for it is a moral one - retribution (an eye for an eye).

Then it's a question of whether you believe in that as a general moral principle, and next if you believe it moral for the state to administer it. Then, it's whether you trust the state to administer it and, finally, if it is worth the killing of some innocents as collateral damage.

Ultimately, even if you accept the underlying "eye for an eye" principle, the moral argument has to fail.

"The only real argument for it is a moral one retribution."
This is not accurate.
Retribution is certainly the strongest philosophical justification, but it is not the only one.
Supporters commonly argue:

  • Retribution ("just deserts")
  • Incapacitation (the offender can never kill again)
  • Deterrence
  • Justice for victims
  • Protection of prison staff from especially dangerous inmates
  • Symbolic affirmation of society's condemnation

Whether these arguments succeed is another matter, but they certainly exist.

"Ultimately, even if you accept 'an eye for an eye', the moral argument has to fail."
This is an opinion, not a logical conclusion.
There are serious philosophers who defend capital punishment on retributive grounds.
For example:

  • Immanuel Kant argued that justice requires a murderer to receive death because punishment should be proportionate to the crime.
  • G. W. F. Hegel also defended retributive punishment.
  • Some contemporary philosophers continue to defend capital punishment as a matter of just deserts rather than deterrence.

Conversely, thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria and John Rawls have provided influential arguments against it.
There is no philosophical consensus that the retributive argument "has to fail."

OP posts:
LizzieW1969 · 15/07/2026 21:04

concertinacornflake · 15/07/2026 19:54

Oh wow, this is the most foolish idea I've read in a good few days.

AI?? It can't even get the opening times of my local shop right. I really don't think it's ready to judge anything important.

Show quote history

I think this poster is being goady, which she is on every single thread I see her on.

missmollygreen · 15/07/2026 19:55

PenelopeJoanSterling · 13/07/2026 23:08

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

Show quote history

And if your child was one of those "minimal errors"?

concertinacornflake · 15/07/2026 19:54

OonaStubbs · 15/07/2026 19:20

Do away with juries then and use AI. At the end of the day, if it results in there being fewer criminals in the world, it has to be a good thing.

Oh wow, this is the most foolish idea I've read in a good few days.

AI?? It can't even get the opening times of my local shop right. I really don't think it's ready to judge anything important.

ColdAsAWitches · 15/07/2026 19:53

OonaStubbs · 15/07/2026 19:20

Do away with juries then and use AI. At the end of the day, if it results in there being fewer criminals in the world, it has to be a good thing.

Oh Jesus Christ. I wish you were joking, but unfortunately I know you're not.

Frequency · 15/07/2026 19:51

A few people on this thread don't seem to understand what AI is and what its limitations are. AI cannot think or make complex, nuanced decisions. It can chuck an input through its algorithm and barf out a literate response; it can trawl the web and rewrite what it "reads" into a summarised answer to the question it was given; it cannot make an independent decision.

JohnnieFedora · 15/07/2026 19:37

OonaStubbs · 15/07/2026 19:20

Do away with juries then and use AI. At the end of the day, if it results in there being fewer criminals in the world, it has to be a good thing.

😂😂😂

MrSchubertWhiskers · 15/07/2026 19:26

OonaStubbs · 15/07/2026 19:20

Do away with juries then and use AI. At the end of the day, if it results in there being fewer criminals in the world, it has to be a good thing.

You mean the same AI that's known to be riddled with bias and prejudice against specific demographics (like women, for instance)?

category12 · 15/07/2026 19:26

OonaStubbs · 15/07/2026 19:20

Do away with juries then and use AI. At the end of the day, if it results in there being fewer criminals in the world, it has to be a good thing.

AI isn't reliable, it "hallucinates" and it shows bias from the data sets it's fed.

But sure, let's have life and death decided by a computer 🙄

OonaStubbs · 15/07/2026 19:20

Do away with juries then and use AI. At the end of the day, if it results in there being fewer criminals in the world, it has to be a good thing.

tartyflette · 15/07/2026 18:31

In the highly unlikely event that capital punishment was restored in this country, one of the first problems it would encounter would be that many people would be very reluctant to serve on juries in capital cases.
I recall that when we still had it, a person could refuse to serve on a jury in a capital case, citing strong anti capital punishment beliefs. Juries can be questioned on their beliefs before selection. In such a position, I would state that I could not convict an accused person if they were likely to be hung.
Yes, we’ve heard all the gung-ho types who say they would be more than happy to fix the noose around a convicted person’s neck themselves— luckily those kind of people would never be selected to do so, quite rightly. (It would lead to numerous appeals for starters.)
It would need very serious and fair minded persons to be selected as jurors. And certainly not any old hang-em and flog-em blowhard.