AIBU to think the death penalty should sometimes be used?

[Gide]

In cases such as mass murderers, paedophiles, rapists? Obviously only if there is absolutely no doubt at all about their guilt.

Sparklycat ok - what impact do you think that executing Lee Rigby's murderers would have had?

Would it have deterred future attacks?

Might it have pricked future attacks?

Might it have made them martyrs?

^^ provoked obvs

YABVU. Did you ever read the treatment Gerry Conlon suffered in prison, for a crime he was innocent, due to the police framin him? You are foolish if you think the police still don't frame innocents.

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Even if guilt could be proven 100%.

It is barbaric.

sparklycat but the standard of proof is the same in all cases- beyond reasonable doubt. The jury should not convict unless they are sure of guilt. Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, so not a good idea to suggest that where there are witnesses, death penalty should be applied. CCTV is more reliable if it is clear enough. But are you not then applying the punishment inconsistently? And how do you square all this with rape and pedophilia? Surely those are very unlikely to be witnessed or caught on camera (unless we are talking about making child-porn).

I don't agree with killing people. YABU

One thing that would almost certainly happen is that juries would be less willing to convict. So instead of having murderers spending 20 years in prison you would have murderers free on the street the next day.

YABU

It is not about the rapist's right to live, it is about government's right to kill people.

Well said, Vestal; I haven't seen that point articulated so simply and well before.

And absolutely agree that religious fanatics would not be deterred at all; quite to the contrary.

YABU

Very very very U.

Not in my name.

Look up the innocence project in the US, www.innocenceproject.org/ they've freed over 20 people from death row who would otherwise have been executed.
People who had been convicted supposedly without doubt.

Even 1 wrongful execution is one too many.

You're being extremely unreasonable.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

I served on a jury when I was 20. The case was horrible, double murder, serious sexual assault followed by arson in a clumsy attempt to hide evidence. The accused was 17 years old. The evidence against him was compelling. Loads of credible witness statements and forensics. We found him guilty but every one of us said if the death penalty was still in use we would rather have let him go free than sanction the state to hang a 17 year old boy.

Not in my name. You are already suggesting it for crimes which however horrible are not murder. What next?

And whatever the world was like in the days of Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis, you would find enough hardline antis on any jury of twelve to block a conviction no matter how solid the evidence.

YABU.

No person. Group of people or government should ever have the power to decide if an individual should live or die.

Even if someone does commits the worst atrocity it does not mean other people should be able to decide on life or death for them.

Also.... No justice system is ever perfect and only convicts correctly. One life removed in error is too many.

Sometimes, yes.

yabu - you can never really be absolutely certain of guilt can you?

The state has no place killing people in my view - loss of liberty is the punishment - I agree with that

YABU. Who are you or anyone to take a life. Even the life if someone who took a life themselves.

If someone harmed my child would I want them dead? Yes.

Would I want the state to decide to kill that person? No.

There is no room for emotion in our justice system. It should be based purely on facts.

And how often can there be absolutely no doubt?

Anders Breivik, for example?

Killing people is wrong.

I don't know. I really don't know. I certainly understand the mentality of wanting certain people punished beyond what we do now, but then, that's more of an issue with the legal system and the sentencing, and the natural response shouldn't be "kill them". Life should mean life, there shouldn't be the opportunity to be released early for good behaviour.

That said, if they ever caught the man who did what he did to me as a child, I would want him dead.

but that is a very very rare case - most cases are just not that cut and dried - there is usually a little room for doubt - that's why juries have to weigh up evidence and decide if it's enough

For me it's nothing to do with doubt or certainty.