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

Resources should never be the reason someone lives or dies. If you believe in the death penalty for moral/ punishment/ revenge reasons then I can understand ( but disagree). But It can never come down to cost !

Right. You've answered your own question then.

Although personally I question the ability of an uneducated and easily swayed assortment of random people deciding someone's guilt, hence what I said about the justice system needing an overhaul.

A judge could decide whether or not the evidence and crime reaches a certain threshold to merit the death penalty, or the jury could, or even a separate panel after conviction. There are many options, which would all have to be looked at carefully if it ever became a possibility.

If it can be foreseen (as it statistically can) that dog ownership will result in a non-zero number of infants and children (and adults) dying of dog attacks each year, is it really an accident? Or is it a deliberate choice made by the government, in the full knowledge that such a choice will result in deaths?

What, really, is the actual, material difference? In both cases, government action (or inaction) leads to the foreseeable, preventable deaths of innocent people. I don't see a material difference there? So why is one acceptable in your eyes, and the other isn't?

Juries. Did you not know that?

Who decides guilt now? Although personally, I think the entire justice system could do with an overhaul.

That's ok then as long as you are minimising killing people.

That's the point the errors have always been minimal, but under no circumstances should innocent people be getting killed when there is an alternative

So where can Lamy magic up the space from?

People are accepting a certain number of avoidable deaths CAUSED BY ACCIDENT. It's a very important distinction. There is no malice or intention in death caused by say, a car accident. If there is, or if there is negligence, the driver is punished. In your dog example, we mitigate against it by banning the most dangerous breeds, requiring muzzles on others, etc. And if someone breaks these laws, they are punished. But executing an innocent person wouldn't be an accident, it would be a deliberate act, carrying a terrified individual to a gallows or injecting them with poison. And how would you punish the government, or a jury, for killing an innocent man or woman afterwards?

So two levels of guilty?

100% absolutely guilty - death
Probably guilty - locked away

Who determines that?

That lady whose sentence was reversed due to coercive control after she killed her husband. She'd have been hanged.

People are convicted and then it’s quashed all the time. Look at Andrew Malkinson. Some of you on here would’ve happily seen him killed despite him being innocent

no not ever. capital punishment is barbaric and has no place in a civilised society.
Mistakes can happen where people are put to death for things they didn’t do. no justice system is perfect.
Someone has to be the person to kill that other human being and that isn’t a job anyone should have to have.
It doesn’t work as a deterrent and in some cases it makes offenders commit worse crimes.

nope. never. and i will die on that hill.

No it's a terrible idea, our justice system isn't good enough, some people still get wrongfully convicted and only exonerated years later, so the death penalty would risk murdering innocent people, which is exactly why we got rid of it in the first place.

Death row prisoners in Japan are executed with hours notice. They don't get told anything, and their family are only informed after they have been killed.
Not a place to be looking up to.

Personally, I think infanticide by a mother in the postnatal period is quite different to something like, say, Preston Garvey's death.

So I wouldn't think that execution would be appropriate, even were the death penalty available.

The death penalty seems most appropriate for cases where recidivism (murder or brutal violence) seems so likely and unavoidable that the person has a whole life order, where the person has killed multiple people, in cases where torture and sadism were involved (whether the victim was murdered in addition or 'just' assaulted/raped), and in cases involving child sex abuse where it's clear that rehabilitation isn't possible.

The safest way to avoid high numbers of MOJ would be having an even higher bar to reach for that particular sentencing – off the top of my head, things like video evidence of the person's actions, or DNA evidence plus it being confirmed no other person was present at the time, for instance.

MOJ are undesirable, of course. But as I've said, multiple people (often babies and children) are killed each year by dogs, and we still allow dog ownership, so clearly society is fine with a certain level of avoidable deaths.

Japan has a lot of nasty violence at times, extreme racism, and very extreme issues over the decades around very strange things. But the society is one of extremes, the culture itself does make a lot of crimes less likely. It would take a lot more than a pointless single sentence to try and scratch the surface of if the corrupt and objectively horrifying death machine for anyone innocent or not, is related to the core cultural aspects of crime, and if it is whether it is a result of it or causes it as you are trying to suggest.

The thing you mention I think is the entire point they were making, it makes no difference to an extremely violent society.

If someone is in prison for a crime heinous to warrant the death penalty, then they will not be coming out anyway.

Unless you think the death penalty should be there for lesser crimes too? In some countries, something like drug dealing gets you bullet to your head.

Yes but they will be let out. And often much sooner than they should be.

I'm all in favour of getting our country back by brutalising it through a reintroduction of the death penalty. We are a Christian country after all. Public hanging is the best method because it acts as a deterrent. There's nothing to beat walking to work on a crisp Autumn morning and seeing a corpse swinging in the breeze. As we are after all a Christian country, I also support the public branding of women who commit adultery - see Hawthorne 'The Scarlet Letter'. Each community needs to install stocks in a prominent outdoor space so those who err can be captured, put on display, humiliated, and pelted with leftovers that would otherwise be destined for the swill bucket.

Also on my to-do list as a Restore Britain candidate:

• reintroduction of military service
• forced sterilisation of women with mental illness
• banning abortion
• rags to replace tampons, sanitary towels, mooncups and other nefarious devices and contraptions for the orderly management of menstruation
• sewing of Binka samplers on a Wednesday afternoon in all schools to practise cross stitch
• mass deportation of anyone whose skin is darker than Pantone Colour of the Year Cloud Dancer 11-4201

Things are going to feel so much better when we have state-sanctioned murder, especially for those left with the death of a fellow human being on their conscience.

It's true that it might be helpful for preventing the grooming in the first place. Although I'm not sure what policies and protocols have been, or could be, put into place to prevent young men being 'groomed' to join rape gangs.

And unless abuse that included fear for their life unless they obeyed was part of the grooming, I don't think it should be taken into consideration at a trial at all. It feels like muddying the waters, and trying to soften what they did by painting them as victims.

I think it is alot more uncivilised to treat taking a life lightly as the UK currently does with murderers getting out after very light sentences (sometimes to murder again which those against the death penalty don't seem bothered about).

No, I don't think I could ever be in favour of the death penalty, for two reasons.

1. The potential for a miscarriage of justice. There have been several cases in my lifetime of men jailed for 10+ years for rape, murder or manslaughter, and it has then been proven without doubt that they were innocent.
2. I can think of nothing worse than being locked up in prison for life, with no possibility of parole. Waking up every day, knowing I would never walk free again.

They will be in prison. That will stop them.

But it stops them from going on to commit any more crimes.