Death penalty

[birthdayboo]

I don't quite understand the logic of people who want to murder people who have committed awful crimes.

I do understand saying you wish you could, verbalising the anger felt and not literally meaning you would actually carry out a killing yourself.

I don't understand when people swear they would actually kill

One horrific crime doesn't go away because you commit another horrific crime such as murder on the guilty?

I don't understand the death penalty either - I totally agree that life seems too good for some people, however it's still legalising murdering a human being to have the state kill them - so I just can't get my head around murdering someone because they murdered someone. Perhaps some form of voluntary self administered euthanasia being available by prescription to individuals who will never leave prison in their lifetime would be a solution to how much money it costs to house prisoners however it's not even like people get death penalty and it happens soon, they spend ages and have money spent on holding them prior to execution

In tne US system once a date for execution has been set it is very difficult to stop it. It has to be shown that the original trial was unfair or not correctly done. New evidence coming to light will not necessarily be enough to stop the execution.

It's anyone able to explain why death row costs more than a normal prison sentence? Is it due to the frequency of appeals. Which is entirely understandable given you'd be fighting for your life. Or is there more to it than that?

Someone mentioned that deciding who gets the death penalty is very emotive - people who have been affected by crimes such as SA, manslaughter/murder etc seem more willing for it put in place. I think that's spot on actually. If you have direct knowledge of how a crime affects the rest of your life, you want justice. If you then feel justice hasn't been served - in my case it certainly wasn't - you feel almost cheated & would welcome something else. Obviously that's my take, others may disagree.

Trevor McDonald did something recently about death row in one state, they were considering taking prisoners off death row & giving them life in a maximum security prison instead. This was simply because they couldn't get hold of the drugs needed to execute people. I guess for those inmates life in prison could be seen as a reprieve, altho a couple wanted to die rather than spend life behind bars. If UK prisons garnered that sort of response i'd decline the death penalty being introduced.

I voted remain btw. Even if voting leave guaranteed the death penalty in our system i wouldn't have chosen it

It was only banished in 1957 which wasn't really that long ago I believe there will be a vote for it again one day in this country then the British public can decide you know the people who live here.

Restricting it to the classes of murderer I have mentioned eg sexual murders of children and serial killers would in my view mitigate the risk of miscarriage of justice due to the evidence required to establish those crimes in the first place.

Read about the case of Stefan Kiszko, sentenced to life for the sexual murder of an 11 year old but subsequently acquitted. He had actually signed a confession but scientific evidence subsequently found that he could not have been the murderer.

It was only banished in 1957 which wasn't really that long ago

Actually the last execution was in 1964, with the abolition act being passed in 1965. This abolished execution for murder, but some special cases remained, e.g. espionage. Execution was only finally and completely abolished in the UK in 1998.

then the British public can decide you know the people who live here

Vast majority of posters discussing here are in the UK It seems that the majority oppose the death penalty, too.

To be honest, an issue like capital punishment is far too sensitive and emotive to be decided by the public, X-factor style. And after Brexit I doubt we will see many more referendums on complex issues.

Not to mention the fact that in order to reintroduce the death penalty, we would first need to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, which means that you might theoretically get to vote on whether to bring backc hanging for paedophiles, but you also risk losing your own right to life, freedom from torture, a fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, a family life and a whole host of other rather important things.

Worth it?

I don't think so.

Human rights should be sacrosanct. Not to save paedophiles from the death penalty so much as to save all the rest of us from living in a country where it's OK to erode human rights.

Andrea Yates killed her 5 children, she was severely mentally ill at the time and believed it was the best thing for them. Can you imagine living with that every day? Knowing your children have been murdered and that you did it?

I can't think of a worse punishment.

Read about the case of Stefan Kiszko, sentenced to life for the sexual murder of an 11 year old but subsequently acquitted. He had actually signed a confession but scientific evidence subsequently found that he could not have been the murderer.

That really was a disgrace. And tragically, his mum, who had been campaigning for his release for so long, died without getting to see her son being exonerated. Stefan himself died not long afterwards.

It's anyone able to explain why death row costs more than a normal prison sentence? Is it due to the frequency of appeals

yes, the lawyers cost everyone a huge amount of money. Far more expensive than a life sentence. Typical times spent on Death row , even in very pro-death penalty states like TX or Alabama, is like 10-15 years. But waits of 20-25 years are not unusual. "The vast majority of those sentenced to death are never executed."

"“From indictment to execution, the trial costs alone for death penalty cases are estimated at about $1.2 million,” said Jack Stoffregen, an attorney with the West Texas Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases." The appeal costs are on top of that.

Meanwhile it costs "$693,500 [to house an inmate] for 40 years."

