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.

Thou shalt not kill.

Absolutely the death penality should be given to serial killers, child rapists, repeat/severe offenders of rape and paedophilia. Where there is evidence and no doubt. I find it very disturbing anyone would defend such evil creatures.

I believe no one has the right to play god and end another humans life but when someone has descended to the lowest possible levels of wickedness, depravity and evil then that person clearly has no humanity and is instead, essentially, beast-like rather than human and therefore it is not wrong to put an end to the threat of them, in the same we would a savage dog.

This country is depraved and shameful in the way we nuture, cosset and protect such filth - and often release them like wolves amongst lambs to carry out more horrors. There are perverse people on this very site who get sick thrills from defending them, Josef Fritzel received fanmail from such deprived and mentally ill.

Death penalty fans are always the same people outraged when criminals take their own lives instead of living with what they've done. Fred West is as vile a criminal as is imaginable, yet there was outcry when he killed himself like a coward instead of taking his punishment ie living the rest of his life with the world knowing what he's done, and of course our old friend jailhouse justice.

We don't have a third verdict of 'absolutely guilty, defo did it'. Just guilty and not guilty (plus not proven in Scotland).

We can't have a class of convicted murderers in prison who probably did it but let's not kill them just in case. Makes no legal sense and is practically unworkable.

Seriously cannot believe that people are advocating the death penalty in the case of CSA or rape.
If the penalty for these is exactly the same as committing these heinous crimes AND THEN murdering your victim/s afterwards to keep them quiet, what do you think might happen?
Might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb.

So much this ^

There are no degrees of “Guilty”

No such thing as no doubt, even the most convincing case can have evidence come to light questioning whether they were either guilty or had diminished responsibility for some reason. I personally think that you cannot commit the heinous crimes you are talking about op without having mental illness or some other sort of incapacity

They're fabulous at tolerating rape though, to the point of actually punishing the victims for being raped.

There is no way to guarantee this, a mistake will always happen at some point.

This.

I am against it, no matter what.

It doesn't appear to be a deterrent in countries who still have it. Those countries still have the crimes happening, and not in tiny numbers. Most criminals of this nature probably assume they won't be caught.
It also costs a lot of money to hold people in 'death row' awaiting their end - time has to be allowed to allow for appeals, etc.
There are a,so plenty of miscarriages of justice and, yes, some happen even when the evidence seemingly points to guilt or there has been a 'confession.'

Ask the parents of a murdered child what they think

There is a very good reason why victims of crime, or those closest to them, are not involved in the jury or sentencing of the assumed criminal.

Nothing anyone can say could get me to change my mind, I'll never agree with the death penalty.
For those who argue money, it's cheaper to keep a prisoner locked up for life.
I believe death is the end. I want them to sit in a cell and think, suffer that way. Look how many 'escape' life meaning life by committing suicide, Harold Shipman, Fred West, etc.
Finally if just one person is put to death wrongly, it's one too many. We can't take that risk knowing it does happen.

It's not effective - there is plenty of evidence it doesn't reduce offending rates.

It's not cost effective - it costs the public purse more than a life sentence.

No conviction is 100% safe. A wrongly convicted life prisoner can be release, a corpse can't.

It reduces conviction rates, because some jurors are reluctant to participate in state murder even if they're certain the person is guilty.

It's not logical - 'killing is wrong, so we'll kill you for it' makes no sense. It encourages people to think murder is sometimes justified - see point 1.

It is not a power that should ever be given to the state.

Permit this government to kill murderers, and the next could extend it to sex offenders, then where are you if abortion becomes included in murder and adultery becomes included in sex offences?

It involves everyone in the justice and prison system in the death. Jurors, prosecutors, judges, prison officers, police, as well as the person who actually pushes the button/pulls the trigger/injects the drugs. What type of person would take part if it made them complicit in murder? Are they the people you want running the system - bearing in mind its primary job should still be rehabilitation of the majority of prisoners who have committed lesser offences?

And it's not civilised.

No, I don’t support the death penalty.
i support whole life term.

Yes, a system that has the death penalty (or any penalty at all) for victims of crime is not one to emulate.

Absolutely this.

Look at Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis. Both found guilty, both executed. The former posthumously pardoned.

I don't think these days we would consider the death penalty appropriate in either situation. But there aren't degrees of guilt. Who's to say similar wouldn't happen again?

@ilovesooty and also a reason why crime is still prevalent in most areas, as people sweep it under the carpet.

I once read an article that said, for every new prison built (it was specifically about the US) in America, that's the next generation you're already ok with failing.

What people are saying about addressing some of the reasons behind violent behaviour is right; people with chaotic childhoods, in and out of foster homes, living with addiction in their families, etc, these are all factors and it's inherently wrong to say 'yeah, just kill them then'.

Morally it’s awful, killing another person should never be a response to whatever crime they have committed

practically it’s awful, there have always been miscarriages of justice so you would always end up executing some of the wrong people. Even one error is unacceptable

as a deterrent it doesn’t work. Places with the death penalty see people thinking “in for a penny in for a pound” and compounding crimes, or no one thinks they’ll get caught. It’s an ineffective deterrent

No no no

Lots of people disagree with me and that's absolutely fine. I'm not here to argue with anyone. It's nice to hear all various opinions.

You’d have death penalty for driving offences? I’m not sure they even have that in Saudi Arabia. It’s a tragic case but come on, you’d execute him?

I’m all for it. Some people are absolute monsters and don’t deserve to spend the rest of their time behind bars that we pay for. I wish we did it in the uk too if I’m honest.

That's not capital punishment. That's revenge. Would you say the same for a case in which you had zero involvement.

I am against capital punishment because I too believe that the state should not be allowed to kill it's citizens.

I believe a society who reject the idea of rehabilitation is doomed to failure.

I think the punishment is greater for the family and friends of the guilty than it is for the guilty party.

I do not believe that there can ever be a case of zero doubt.

I believe that often the perpetrators of the worst crimes have severe mental health imbalances, as sane and healthy people do not kill. Sick people do. We would be better learning how to manage those urges, recognizing symptoms and putting in better prevention that eliminating anyone who does not fit an acceptable standard.

Improvements to sentencing and prisons are needed. I do not think dangerous criminals should ever be in a position where then can cause more harm to others. I do think that there should be punishment for the crime and they have relinquished their freedom. But I do not think they need to be dead to achieve that.

Yes I would.

people who have confessed under duress have later been freed from prison.
That collapses your argument.

The death penalty is abhorrent and i will never ever change my view on that.

Against it.

A brief summary of why it was abolished in Britain. Ruth Ellis, Derek Bentley & Timothy Evans. Evans said he falsely confessed because he was in shock at losing his wife and child and 'didn't care what happened to him', Ruth Ellis was the victim of domestic violence, Derek Bentley had learning difficulties.

The problem is of course how can you absolutely guarantee no question of doubt. Unjust prison sentences can be overturned by appeal whereas there is no room for error on this one, it's the taking of life.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/znkfsk7/revision/8#:~:text=Timothy%20Evans%20confessed%20to%20murdering,changing%20his%20story%20many%20times.