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.

And Sally Clark and Sam Hallam and the Subpostmasters and, and, and….

Yes of course he deserves the death penalty. Would rid us off a lot of murderers and rapists.

We can barely get any rape convictions now due to reputation /career/family man/future prospects. What do you think it would happen if the death penalty was on the table?

Well I moreso mean in the case of murder or murder+ rape

I think it's obvious is it not? You are obviously being pedantic but, assuming you do need it spelling out to you, it refers to : Women who allow their feckless "boyfriends" to torture and murder their children, men who do the above, parents who leave little children alone to burn alive in house fires, children treated like Sharia Sharif or babies kept in a drawer for 3 years. There is no definition per se but it's obvious we're not talking about a mum that - wrongly - smacks her toddlers hand running off.

No, not at all. I speak as a mother of a daughter who was grievously attacked by someone serving several life sentences for what he did to her... I want him to sit in it. I don't want him to have an escape from himself. And as a matter of principle, I do not believe in state sanctioned murder and it absolutely no impact of murder rates and wouldn't have deterred her attacker. And I'll keep going back as long as I'm alive when he eventually comes up for parole because he is a danger and needs to be incarcerated for he protection of society.

So you mean people like Sally Clarke who was wrongfully convicted of murdering her children? That's OK then.

The big problem about not putting people down who commit murder/s is there is always a big decision to make about letting them.out again.
Parole board don't always get it right.
It's a headache to know what to do with them.
Ian Huntley for instance when he is up for parole what's going to happen. Will anyone risk letting him out.
Problem.
Wonder why he didn't get a whole life sentence also.

That's another thing since hanging was got rid off we see shorter and shorter sentences for murder.

If hanging is abolished, we should have seen life imprisonment meaning life.

There are people around who've killed who are only serving between 12 and 20 years.

The big problem about not putting people down who commit murder/s

Jesus. Some of the replies on here are barbaric and totally uncivilised but I think that takes the biscuit.

No, I've already said upthread that it should only apply where there is absolutely no doubt. Go ahead though, you cheer lead for keeping all the paedophiles, rapists and child killers alive. However, I'm not repeating myself again.

There was absolutely no doubt about Sally Clarke. That’s the legal test for conviction - if there had been, she would have been acquitted.

Same for Stephen Kiszko - no doubt whatsoever, clearly guilty. Family of the dead little girl called for him to be publicly hung. Until it turned out he didn’t do it and the police hid the evidence that proved his innocence.

Same for Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 - terrorist mass murderers. If the death penalty doesn’t apply to them who does it apply to?

No need to repeat yourself if you don’t want - you haven’t provided a solution to this issue in your previous posts and I doubt that will change.

No I don't agree with the death penalty as it's the state taking a life but I think it's a very complicated ethical issues & I do completely understand why people believe it and I certainly understand victim' families wanting someone dead.

yes I am also disabled and I don't have time for the KCs of this world. I guess that you, like myself would hold not slashing PIP and other benefits to be a higher priority than some murderous criminal. Decent disabled people in the UK are facing cuts to our benefits meanwhile Axel Rubadubdub or whatever his name is will have a lifetime of money spent on housing and feeding him. It's disgrace.

Except nobody is convicted unless there is "no doubt" so every one of those falsely convicted was convicted because there was no doubt. That is what is meant by beyond reasonable doubt. It's very easy to say in hindsight of an acquital on appeal that there was obviously doubt in that case. Not so clearcut at the time.

If capital punishment was an option, the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 would have been executed as there was "no doubt" of their guilt.

And yes, I think child killers, rapists and paedophiles should not be executed. I am in favour of whole of life sentences in certain cases but I do not think execution has any place in a civilised society. Have a look at the countries where capital punishment is practised and tell me how many of them you would like to live in.

I don't really support death penalty unless it's murder that has been witnessed and there is as a result 100% certainty that they did it, as was the case with the Southport Killer. Of course this is not the majority of murders. But I do wonder about the costs of keeping murderers alive at HM pleasure, funding could be spent on other things like employment and housing, disability etc. I can't help wondering what it achieves just keeping people who cannot be rehabilitated.

You do realise that not all killings, even if witnessed, are murders? The killer may have mental health problems or learning disabilities that mean they are not capable of murder. You get the right expert to testify, and they're falsely convicted of murder. And yes, that happens, particularly if the individual fits the correct profile (e.g. Irish back in the 70's/80's/90's).

Obviously there would need to be a fair trial first and psychiatric examinations. Potential for rehabilitation needs assessing also. None of these apply to Axel Rhubarb-whatever, that said cases like this are rare.

Derek Bentley with a mental age of 11 being a case in point here. Or Sam Hallam who a witness was adamant they were at the murder scene... until they admitted they'd lied.

I'm also tired of the argument that somehow if you are against killing the killers (or alleged killers) then you are happy for them to live the life of luxury in a 5 star hotel style prison. Not so.

Then AR should stay in prison for every single day of the rest of his life with zero possibilities of that changing. Maybe without "luxuries" or doing hard labour or something. But not murdered at the sponsorship of the state.

Except, as all the miscarriages of justice show us, there is no guarantee of a fair trial, particularly if the public is baying for blood as is usually the case with heinous crimes.

@OchonAgusOchonOh Let's face it, if we were still burning witches at the stake then some posters would be there.

Exactly.

I think the argument that if you're against state sponsored killing, you must be soft on crime is an attempt to prevent discussion of the nuances of the justice system. It's the same sort of argument that insists that is you have any concerns about immigration you must be a racist. Certainly, some who oppose immigration are racists. However, some have reasonable concerns and think we should discuss the impact on housing, health etc and come up with a plan that will facilitate immigration whilst also ensuring heath, housing etc for all is addressed.

Shout down and insult the opposition and then you don't have to think.

I know. It's depressing.

As a relative of a murder victim, I am against the death penalty in all circumstances.

I'm sorry for your loss. That must be horrific.