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

But wouldn’t the argument a human has a right to a quick death over a lifetime of imprisomment (however awful their crime) be just as compelling as an argument they have a right not to be killed (however awful their crime) and must simply be imprisoned instead?

Two problems with that suggestion. Firstly, someone who receives the death penalty has no choice in the matter. The judge decides. The person convicted doesn't get to choose whether they would rather spend the rest of their life in prison or be executed.

And secondly, in the UK at least, euthanasia is illegal. If we don't allow terminally ill and disabled people who are in chronic pain and just want the choice to be relieved of their suffering and to die in peace and dignity, why should we give that right to criminals as an alternative to imprisonment?

WIsh they would bring it back to Australia. I could rattle of at least 5 names of people who are worthy. Anyone who rapes/ kills a child needs a bullet. The innocent project aside. If someone is undoubtably guilty why she we spend tax payer money keeping them alive when it could be used to help hje victims.

Studies on sexual predators have shown that if they face the death penalty they are more likely to murder their victim, so as not to leave a witness.
Ian Brady preferred the death penalty over his life sentence, and wanted to be allowed to die.

Also, a posthumous pardon for an innocent person wrongly convicted is an insult.

For me, those 3 arguments outweigh the arguments in favour of the death penalty.

Surely surgeons can put someone to sleep as they would for an operation and then stop their heart while they’re unconscious?

One major problem in this country is that no surgeon would do it. It would violate fundamental principles of medical ethics.

While I tend to agree with the theory that once you deliberately take someone’s life, you forfeit the right to your own, no justice system is infallible and hence the danger of wrongful convictions will always exist.

However, life should mean life. No parole, no second chances. The dead person doesn’t get a second chance either.

I think the death penalty has a brutalising effect on the people who carry it out. Think about it—you kill someone in cold blood that you have no personal reason for doing so. You tie a noose or inject another human being. What do you think that might do to someone, even if they volunteered for it?

And there is no evidence that capital punishment works as a deterrent.

Also, a posthumous pardon for an innocent person wrongly convicted is an insult

It is, because surely pardon implies forgiveness for something, so is inappropriate for someone who is innocent and has done nothing to forgive.

Derek Bentley was pardoned, but later his conviction was overturned, which is more appropriate.
However, Derek is dead so, while comforting to his family, it's still not much use to him.

I'm against the death penalty largely for the reasons discussed a lot already - the barbarity of the state sanctioning the killing of people, and the risk of wrongful conviction.

However, another issue I have was mentioned by Goldilocks upthread: the problem of where to draw the line. There isn't a neat categorisation between "serious crime" and "minor crime" that we can all agree on. There is a spectrum of crimes with huge grey areas depending on the circumstances behind the crime. Taking two examples mentioned on this thread:

• Child killers/rapists. How are we defining child - what age is the cut off? Suppose we say 14 for argument's sake. Then does that mean someone who kills or rapes a 13y11m old child should be sentenced to death but if the circumstances were identical except the child was 14y1m, the death penalty wouldn't apply?

• Killing in cold blood. What about someone who has been systematically abused for years and finally decides to kill their abuser? It would be pre-meditated but there are clearly extenuating circumstances. Or think of the case of Tony Martin who shot a burglar. This was pre-meditated as he had decided beforehand that he would shoot at a future burglar. But he was plagued by burglars for a long time before that. I'm not saying he was right but again, there are special circumstances behind the pre-meditated murder.

Every crime is different and being able to apply different sentence lengths allows judges to reflect this. The death penalty is all or nothing.

I've heard an argument that there can be an issue if the death penalty exists for rape for example. The rapist can be more likely to kill the person if the sentence is the same for rape or murder. I can't remember their conclusion as to why but presume one reason could be because then they can't be a witness in court or they're just sick bastards.

I can't reconcile myself to the possibility of an innocent person dying or someone with doubts as to their conviction or mitigating circumstances... That said, I think I'd like to see it brought back for terrorism and treason

DSHathawayGivesMeFannyGallops, I don't think those two propositions are reconcilable. It is terrorism trials which have thrown up an unacceptable proportion of wrongful convictions, and often the people who are caught are the relatively innocent patsies that terrorists have blackmailed or bullied into carrying out the relevant acts. I remember hearing a barrister involved in one of the IRA trials saying that the amount of sheer intellectual dishonesty the appeal judges had used in order to uphold the convictions was breathtaking.

However, totally agree with you on your username!

@NatureIs

Yes that is true. The same is said about those who abuse children. If they know they'll get the death penalty anyway they may as well kill the child and lessen their chances of being caught. It's horrible but it's true.

I absolutely agree with you, OP. Killing is either wrong or it isn't. To me, the death penalty has no place in a civilised society. It's understandable that anyone who has been a victim of, or lost a loved one to, violent crime might have a different perspective, but that is why as a society we don't generally invite victims and survivors to set public policy. I agree with pp who have enumerated the various reasons capital punishment is a bad idea (miscarriages of justice, failure to act as a deterrent, etc). To add one of my own, consider that in the US there is a stronger correlation between spending time on death row and being Black or poor or mentally ill than there is between spending time on death row and being guilty.

