to think that there is a place for CAPITAL PUNISHMENT in a civilised society?

[HoHumm]

Whenever any of us plebs (politicians would never debate it as they would be too scared to) call for a return of the death penalty, there are cries of 'not acceptable in a civilised country', 'that would make us as bad as the murderer', 'rehabilitating them makes us a more caring society' ad nauseum!

Well I think that is bollocks. Humanely (which is more they afforded their victims) putting a so called human down to rid society of a danger to all, cannot be compared to a sick twisted individual torturing someone for kicks who has done nothing wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time in many cases. That is not revenge, it's just pure logic. Do we really believe we will go to hell if we support the death penalty? Do you consider yourself a better (spiritually) person if you support keeping these people alive?

The money spent on keeping these people alive in comfortable circumstances (approx £40k per year) could be much better spent helping the victim's families. Just what is the point in keeping these people alive. In many countries in the world life is cheap and thousands of people are killed every day in wars, by dictators and even in simple car accidents. Why would a murderers life be of value to any one, especially as it costs a lot of money to keep the public safe from them?

Murderers cannot be rehabilitated IMO. Once you have crossed that line and are capable of killing someone in cold blood, you will be capable of doing it again. Add to that the fact that many do not admit it and feel remorse but try everything to wheedle out of it. That applies to all murderers whatever their age. Running someone down in your car by accident is obviously different and should be dealt with differently.

The cases of Levi Bellfield and that Italian scum in the news recently have totally summed up all that is wrong in our 'punishment' system today. Many of these 'people' enjoy being in jail as they have a sense of routine and have everything done for them, they can even get a job and use the money to buy pleasurable items.

Miscarriages of justice would be pretty rare these days, we have moved on from the 1960's in terms of science and the verdict would be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I could live with the occasional mistake tbh, it the murder rate in general was reduced. I can't understand the argument that it would not be a deterrant either? It would surely deter me if I was that way inclined.

It is said that there can be no 'emotion' in law and I have never understood this as if we did not have emotions, no one would give a toss if their loved ones were murdered. Well they would'nt love them anyway!

"Forensic science" did not help Sally Clarke, did it? It's not infallible. You must watch less CSI, really.

Derek Bentley's case had nothing to do with forensic science. It was about witness evidence (that was ultimately found to be unreliable). Derek Bentley did not even pull the trigger, his friend did. He was deemed to be a murderer because his words ("let him have it, Chris") were deemed to be encouraging his mate to shoot a policeman. This case is very relevant. You would seriously execute a Derek Bentley, would you?

Read "Guilty by reason of insanity" by Dorothy O Lewis and then tell me that you think the death penalty should be reinstated and include those that are mentally ill.

Particularly interesting is her analysis of an executioner, paid for by the state to execute those on death row. He had the same characteristics as any other psychopath, but lucky for him he got paid to murder his victims.

Did you know that the murder rate has been dropping for the last ten years?

Poor Derek Bentley was hanged because the lad who did pull the trigger was under-age so couldn't be executed. The judge, public and media were desperate for revenge, so they had Bentley killed, even though his words were ambiguous and he had a learning disability.

Capital punishment is savage, makes murderers of us all, and makes it impossible to put right any miscarriage of justice. Given the legal system is run by human beings and none of us are perfect, miscarriages are inevitable. So if you are in favour of capital punishment, you are saying it's OK to kill innocent people as long as you get a few guilty ones along the way.

Never. Ever.

You think it's makes sense to think someone can make a decision that someone else doesn't deserve life, because they decided someone else didn't deserve life? That's hypocritical and ridiculous. And horrific.

not politically likely within our lifetime

There are, perhaps, a handful of cases every year in which I think, yes, the murderer has transgressed so many of society's norms and values that he should forfeit his own life.

But the risk of re-introducing CP is the very real danger of executing the wrong person. Despite forensics etc, the police and courts can and do still get it wrong. For that reason, and that alone, YABU.

There is no 100% way of knowing if someone is guilty? What about cases where someone is seen doing the crime.
Like the Hungerford incident. The Dunblane school incident. Raoul Moat (sp). The taxi driver whose name escapes me.

If there was a national vote and everyone had to vote what would the outcome be?

I've got splinters in my arse from sitting on this fence.
I was brought up in a Christian household.
But if someone went out deliberately to kill my DS/DD I don't know how Christian I would be.

