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

The death penalty for murder should be brought back to act as a deterrent to men and women thinking of committing this crime.

But it simply doesn't work as a deterrent, does it? Look at all those countries with the death penalty, and then look at their homicide rates. It's very noticeable that, for instance, the US's homicide rate is way above that of any European country without the death penalty. People who murder generally assume they won't be caught or simply don't think about the penalty at all.

It's worth bearing in mind that when Brady and Hindley started murdering people, there was still a death penalty. Didn't put them off, did it?

HP your teacher on the course might belong to that school of thought but it's quite an old fashioned view of the penal system. Prison these days is less punitive and more geared towards rehab, in theory. It doesn't work and there's no fixing it.
The justice system now is about processing people and isn't for victims. It's certainly not for (most people's idea of) justice. If it was about revenge, then sentences wouldn't be given so objectively. Judges are always accused of not giving harsher sentences if at all but there's a reason for that, their hands are tied.

Why spend ££££ on keeping an evil person alive? Think of the savings that could be used for others

So it's about money?
We keep lots of people alive at great expense. How soon after executing murderers to save money will some people suggest we shouldn't spend money on the very sick or old people because they are not much use and costing us a fortune?

I agree that sentences in the UK are way too short and 'life sentences' are a joke. Although I also don't think America has it right where they add sentences together so you can end get 20 years for a series of minor crimes.But having recently watched the Handmaid's tale where people are executed constantly for breaking the 'law' eg being homosexual, etc, I believe the death penalty is a dangerous route to go down as it relies on the justice system being sound and fair, and it is easy for things to go wrong.

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.

That already is the law, provided that the force used is reasonable in the circumstances of the case and the person concerned is acting reasonably and in good faith. Prosecution guidance makes it clear that, if people have acted honestly and instinctively in the heat of the moment, this will be the strongest evidence for them having acted lawfully in self-defence.

Gotta be honest I can see a major difference in spending money to look after murderers and spending money to look after sick and old people. I hardly think people are going to be like, “hey we stopped looking after murderers, whose next, how about sick people and the old, the bloody freeloaders!”

I always thought it might be interesting to have some kind of high tech version of outlawing where we have a database of people (or maybe some kind of microchipping) whose crimes have put them outside the protection of the law. The state isn’t doing anything to them (so not spending money that could instead be spent on old and sick people on them) they’re just withdrawing the protection of the law from them and letting the community sort it out. Obviously it wouldn’t work with organised criminals (so wouldn’t make sense to apply to them) because they’d be able to protect themselves.

I don’t really think it would be practical and I don’t think it would be “civilised” but it would be an interesting way of dealing with the problem without expending much in the way of resources.

@DieAntword - That could make for an excellent science fiction novel.

I think it is "Perdido Street Station" that explores, in part, a different approach to crime and punishment that you might find interesting.

I have no issue spending money on sick and/or elderly folk. I would much rather not spend excess money on hardened criminals

I hardly think people are going to be like, “hey we stopped looking after murderers, whose next, how about sick people and the old, the bloody freeloaders!

It's obvious you don't read comments from right wingers on social media sites.

I always thought it might be interesting to have some kind of high tech version of outlawing where we have a database of people (or maybe some kind of microchipping) whose crimes have put them outside the protection of the law. The state isn’t doing anything to them (so not spending money that could instead be spent on old and sick people on them) they’re just withdrawing the protection of the law from them and letting the community sort it out. Obviously it wouldn’t work with organised criminals (so wouldn’t make sense to apply to them) because they’d be able to protect themselves.

Facepalming so hard at this.

Oh it’s not like anyone’s going to change the whole legal regime based on my wild imaginings, what’s wrong with having a bit of fun with it?

Surely in this day and age we have progressed enough scientifically for mistakes not to be made re guilt and culpability?

Sadly, I think that will never be the case, because there will always be factors like police corruption/incompetence, witness intimidation, perjury etc. It will never be foolproof, hence the death penalty must not be reinstated.

Rationally I know that death penalties simply don't work as a way of reducing crime, but I also think that some crimes cannot be recovered from, nor moved past. I also firmly believe that some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and those people who are likely (and in some cases certainly) going to reoffend. Those are the cases that I think our current system doesn't handle, and doesn't acknowledge.

*just withdrawing the protection of the law from them and letting the community sort it •

That worked well when a Cardiff community didn’t understand the different between a paediatrician and a paedophile and hounded a children’s doctor out of her home ten years or so ago.

Sorry it was Newport not Cardiff.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

Mob justice.

Well I imagine the paediatrician wouldn’t be an outlaw. I’m sure there’s problems with it but identifying pedophiles isn’t one of them.

That’s really something of an urban myth.

www.pressgazette.co.uk/a-tale-told-too-much-the-paediatrician-vigilantes/

I don’t hold with vigilantes though.

There should be a category of prisoner which, as part of their sentence, forfeit certain rights. Ian Huntley, for example, should not have the right to access women's clothes, eyeliner etc, let alone have legal representation relating to his wishes.

Ian Huntley (for eg) due to the sickening, inhuman actions he undertook should, in my humble opinion, be grateful for fucking air, sunlight and water.

Ian Huntley is now saying he is a trans woman, is living as one and has applied to be moved to a women’s prison. Which he would undoubtedly love

People like him need to be put down

Family member was raped and killed here - she was only a child herself. Murderer (who also raped and killed another child after her) found guilty and admitted to doing it. He got the death penalty - I fully support it.

i haven’t got a problem at all with trans women, I do however have a massive problem with sick, child murdering bastards being treated like they have a fucking right to ask for anything. He is beyond lucky that he lives in a society that will keep him safe, warm, fed and provided with anything he wants to fulfill his human rights.

puzzle so sorry, thoughts with you

Thank you @Aintnothingbutaheartache - a lot of people frown upon the death penalty and I’ve been called so many names for supporting it - I think until you’ve been through a family trauma such as mine, I think it’s not fair to judge me on why I support it.

For me it is less about the possibility of a mistake being made but more about the flawed concept of state sanctioned murder.

An eye for an eye is a simplistic and barbaric approach to justice. There is no place for it in 2018.