What about flytipping though, whose going to murder a witness in order to get away with flytipping when they could just take their crap to the dump and avoid the whole issue? :p

I’m utterly against the death penalty state sponsored murder is wrong.

It doesn’t work as a deterrent and a jury is less likely to convict if there’s the death penalty you only have to look at Casey Anthony. I would much prefer guilty people to go to prison rather than go free as the jury don’t want a death in their conscience.

However, life should mean life. No parole, no second chances. The dead person doesn’t get a second chance either.

Would you really impose an identical penalty on, say, the person who finally gives in to the pleas of a terminally ill relative in dreadful pain to kill them as you would for a Fred West or an Ian Brady? What you will actually find is that a lot of killers go free because juries don't want to send them to prison for the rest of their lives.

And the problem is also that, once someone has killed once, they would have every incentive to kill anyone who tries to arrest them because in effect there will be no alternative - you can't make your potential punishment any worse by killing more people, and it's a choice between freedom and permanent incarceration. Likewise, with no possibility of release there is no incentive to behave in prison, so you may as well kill every inmate and every warder who annoys you. It just isn't workable.

State sanctioned murder is still murder.

You give up your human rights the moment you commit a horrific crime (murder, rape, abuse a child etc). I know that's not how it is but it should be. I can't stand how people bleat on about human rights regarding people who are little more than monsters.

There is also the problem of more people claiming to be insane in order to avoid the death penalty in places which have it. Various documentaries indicate that in the US mental health facilities for the "criminally insane" can be like pretty decent hotels compared with the hell hole that is state prisons, let alone death row. And, as someone can be "cured" they could be out walking the streets in a few years.

Actually I have a problem full stop with insanity being any excuse. The murder was still committed, whether in sound or unsound mind.

And as for having committed a crime whilst another gender so therefore a different person... well, let's not go there.

I have hugely mixed feelings about this. I have lost a loved one (not a relative but someone dear) to murder sohave given this much thought over the years.

I understand the death penalty and sometimes want it. It’s not a deterrent though, because people who kill assume they won’t be caught. The murder rate is still there, even when the death penalty exists and is regularly enforced. A lifetime locked in a relatively small building with little company but your own thoughts seems like a reasonable alternative, which means that a life sentence really has to be life not 12 years (as in our case). Plus I don’t entirely think that the person who is willing to become a state executioner is necessarily someone you want involved in the criminal justice system. Then you have to consider case like Timothy Evans which is an injustice that can never be undone.

I also wonder about mental health and abuse. The murderer in our case was terribly badly abused as a child, lost into the care system, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia at 22 years old but not properly medicated or treated, ended up on the streets with a drug problem at 30 and killed an innocent person. At some point he crossed from being a victim to being a perpetrator and, while he fully understood the consequences of his actions, he was in an extreme position. He committed murder, but I am not certain that he should be put to death because of his circumstances.

I also know that the person who lost their life would not want us to be consumed with seeking fatal vengeance but would want us to live our lives to the full and looking to the future.

And when all of this is said and done, I am still not sure if my position. I do known that the thing that ultimately stops me advocating for the death penalty is the Timothy Evans case because getting it wrong is too catastrophic for society to risk.

gersemi I wouldn’t impose the same sentence, no, the law would obviously still have to take into account mitigating circumstances. I know there are grey areas and in reality it can be very hard to make these distinctions, but I do believe that some sentences for horrific crimes are far too lenient.

You give up your human rights the moment you commit a horrific crime (murder, rape, abuse a child etc). I know that's not how it is but it should be. I can't stand how people bleat on about human rights regarding people who are little more than monsters.

No. The whole point of human rights is that they apply to everybody. You cannot give them up or have them taken from you in a civilised society. The moment we accept that idea, there is little point in having any human rights at all.

Living in a civilised country with respect for human rights is far more important than having the ability to kill a few criminals.

And that's before we even talk about the issue of potential miscarriages of justice.

AspieHere, again you have the problem of where you draw the line. Are you going to impose the death penalty for every sort of murder, even one with major mitigating circumstances? Are you going to hang a 16 year old who has consensual sex with a partner who is 15 years 11 months old because said partner can't validly consent in law, therefore it's rape?

And are you prepared to take the risk of the child abuser killing his victim to avoid the possibility of the death penalty?

Agree OP. Just pure hypocrisy isn't it

Even though I agree with you to a certain degree.
Aside from serious serious crimes (I'm on the fence.)
I do however dread what I would be capable of his someone hurt my children or mother. So I can understand why some people are all for it. The thought of someone hurting a child in some awful way angers me deeply!

I’d don’t have any issue with it if it’s a child killer , serial killer etc . It’s only expensive if you keep them in prison for years and pay for lawyers etc . Bullets are cheap