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

You seem to lack reading comprehension. I nowhere indicated that I was fine with it. But I'm also not fine with the other things I listed, which are much more likely, and actually currently a risk.

Why is dog ownership whataboutery? That just seems like you trying to dodge a point that you can't argue against.

Anyway, I've said my piece, and I'm not particularly interested in going in circles with hypocrites. Especially given the quality of argument from some has devolved to 'you're just as bad as a sadistic murderer!' As someone who has suffered from CSA and rape, I know exactly what sadism is firsthand, and I know I am very much not a sadist. So. I'm bowing out.

No. It doesn’t.

The death penalty costs more than life in prison because of the constant legal challenges from death row prisoners.

Any breed can kill a baby. Working dogs might be arguably necessary, much like knives and cars, but not pet dogs. So if you're in favour of pet dogs, you're fine with unnecessary and preventable deaths. It seems hypocritical to be fine with that while being horrified by the death penalty.

So your response is 'I'm alright, Jack', and you think it's fine for another family to lose a loved one through a miscarriage of justice.... Wow.

The dog ownership thing is whataboutery.

Of course it saves money.

Allowing the random killing of innocent people, is being a sadistic murderer. You are entirely, 100%, on the same level as as every other murderer of every kind if you believe that.

And we wouldnt take tips from those people about the justice system, so we shouldn't from you.

Are you against dog ownership, then, given the inevitable innocent deaths and life changing injuries that result from it? It's apparently immoral if you're not, according to your logic. After all, someone you love could be killed by a dog.

And as I've already said on this thread, so far no one I love has ever been wrongly accused of a crime, so I think we'd be fine. We're much more likely to be mauled by a dog, killed by a car driven by a drunk driver, or die of a cancer that could be treated if we had a better health system or our family could afford private treatment.

And half of those deaths were caused by the XL bully which is now banned other breeds are severely restricted. Working dogs, it could be argued, are necessary. We as a country have taken actions on the dog risk so clearly we aren't fine with innocent people being killed or nothing would have been done. We have restricted many things that came with a risk from guns to knives to car speeds and car safety measures etc. The country will continue to do so. Do deaths happen yes. Are we fine with it clearly not or guns, knives, certain dog breeds and cars with no seat belts would still be common. Your logical fallacy is that no action is taken to prevent unnecessary deaths. Clearly action is taken and balanced with risk levels.

@OtterlyAstounding so given you're fine with innocent people being put to death, you would also be totally OK if it was one of your children, your spouse, or a sibling? What makes you think it couldn't happen to one of them?

I think your mindset is completely immoral.

How many people are wrongly convicted of a crime that would be severe enough to merit the death penalty, however?

20 people were killed by dogs in 2023 alone, although yes, it's usually 5 to 10 per year, it seems. And the number of deaths has grown over recent years – not to mention how many life changing injuries there must be, especially for small children.

Cows (arguably), bees, and insects are necessary. Dogs are not. So clearly, you're actually fine with innocent people being unnecessarily and preventably killed. It's hypocritical in terms of reasoning.

It wasn't very effective, then. Or persuasive. Or accurate.

In Singapore, for instance, it appears that the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment. And certainly, it's not impossible to make execution cheaper than forty years in prison. You can argue you're against it for reasons of principle, but not because it being cheaper is 'nonsense'.

It isn't occasional though. Ian Hislop has explained this very clearly. Almost every issue of the Private Eye has an article uncovering a miscarriage of justice most of which are murders. The Private Eye has 26 issues a year over multiple decades now. That's a lot of people. There are 1500-1800 cases referred to the CCRC per year usually an average of 45ish are referred back to the appeal courts where people are then released. The CCRC are very overwhelmed. At least 900 people have been found since 1997 to have been wrongfully convicted. You can't possibly imagine the scale of the issue if you haven't properly researched this. To set this into scale with fatal dog attacks, 48 have been killed in a 5 year period. Not 48 every year. Also if we're getting rid of dogs then cows, bees and insects need to go as well.

Yes, because you can wisen up, like most of the individual States themselves have, that you can save money, avoid accidentally murdering innocent people in the name of "justice", and start living in the 21st Century by just doing away with the archaic, barbaric, self-defeating idiocy which is Capital Punishment.

It's not supposed to be an argument, it's to emphasise the point has been made over and over already, and still the "it will save money" nonsense gets repeated ad infinitum.

All caps and random full stops aren't a persuasive argument. Or indeed, an argument at all.

Yes, it is currently more expensive in the USA. There's no inherent reason it has to be, however.

Yes, the death penalty as it currently stands is more expensive in the USA. It doesn't have to be, however.

