Death penalty

[Movingo]

I don't want to be roasted. I do believe in it. For personal reasons it's definitely valid in my opinion.
I believe if you're so heinous in your behaviour to warrant that sentence then yes.
I'm all for it.
I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion. So I'm really only talking about people who confessed or where there was truly evidence they were guilty.
I'm asking as my mum is dead set against it. No matter what.
Whereas, my dad said he'd be the executioner if he believed their guilt for sex crimes etc.
So. Im just curious really.
I hope my thread is not deleted.... I know lots of people like to complain.

Yes, absolutely bizarre!

WC pleaded guilty. There was no jury. Even in a system where there is death penalty, a guilty plea is often accepted in return for dropping the death penalty. So even if we did have it here, chances are he wouldn’t have been executed. Not sure what the “will of the electorate” is about. In this country, the judge passes sentence, it’s not put to a public referendum.

Most death row inmates are in prison for decades before the execution. It would absolutely not solve any overcrowding issues.

I think if you are saying taking a life is wrong (which obviously it is) then it is wrong in all circumstances. A true 'life sentence' with no possibility of parole is more appropriate and a worse punishment than death in my view.

I wouldn’t vote for it because of the possibilities for errors but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been crimes committed and I’d happily see the perpetrators fed to the sharks. Child murderers are my particular fish food choice.

I'd rather keep those who commit awful crimes alive and in misery. You hear that people like Ian Huntley want to die, that's reason enough to keep them alive. Once they die that's the end of their punishment, no more misery for them.

Agree. Especially on the morning of an election. The timing and the faux naive posts feel like someone trying to fire up another wedge issue.

True. Ian Brady spent decades fighting for the right to die and the fucker never got it which is great.
Also if enacted in this country, it would be a humane euthanasia like going to sleep peacefully. No electric chairs or hanging so it would probably be an attractive option to some.
But also we have obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights which means that we cannot enact the death penalty. It would be hugely regressive to do so.

Absolutely this.

OP, and when you have done that look up the list of miscarriages of justice where executions had already taken place. Too late for any restitution. Many had confessed under various forms of duress and due to mental impairment.

But on a fundamental level, deliberate killing is just wrong no matter who carries it out.

I can understand your feelings if you have lost someone close to you by murder. I dare say I would feel the same in your shoes. That is why criminal justice cannot be left to victims' relatives. We cannot call ourselves a civilised society if we run our criminal justice system as a revenge mechanism for families.

But I’d change that too…

Reasons against death sentence
You can get it wrong - OP there is never anyway of being 100% - we should never execute a potentially innocent person - particularly when we have justice systems that are inherently structurally racist.

In the states it's actually more expensive to put someone to death than it is to keep them alive for a life sentence when you factor in all of the legal appeals and court time

It doesnt act as a deterrent - again if we look to the states we see higher numbers of murders and violent crimes in states with the death penalty than those without. There is an argument that the death penalty itself can play a role in increasing violent crime given the culture of state sanctioned killing.

It is brutalising and traumatising for those involved in it, from the criminal justice system, juries to those who actually have to kill other people - imagine that being your job. As other pp have said it will potentially affect the decision making of juries.

I take a dim view of anyone who supports the death penalty.

In favour household here, although it's not going to happen. I used to be in favour of keeping them alive, locked up but honestly do they really feel any remorse (unless of course it helps at a parole hearing). I think if someone brutally murdered my loved one I wouldn't want them alive. Thankfully I have never been in that position.

Do they exist? Plenty of cases look pretty solid, but are miscarriages of justice.

Yes, absolutely! Who sincerely posts such a subject at this time on the election result day!

I agree. I'd also surgically remove the hands of thieves. And have women flogged for adultery. Male sex offenders should be castrated. And people who speak ill should have their tongues removed. Makes sense doesn't it. I'm not worried about miscarriages of justice. It's a price worth paying for paying for societal vengeance. Unless of course it happens to me and mine. But it won't, as it's just aimed at other people innit.

Why did he do it? Was he mentally ill? What is his mental age? Has he been horrifically abused? Even if we know he did it, it may be that there are many problems there.

The thing is, OP, we can't bring back the death penalty unless we also repeal our own domestic human rights laws and withdraw from all our international human rights obligations. Because the number one human right is the right to life.

Be careful what you wish for.

The whole point of human rights is that all humans are supposed to have them. Not just humans who haven't committed serious crimes. All humans.

