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?

I don't know if I understand this argument. What does it matter if someone enjoys, or at least isn't bothered by, the killing as long as they do it humanely and in line with the regulations?

Because it's morally disgusting to enjoy killing a person and the state shouldn't indulge that.

But it's morally OK that someone should be traumatised or at the very least, feel bad by the killing? How does that make sense?

Pubesofsoberness· Today 02:52

Wasn't Stefan Kiszco convicted in the 70s?

And they knew from the off that it couldn't possibly have been him. The Police still have ways of ignoring exculpatory evidence, to get a conviction.

Well, I'm opposed to capital punishment so I think there don't need to be any judicial killings, whether they cause trauma or enjoyment.

But talking about enjoying throwing the switch is the kind of gross thing that is normally beer talking.

I think if there was a referendum on it, I'd be voting yes.

I think so, too; and a queue of latent psychopaths wanting to pull the lever.

Even one innocent person executed for a crime they didn’t commit is one person too many.

And when some is executed it must be hell on earth for their family and I could never condone putting them through it.

I also dont want the death penalty for a couple of reasons but neither of those are because I'm against people dying for deliberate crimes.

However, if you're going to have someone be an executioner, it seems very unfair you're going to stipulate they have to find it a weight on their conscience. It might sound gross that someone enjoys it or at least isn't bothered by it, but as long as it doesn't affect the person dying by making the experience painful, it seems much more humane for everyone concerned.

How am I stipulating that?

I don't know if I understand this argument. What does it matter if someone enjoys, or at least isn't bothered by, the killing as long as they do it humanely and in line with the regulations?

Because encouraging psychopaths to kill people probably isn't something a civilised society should do.

I do think it's ironic that the supposedly zero tolerance people who abhor crime are just shy of criminal themselves. All the salivating at the idea of hurting,torturing, castrating and killing does rather put you adjacent to the people you pretend to dislike.

"Arthur Pierpoint enjoyed his job"

Where do you get that from @hattie43 ?

I think at best that's a very simplistic viewpoint. I think he wanted to do a good job. There is some evidence from his autobiography that he didn't think it was a deterrent.

Personally I'm against capital punishment. If you say that taking a life is the worst crime you can commit, the worst thing you can do, I don't see how it adds up that the state should then do that worst thing to someone else. Kind of sets terrible moral example.

Because a poster said
and not feel a single bit bad about it.
and you said that Pierrepont would sack someone like that. So it sort of implies that to be an executioner, you need to feel bad about it.

It's a strange one, isn't it? We automatically think that someone who enjoys or isn't bothered about killing people is a psychopath and therefore, naturally, they shouldn't be allowed to be involved. And yet for someone not to feel either of those things, we'd be condemning them to possible trauma.
I often wonder how slaughtermen cope. How can people not be affected by killing, even if to them it's only animals, every day? And yet if we employed people who enjoyed killing, could we trust them not to start doing it in a torturous way?

I'm not sure how you get hurting, torturing and castration from my post. I've never advocated any of that. And never would. In fact I was quite clear that anyone who is involved on the execution, whether they enjoy it, aren't bothered by it, or are traumatised by it, should do it humanely.
It just seems a strange juxtaposition to me that two people could carry out the same operation in exactly the same way. One wouldn't care, one would be traumatised. And we, as a civilised society as you put it, would prefer to put someone through trauma because it betrays our morals to let someone do it who isn't phased. However, we're OK with someone being traumatised because, after all, ...that proves he's not a psychopath.

No I don't agree with the death sentence at all and I hope it never comes back in the U.K.

I don't believe anyone has the right to take another persons life, no matter what they have done. It's essentially legalised murder by the state when in any other situation, it would be illegal.

A life term would be much more appropriate, but where life actually means life...you come out in a box.

I'm shocked by the people on here who said they could happily murder or torture someone and enjoy it. That's scary.

It makes them no better than those they excoriate.

Absolutely. And Philpott. Scum.

Going off on a tangent but why in the US does it take so long to kill someone via lethal injection. Why can't they just give them a massive dose of GA and do it in seconds. With no pain whatsoever?

The issue is that the general anaesthetic wouldn't be lethal enough, quickly enough.

They do give the person a general anaesthetic which takes up to 30 seconds to act and prevents awareness of the next stages of the injection (which would otherwise be distressing or painful).

I don't usually carry in depth knowledge of the process (I'm against the death penalty!) but did a quick search after reading your post, @Bandanadrama, and agreeing with it...

This might be a halfway house to death.

Utopia

Yeah, people who want to see evil people gone are really all future criminals. You don't even believe that yourself, come off it.

Anyone who'd be relieved at a serial killer being put to death is obviously a budding serial killer. Except they're not, are they? It's their opinion and their reaction to awful crimes, nothing more.

You can disagree with the death penalty and still theoretically wish for certain people to just be removed.

This is how prison should be for killers and rapists.

Objectively no.I don't support the death penalty ,but if somebody killed a child of mine I would probably want to kill them myself .

This