YABU, very.

There are multiple cases every year in USA of miscarriages of justice and of people with diminished responsibility being murdered by the state. Even if it were rare that an innocent person was killed, that's one person too many for me.

Additionally, it's not about how much money a person costs to keep in prison per year, it's about the fact that to take someone's life (whether the state or the individual) is inhumane.

Rehabilition does work. Murderers typically have the lowest re-offending rate of any prisoner group, and whilst I don't think the current system is the most effective, it's about reform, rather than introducing state endorsed murder.

And how is it fair to pay someone to murder other people?

If you want to understand better how it feels and what it does to someone to have to kill people for a living, please go and read Albert Pierrpoint's (auto)biographies.

VICTORIA DERBYSHIRE will be be the new public hangperson is hanging
is brought back. She thinks she knopws about male criminality YUK

This is completely bizarre. Countries with the death penalty prove beyond doubt that it does not reduce crime, even the crime of murder. Those countries with the death penalty have a HIGHER murder rate than us.

"The money spent on keeping these people alive in comfortable circumstances (approx £40k per year) could be much better spent helping the victim's families."

Costs much more to kill someone legally than imprison them for life

"Miscarriages of justice would be pretty rare these days"

They still happen.

And at the risk of flaming, most (note the use of the word most) murder victims are as unsavoury as the people who murder them.

I like to refer to Gandalf in Lord of The Rings in this sort of debate 'let no man take away that which he can not give back'

YABU. If (God forbid) someone hurt or killed a person I love, I would want to hunt them down and kill them with my bare hands. But I don't think I should be allowed to. The 'eye for an eye' attitude is crass in the extreme. And I second the poster who said that 'civilised' and 'capital punishment' add up to an oxymoron.

seeker how can you say that? what proof do you have that the victims are as unsavoury as their killers?

YANBU to think there is a place for capital punishment for murderers. I agree with your sentiments.

But YABU to think that miscarriages of justice are pretty rare these days - they are not. It is for this reason that I would not like to see capital punishment reinvoked.

I believe that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend are possible victims of a miscarriage of justice, but thats another thread!

No. Never ever.

The idea of an innocent person being executed - your father? Your husband? Your son?

Not even for the wickedest, most unrepentant criminal. Not even for Robert Black. Not in my name.

YABVU
There is absolutely no evidence that it has any effect on the murder rate.

"That case has no relevance today."

You trot that line out enough don't you?

Yes, things that have happened previously are relevant, no matter how much you wish they weren't. Science, by it's very nature, is still learning, still advancing. And therefore, it's still making mistakes.

If you believe that taking an innocent person's life is wrong in all circumstances, then the death penalty should be out of the question due to the very real risk of an innocent being killed.

Hopefully I can make this simple enough for you.

If you believe taking an innocent life is the worst crime possible, then you couldn't then say that killing innocent people by mistake wasn't that big a deal. Or as you phrased it "worth the risk".

However if you think that killing innocent people by mistake was worth the risk, then you are saying that killing an innocent person isn't the worst crime possible, and therefore isn't worthy of the death penalty.

Either killing another is totally wrong (therefore ruling out the death penalty), or it's ok (in which case the death penalty isn't needed, or in fact any other form of punishment).

In what way unsavoury seeker?

People convicted of crimes killing similar people?
Teenagers stabbing other teenagers?
People getting the shit kicked out of them for challenging a gang of young people?
Men who randomly choose their victims?

I just can't get what you're trying to say, or why you're saying it.

Are you suggesting the publics perception of murder is skewed and actually most victims have some responsibility for their death by the choices they made in life (ie to commit crimes and mix with those more likely to murder)?

The deterrent argument is completely fatuous - there aren't so many murders that are committed in a rational, considered way .

I am totally opposed to the death penalty. I have worked for and been trained by Reprieve. The blatant miscarriages of justice that I learned about during that period were horrifying. One in particular I will always remember hearing about - the accused (a very young - under the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the murder - totally uneducated black man with a very low IQ and learning difficulties) was given his last meal, and left the pudding. He was asked if he was going to eat it, and he said "I'll have it after." He clearly didn't even have the mental capacity to understand what the death penalty meant.

So. YABU. But, hey, you can live with the odd mistake. Bully for you.

Erwin James who writes for the Guardian is a good example of someone who has been rehabilitated.