Ethel that's exactly why it would never happen in this country.
That also ties in with PP's question about Brexit voters. In my opinion, those in favour of capital punishment are usually leavers, many of whom wrongly believed that leaving the EU also meant leaving the Council of Europe (which oversees ECHR ) and were quite happy to do away with HRs.

Of course you may want to kill someone who kills a loved one.
My son was almost killed by thugs and at that time I would happily killed those responsible with my bare hands given the chance but that's why I am glad I didn't get the chance.
The death penalty is barbaric and I think those who get satisfaction from it are almost as bad as a murderer.
Murder is never black and white. There are so many different factors involved.

I am not too sure about the death penalty because there have been too many cases where the prisoner's name was cleared AFTER they had already been put to sleep.

But I will comment on the state of our prisons. Rubbish. The whole point of prison is supposed to be rehabilitation. But we do absolutely nothing and they come out, reoffend and the cycle continues.

It's been proven time and time again that those who are rehabilitated and given opportunists in prison have the lowest reoffending rates. But we are too busy flinging any and everyone in for the most minor of crimes so that the private prisons can meet their quota and get their money.

Unfortunately prisoner rehabilitation is a vote loser. Half of the UK prison population is functionally illiterate yet people get aerated about them being taught to read and write because it’s rewarding them for their crime. Bonkers.

Not to mention the fact that in order to reintroduce the death penalty, we would first need to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, which means that you might theoretically get to vote on whether to bring backc hanging for paedophiles, but you also risk losing your own right to life, freedom from torture, a fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, a family life and a whole host of other rather important things.

Actually i would bet that people who support the death penalty would also support taking all those rights away because they think it won't affect them (and are probably correct at the moment). It's easy to give human rights to 'good' people, what is harder is extending them to the very worst people in our societies, they ones who would want to do some of the things listed above to us. That's the whole point of human rights though, they extend to everybody (as they should) if the very worst people in the world are protected by them then everybody is protected by them. I horrifies me that anybody is in favor of the death penalty or torturing people, how can any killing or torture be a good thing, something that a person would want to do? I can see that killing somebody can be a necessary thing, for instance, life or death self defense, but beyond that, how can people be baying for blood.

I don't think the state should be allowed to take away life, but think people shouldn't be punished for using lethal force to protect themselves their families or their property.

There are so many shades of grey.

Probably most people would not want to see someone executed for a crime of passion, or even for a pre-meditated crime but with a motive - eg financial gain. The perpetrator is unlikely to be a threat to the general public.

But a child killer? A terrorist?

For reasons outlined by posters above I could not support the death penalty for anyone, but I do firmly believe there needs to be a life sentence + for the very worst criminals. Solitary confinement, porridge, nothing to do ... for the rest of their days.

I know all about Stefan Klisko thanks. Times and evidence gathering technology has moved on. And the difference between the EU and the ECHR. I didn’t vote leave but if leave voters are constantly patronised by other people assuming that having a different point of view on something means you’re ill informed, I can see why some people might have voted that way as an “up you” to the patronising types.

I’m an extremely intelligent, very well educated, professional. I’ve been anti the death penalty most of my life, and it’s only really as I’ve got older and my tolerance of absolute fucking wicked arseholes has decreased to an all time low that I’ve varied my stance as outlined within this thread. I know it will never be brought back, due to the aforementioned ECHR, I’m not about to sign petitions or campaign for it, but in theory I would have no issue in it being brought back in the types of cases I referred to. I’m afraid I don’t agree that “all human life is precious”.

The whole point of prison is supposed to be rehabilitation

No it's not.

It has four main purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence.

At a law course I briefly attended, the teacher (a former barrister) said that prison didn't work as a deterrent, and had limited/variable success at rehabilitation. Certainly it incapacitated criminals so they couldn't reoffend, but then, of course, they're released.
The chief function was, she said, retribution: resetting the moral balance and satisfying society's need for revenge. Not sure if this is entirely accurate, but people do seem to consider justice to mean appropriate punishment.

There’s no argument that anyone is capable of coming up with that I haven’t already considered btw, so again, you may as well save your typing fingers.

If the person who committed the 'deed' is cupable and found guilty with no doubt then the death penalty should be given if serious enough.
Why spend ££££ on keeping an evil person alive?
Think of the savings that could be used for others.

I know all about Stefan Klisko thanks. Times and evidence gathering technology has moved on.

The point about that case was not that they didn’t have the technology. They had evidence that put him in the clear and they suppressed it.

I don’t understand how anyone with an awareness of this case could be in favour of the death penalty. There simply was not any doubt of his innocence.

Yes, Stefan Sisko's own barrister suppressed it; he later became a Tory Home Secretary who supported the death penalty. The whole thing stank to high heaven.

I think it goes without saying that if there were a death penalty it should not be applicable when a confession is used as evidence in court.