Kyle Clifford - does it make you think the death penalty in some cases might be right?

[mids2019]

Read about Kyle Clifford's crimes and although for most of my life objected to the death penalty actually found it difficult to find reasons in this case not to have it. I really just couldn't think of justification for keeping the guy alive as there. Is no hope of redemption, reformation or education leading to a man being able to renenter scoiety. We would be in a position of keeping someone alive for pets face it the ideological reasons we don't believe it is rig h for the state to forcibly take a life.

Maybe my mind might change but reading about that blokes crimes I think sometimes you do forfeit the right to life.

I'm beginning to think there should be entire continents where just women live in peace.

I am starting to think that women should, en masse, abort if they are pregnant with sons. Yes, it's extreme, but we are facing unprecedented levels of violence towards women and girls and the abusers encourage other men to become abusers over the internet. We can't just take out the manosphere influencers because if you assassinate the Tates, some other misogynist grifter will step into that vacuum. Not one of us is safe and not one of us can be sure that our sons won't become abusers. Early abortions are painless to the embryo so there's no concern about causing suffering.

Does anyone have a better suggestion that isn't something that we've already tried? Because I am absolutely out of ideas to stop this epidemic of male violence and aborting males looks like the least-worst option to me. We cannot let men carry on like this.

It's been proved time and again that the death penalty is no deterrent. Look at the statistics in US states which have it.

Nobody is disputing their guilt. We're asking how a sliding scale of 'guilty' would work in practice. Have you considered all the convicted criminals found guilty already? Should they be let free because they aren't 'absolutely, definitely guilty'?

100%. A society where their victims are deemed less important than their own rights.

This failed human will be given everything he needs to lead a comfortable disabled life. Better than a lot of people in pain desperate for surgery on the NHS for example and 1000% better than his victims and their families.

He will have quality of life when he should be humanely destroyed as he is not fit to be in society. Even in jail in society. He has forfeited that the day he got off his ass and bought ropes, knives and the crossbow.

No healthy civilisation should tolerate his existence.

What a disgusting idea. We don't fancy dirtying our hands with torturing or killing these people, but you lot can knock yourselves out doing what you want with them in return for giving us some money. Utterly revolting.

And we also have deepfakes, AI, GPS spoofing, forged cell tower records. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Ad technology changes, so opportunities to exploit it change.

Is there any doubt in your mind

Due process doesn't depend on what's in my mind or yours. That's fundamental to hoe due process works.

there are crimes where we can say with 100% certainty who the perprator is.

Who is "we"? In terms of the criminal justice system, who is "we"? Stop and actually think hard about that. And then think harder.

In the criminal justice system, there is no "we", in the sense of "the British public". The nearest to "we" is the jury of twelve ordinary people, and they occasionally get it wrong.

What you seem to be advocating is a system in which the death penalty is allowed as long as a jury convicts and then you, individually, decide that you trust that jury to have given a true verdict. That is not what fair due process looks like.

What you seem to be advocating is a two-tier sentencing system where we imprison people who probably did it and kill those who definitely did it. People who only "probably" did it should be acquitted and released, not jailed.

If the jury are not sure of the defendant's guilt, they should acquit, every time. Appeals are not granted to everyone who applies for one, there has to be grounds.

Tell me that you don't understand the core principles of criminal justice upon which this country is built without telling me...

But we know from hard evidence from the US that the prospect of dying does not make any murderer reconsider. In general, if they think ahead at all they basically assume they won't get caught.

You should visit a few prisons if you really believe prisoners live a cosy life. You couldn't be further from the truth.

How a nation treats its prisoners is an accurate predictor of how it treats everyone else. Be careful what you wish for.

Human rights are for all people and if we take them from people we don't like, we set a precedent for our own rights being taken.

In the UK murder trials are extremely unlikely to ‘get it wrong’ as the standard of evidence collection and legal delivery is incredibly high. We have very little corruption and any factors which could make a trial unfair can be adjusted for. I would be surprised if 1 in 500 murder trials convict the wrong defendant. It’s not really an argument in the way it used to be.

If we say it's OK to kill someone because there is "no point" in keeping them alive, it's the start of a very slippery slope. Once you allow killing on that basis to be acceptable, you open the door to people who claim, for instance, that there's not point in keeping the seriously disabled or very ill people alive, and then that gets extended, and we end up living in a society where we all have to justify our existence to be allowed to stay alive. No, thanks.

Ffs what do we have to do as decent people to be able to live our lives without having a shit standard of life in order to pay for pond scum like this monster because keeping them at her majesty’s leisure costs 100k a year? Sick of it. I don’t even care any more. I would rather have a good standard of life than a shit one because I’m paying for principles which only benefit the evil or antisocial.

I think Labour are doing a good job of that at the moment. Two tier justice on display plus trying to push through the euthanasia law.

Most mumsnetters can't tolerate two days at the in-laws - dodgy food at weird times, people spouting vile opinions, all the rooms either too hot or freezing, arcane bathroom rules.

Two days. And you get to keep your phone.

Prison is fucking terrible, and you can't get out until they say.

Funding a country to defend itself from invasion is hardly comparable.

I find this question difficult. In principle I disagree with the death penalty, but if someone touched my kids I'd pull the switch on them myself.

Please tell me you don't believe what The Sun says about this. It's largely fictional.

People who truly believe life in prison is so cosy really ought to be made to spend at least a month in one and then come out and tell us they still believe that.

We can’t have everything. There seems to be a pervasive myth on here that we can afford what we want to afford, and that somehow spending on things you approve of must offer some kind of massive economic return in some way. They don’t. It’s beyond frustrating to hear that the only spending should be on people who basically don’t make the money, and the rest of us should ‘just be grateful’ that we get to work for 40 hours a week because somehow that means we’re rich and have endless options in life.

Being a law abiding working person in 2025 is the shitty end of the stick, frankly.

How exactly does it maintain standards? Has it maintained standards in US states that have the death penalty?

I will never support the death penalty, no, but I do wish there was a way we could dole out harsher punishments than merely languishing in prison. I'm all in favour of chain gangs litter picking on motorways or cleaning up beaches, dredging canals etc. Of course this creature couldn't be involved because of his cowardice and now being paralysed.

I want him to live a long, painful, uncomfortable life surrounded by people who hate him and who will at any opportunity do him great harm. He needs to suffer for as long as possible. To be tormented by his crimes. Locked up for ever and ever. He is an unspeakable, evil man. He wanted to escape and take the cowards way out.

So you are happy that one in 500 murder trial guilty verdicts will kill an innocent person? I don't find that an acceptable level of collatoral damage.

I do. The number of lives saved through the savings would probably be greater than that. And I wouldn’t allow the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence alone.

I will get deleted for this but I don't care: you are not a decent person. You know the price of everything and the value of nothing and you openly despise disabled people.

I dare say Rose West does read books and knit in prison - she's never getting out, what else would a woman her age do with her time? You can't compare womens prison with mens anyway - they are completely different, because of the inmates.