As soon as you start saying that not all humans are entitled to have their human rights respected, it's the thin end of the wedge. If murderers and rapists don't deserve human rights today, who might be judged undeserving of them tomorrow? People who have committed lesser crimes? People with the wrong political beliefs?

Come for murderers' human rights today and who knows who will be coming after your human rights tomorrow.

And if we're going to withdraw from all our human rights obligations just so we can execute terrorists and paedophiles, how do the rest of us then ensure that the human rights we take for granted are respected? Such as our right to freedom of expression or belief. Or our right to freedom from torture and degrading treatment. Or our right to privacy and a family life. They're all up for grabs now.

What about our right to a fair trial? Because if you're going to bring back the death penalty it's doubly important that everyone has the right to a fair trial, but by getting rid of all of our human rights obligations in order to bring back the death penalty, you've compromised all of our human rights including the right to a fair trial, making miscarriages of justice more likely.

There's also no evidence that the death penalty serves any useful purpose. It doesn't appear to serve as a deterrent to committing violent crimes. (Look what happens in America.) There's always the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Juries become reluctant to convict criminals even where the evidence is clear because they don't want to be responsible for someone's death, so more criminals actually walk free.

And when you look at the people who are actually executed in countries like America, they're almost always incredibly vulnerable people with horrific histories of abuse, low intelligence and no access to decent lawyers. They're people that have been allowed to slip through the cracks of society, and then they commit atrocities and society wants to extinguish them so they're no longer a problem.

@Babadook76 the reason US inmates are on death row for so long is that they go through appeal circuit after appeal circuit; after all it's a very very final decision.

But you want to kill peoole and take away their right to a thorough due process?

I agree with this.
No death penalty at all. It is not the mark of a civilised society, or one that I wish to be a part of.

What could possibly go wrong? actually criminal trials cost a lot of money so maybe do away with that too if we’re 100% sure someone did it.

I quite agree. I watched a documentary where the executioner was a man who had worked in the prison for over 30 years and even his wife didn't know. He just knew it would be too distressing.

I don't want a death penalty at all. I don't believe giving a government the power to kill its citizens is ever justifiable.

However. I'm not against predators dying. I'll use the Richard huckle case as my example.
Did I want the state to have the power to end his life? No. Did I feel bad for his family, mother especially learning how he was murdered during incarceration? I did, genuinely. Was I also hopeful his victims took solace? Yes. Personally, was I glad he was dead? Yes.

I just don't want it to be legal because that is definitely going to be abused. I just can't be dishonest on this enough to say I think that the death of certain predators wouldn't be beneficial to society generally and more importantly give the survivors of the crimes some closure.

I think we want heinous perpetrators to die because of anger and I'm actually okay with that, we should be angry with despicable crimes.
It isn't okay we act on that anger (unfortunately)

Totally agree with you OP. Of course it would have to be proven beyond doubt before it's carried out. All the people on here saying two wrongs don't make a right, we shouldn't go down to their level etc. let me ask you. If your child or loved one was the victim would you hold the same view? Honestly, the one thing that would transform this country (UK) would be a more stringent justice system. Everything else would fall into place. Every crime needs to be punished accordingly. This will be an unpopular opinion but the middle east has got it right in that sense. The don't tolerate theft, murder, and vandalism like we do.

It wouldn't work in the current legal system, you'd need an entire overhaul.

Here's why. The jury doesn't decide on the penalty, the judge does. The jury decides whether, given the evidence they've heard, the defendant is guilty or not. They don't give the degree of confidence, or say whether there is no doubt at all, or no "reasonable" doubt. They just say guilty or not. Then the judge takes the verdict and gives the penalty if found guilty.

Bringing in the death penalty for a select few cases where there is certain types of evidence wouldn't work. In our current system, guilty verdict from a jury means being treated as guilty. You couldn't have a system where someone is treated as guilty because of the guilty verdict, but given a different sentence to someone else who was found guilty because the evidence is less conclusive. The defendant would rightly protest that, if the evidence isn't conclusive, they shouldn't even be in prison.

Anyway, even leaving all this aside, there's good reason to avoid the death penalty. First, there is no such thing as cases where there is literally no doubt at all. Mistakes do happen and even one innocent life taken is one too many. Second, we cannot endorse a system where a government has that sort of power over citizens. It's such a slippery slope. What if the law changed so abortion counted as murder? It might seem the stuff from dystopian films, but tides can change quickly and if they change against you, you want the comfort of knowing that the government cannot literally kill you.