Death sentences

[usernamechanged1]

Saw on another thread a couple of “he should hang” type comments in respect to a man who has been convicted of murder. The victim was 9 (Olivia Pratt-Korbel).

I expect it’ll be a resounding no, but does anyone genuinely feel that there should be a death option for certain crimes?

Or are these throwaway comments people tend to make in response to particularly shocking/heinous crimes?

Oh my god...

You can only be convicted of murder if you are found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. 🤦🏼‍♀️

@MrsTerryPratchett the Central Park 5 was in the 80s. Evidence has come a long way since then.

What about in the case of video evidence? Allngside DNA evidence. And admission. No room for doubt.

Do you still maintain the same view?

Deep fakes, chimerism, false confessions.

Nothing is 100% sure. Close enough for reasonable doubt. Never enough for 100%. And to kill someone (and worse lock them up while they know they will be killed) you need 100%

Frankly, I don't think the state should kill people anyway. But just on the point of being 'sure', you never are.

Chimerism:

www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/human-chimeras-why-forensic-dna-testing-will-never-be-same

@MrsTerryPratchett 'and worse lock them up so you know they'll be killed'

So you do not believe in any kind of sentencing? Prisons are redundant in your world?

Sam Hallam, mentioned upthread, was wrongly convicted in 2004

DNA evidence isnt beyond doubt, admission isnt beyond doubt, video evidence may be, but we are moving towards thinks like AI facial recognition which can have massive bias depending on the training data so laws that might allow for that make me nervous, it would have to be a very very carefully specifically worded law that excluded AI

You just misquoted

@MrsTerryPratchett said that locking someone up whilst knowing the would be killed

And I agree, people spending years on death row knowing they are going to die is cruel and inhumane

That's not the same as saying prisons are redundant

As far as I am aware @MrsTerryPratchett actually works with offenders so at least she (I'm assuming she) actually puts her money where her mouth is and actually knows first hand what she is talking about

I don’t think I could support the death sentence. I do agree that morally there are people who deserve it but I’m not sure the state having the power to kill it’s own citizens lawfully is a good thing.

I want life to mean life though. I know it’s expensive but some people are such utter recidivists or have committed such awful crimes that I would be fine with my taxes keeping them away from the rest of humanity.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

"some people say that to avoid miscarriages of justice, we should only use it where the evidence is incontrovertible, e.g. video evidence. But this would then lead to person A getting a life sentence because there is no video evidence, and person B, who has committed the same or perhaps a lesser crime, being executed due to stronger evidence. Sentencing should depend on the crime and the criminal's history, not on the strength of the evidence - we only have guilty and not guilty, not 80% likely to be guilty."

@Mycathatesmecuddling I did misquote, but my version says the same thing! My screen is broken so it won't let me hold to copy/ paste. Had to do it from memory

Does my 'quote' voice a different message to the original?

Yes absolutely it sounds different

Locking them up so you know they will be killed - in the context of your post accusing a poster of not wanting prisons at all makes it sound like you think they are being hyperbolic not wanting prisons because they might get killed inside

Whilst lock them up while they know they will be killed - in no way implies prisons should not exist, just that death sentences are cruel

Your quote is ambiguous especially in the context of your post.

@Mycathatesmecuddling you're completely right. I did misquote. Comment retracted!

For those of you who are dead (no pun intended) against it, do you think you’d have the same thoughts if your husband/wife/child was the victim?

I know that’s possibly an impossible question to answer but I’m curious to know if you think your opinion would change in those circumstances.

My daughter has been the victim of ABH/GBH and has been seriously harmed but I don't wish any physical harm on the offenders. I want them held accountable legally but I'm just not the type of person who would want to harm other people. It doesn't change what happened.

Of course not. But I do believe in humane treatment. And locking someone up while threatening to kill them, isn't humane.

There are lots of ways to reduce offending and one of them is not to make people into animals when they have shorter sentencing earlier in their forensic histories.

No I would still be utterly against it. Devastated but utterly against it.

Its such a intrinsically core moral belief if mine, like my beliefs that everyone is equal etc that circumstances cannot change it for me (and actually its very much caught up in my belief that everyone is equal but thats a much longer answer)

Also on a more practical note, countries which have 'nicer' prisons where the focus is on rehabilitation have a lower re offending rate. So its both cheaper and more successful to focus on rehabilitating the person than building prisons with metal beds without mattresses and taking away every last comfort as has also been advocated for on this thread never mind not having the death penalty.

I would still not want the death penalty for the reasons I have already given. I'd be terrified of a miscarriage of justice, which then could never be put right.

I also think that it turns the State into an executioner/ murder, and government backed murder can never be justified.

@MrsTerryPratchett it seems that you have an informed, professional viewpoint on the matter. And I hear it.

But in the case I quoted earlier, I struggle to find any empathy/ moral obligation to someone found guilty through legal proceedings, and with much supporting evidence. In other cases, I wouldn't feel so strongly- this one is a hill I am willing to die on (no pun intended).

The problem is if you open up the option in law for those few cases you personally feel justify extreme means, you open up the law to cases that you personally dont feel justify extreme means.

Better to not have the death penalty and not kill a single innocent person. Otherwise you are condoning killing innocent people in order to punish people for killing innocent people

This is a very good point. A jury may be less likely to convict, in this country anyway, if the accused could face the death penalty.

no, I don’t support the death penalty under any circumstances. Not the mark of a civilised society.

I think in Sweden, murderers get 18 years, which means that they could be out in 12.

In the US, most murderers dont get the death penalty, most get life with or without parole. Only a tiny fraction get the death penalty and in recent times, many states have abolished the death penalty because it is increasingly seen as cruel and unusual punishment and there is a racial and socioeconomic bias as to who ends up on death row.

We dont have a big problem with murder in this country, the rate is about 1 person murdered per 100,000 per year.
The UK is a really safe country to live in. We dont need the death penalty back.

Its also worth noting that in several countries its been found that education correlates to serious crime rates e.g. countries that invest more in education have less serious crime rates

So if you want to reduce serious crime, dont advocate for spending more money on the death penalty, because it costs more and doesnt lower crime rates, advocate for spending it on education, because that actually been proven to reduce crime.

I think that this is where I struggle to decide where I stand with capital punishment.

I know that if someone did something so abhorrent to someone I loved, I'd want them dead. When I'm thinking about others, I extend my own personal feelings in a kind of empathetic way. Of course I don't understand how they feel, because I'm fortunate enough to have never been through anything so traumatic.

I think there will be many people against the death penalty, who would shift their stance if they experienced something so horrific, and many who wouldn't.

I also don't think I could kill anyone intentionally. If someone burgled my house and was attacking me, I'd hopefully defend myself, but I would try to be proportionate in defending myself. If I did kill them accidentally, I don't know how I'd feel about that?

@Mycathatesmecuddling and @justsayingthat

I have worked with ex offenders a fair amount and in prisons doing educational programs. Housing on release etc. Also volunteering. In more than one country actually. I currently don't theoretically work directly with them but my week has included work on DV, drug offences, threats, child abuse, and more. Perpetrators and victims.

And on the matter of how I would feel as a victim. That's not justice. If anyone hurt DD or any child, of course I want a rain of hellfire. Do I think the state should make that rain happen? No.

What I want is reduced offending, not revenge. These blanket vengeful 'solutions' don't work to reduce offending. Humane treatment of all people at all times does. Even when we really don't want to be humane and even when the person doesn't 'deserve' it.