Given that line of thinking, I assume you now think that dog ownership should be banned? It's the only logical conclusion, given what you've said.

And frankly, I think the occasional wrongful killing of an innocent adult in the pursuit of justice, and eliminating a sadistic murderer (for instance), is more justifiable than a baby getting brutally killed by a dog because some people think dogs are cute.

"t also saves money that could be better spent on supporting victims, and frees up prison space, and treats crimes with the gravity they deserve. "

why do you think it saves money? do you think execution is free?

Why is the death penalty so expensive?

• Legal costs: Almost all peo­ple who face the death penal­ty can­not afford their own attor­ney. The state must assign pub­lic defend­ers or court-appoint­ed lawyers to rep­re­sent them (the accept­ed prac­tice is to assign two lawyers), and pay for the costs of the pros­e­cu­tion as well.
• Pre-tri­al costs: Capital cas­es are far more com­pli­cat­ed than non-cap­i­tal cas­es and take longer to go to tri­al. Experts will prob­a­bly be need­ed on foren­sic evi­dence, men­tal health, and the back­ground and life his­to­ry of the defen­dant. County tax­pay­ers pick up the costs of added secu­ri­ty and longer pre-trial detention.
• Jury selec­tion: Because of the need to ques­tion jurors thor­ough­ly on their views about the death penal­ty, jury selec­tion in cap­i­tal cas­es is much more time con­sum­ing and expensive.
• Trial: Death-penal­ty tri­als can last more than four times longer than non-cap­i­tal tri­als, requir­ing juror and attor­ney com­pen­sa­tion, in addi­tion to court per­son­nel and oth­er related costs.
• Incarceration: Most death rows involve soli­tary con­fine­ment in a spe­cial facil­i­ty. These require more secu­ri­ty and oth­er accom­mo­da­tions as the pris­on­ers are kept for 23 hours a day in their cells.
• Appeals: To min­i­mize mis­takes, every pris­on­er is enti­tled to a series of appeals. The costs are borne at tax­pay­ers’ expense. These appeals are essen­tial because some inmates have come with­in hours of exe­cu­tion before evi­dence was uncov­ered prov­ing their innocence.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/costs

"and indeed, there is a suggestion it contributes to the severity of the crimes committed rather than pre-empting crime in the first place."

Indeed, it can foster the attitude of may as well get hanged for a sheep as well as a lamb ...

The main benefit of the death penalty is that you are removing violent and dangerous people from society permanently, so that not even prison guards have to deal with them anymore. It also saves money that could be better spent on supporting victims, and frees up prison space, and treats crimes with the gravity they deserve. I'm still not in favour of it practically speaking, but in principle, it has benefits

IT. DOES. NOT. SAVE. MONEY.

The executed criminal cannot commit any more crimes

Just like being incarcerated then.

We do not have to pay to house and feed the executed criminal for many years, potentially their whole life

No, instead, we'd have the ultimately far more costly legal process associated with Capital Punishment.

Other criminals and potential criminals see or here about the criminal being executed and are dissuaded from committing crimes

The problem here being that all the evidence shows Capital Punishment carries no deterrent factor whatsoever, and indeed, there is a suggestion it contributes to the severity of the crimes committed rather than pre-empting crime in the first place.

So tell me again about the "benefits"?

So the government is deliberately allowing the preventable deaths of people, particularly the more vulnerable children and babies...because people like dogs. What a flimsy reason, really.

So the government is murdering innocent men and women because some of the population think, "Well, mistakes happen". What a flimsy reason, really.

The main benefit of the death penalty is that you are removing violent and dangerous people from society permanently, so that not even prison guards have to deal with them anymore. It also saves money that could be better spent on supporting victims, and frees up prison space, and treats crimes with the gravity they deserve. I'm still not in favour of it practically speaking, but in principle, it has benefits.

I think it's strange that you think the merits of dog ownership are worth the deaths of as many as 20 innocent people in 2023 alone, when one could still own cats, rabbits, chinchillas, guinea pigs, or any other pet that isn't prone to killing people. A cat or other cuddly pet is surely just as good for people's mental and emotional health, without the risk of death.

So the government is deliberately allowing the preventable deaths of people, particularly the more vulnerable children and babies...because people like dogs. What a flimsy reason, really.

Of course there are benefits to it.

The executed criminal cannot commit any more crimes.

We do not have to pay to house and feed the executed criminal for many years, potentially their whole life.

Other criminals and potential criminals see or here about the criminal being executed and are dissuaded from committing crimes.

Very simply put, because there are benefits to dog ownership, but there are no benefits to the death penalty!