To ask what you think of the death penalty? (Don’t open if you don’t like talking about death and crime)

[Chancewouldbeafinethlng]

I listened to Adam Buxtons newest podcast episode and found it very interesting.
I’m not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand there are some criminals who I would not piss on if they were on fire, I think they really deserve to die. But then there is always going to be a person who’s job it is to kill that person.
Also there is the risk that someone has been falsely accused and maybe not had a fair trial. How would you ever know?

The episode touched on the method used currently for the death penalty. The woman who was talking was saying how unreliable it is and is basically torture if it doesn’t work. What other methods could be used though?

Sorry I know it’s a very morbid subject but I would be interested in hearing other people’s opinions.

Some people deserve torture
Er, no.

Yep. Peadophiles and child abusers for one. They deserve all the pain given to them.

No, Ruth Ellis wasn’t innocent, she did murder her lover David Blakey, however he had beaten her often, the most recent beating before his death caused her to miscarry. She was suffering from ptsd when she shot him, and really should have been found guilty but with diminished responsibility , and she should have been jailed, not hanged.

Rather queers the pitch for "death penalty as deterrent" though ?

Incidentally, before we reactivate the "Free Ruth" campaign, it's worth noting (as the judge did) that she had no interest whatsoever in anyone elses safety when firing the gun - any bystanders would have been at risk and I'm sure their relatives would have been less moved by the defences stories.

The Ellis case was quite pivotal in the abolition movement - but only because it perfectly highlighted the bias inherent in the process of execution.

Many potential jurists would refuse to serve on a jury if the death penalty was a possibility.

Oh, I'd serve. Just not vote guilty. That's the point of juries ...

The late Lord Devlin, arguably the greatest judge of the century, was a powerful defender of trial by jury.

He said: "Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives."

I agree with apileof - if murder is wrong (and I think it is) then it doesn't become right because the state (AKA a braying mob) does it.

It isn't "murder" when it is justified. Also fining a thief isn't theft, imprisoning a kidnapper is not itself kidnap.

Anyway, will agree with others. All punishments should be reversible to allow for miscarriages of justice.

Sometimes I read stories like that guy who stabbed to death that 8 mth pregnant women, and that guy who went pushing strangers into approaching tube trains, and I think what is the point of having scum like that around? All in all though I think returning to executions is a backwards step and I don't think it should be brought back.

Cost wise : it costs more to execute a prisoner (US) than life without parole. Partly because they can run numerous appeals.

The appeals process, delayed executions take their toll on the family of the victim. I remember a documentary on a case where one defendant got life and the other death, the daughter of the victim said that the constant delays, appeals and going back to court had taken a toll on her mental health. It was like an obsession to "see justice see served" whereas she never thought about defendant 1.

Looking at demographics if you are black, poor, mentally ill or low intelligence, you are more likely to end up on death row.
Money especially is s deciding factor as poorer defendant s cannot afford experts and are relying on overworked public defenders.
The ethnicity of the victim also seems to matter as you are far more likely to end up on death row if the victim is white.

There have been concerns about some drugs used in executions.

People on death row have been found to be innocent of the crime.

I do think that sentences in the UK should be harsher and that life should mean life.

I am completely against the death penalty in every single case. You can not punish murder by murdering. It's completely illogical. As one PP pointed out, if you look at countries that currently have the death penalty they are hardly shining paragons of justice to strive towards!

What we should be doing is looking at what works. Countries that have a low recidivism rate, and studying why this is.

Prison is either rehabilitation or punishment and retribution and countries that aim for the former have a much lower rate of repeated violent crime. The more safe rehabilitated people a society has the better. I do believe some people cannot be rehabilitated and in those cases life should mean life.

We have to do something because what we are currently doing, chucking people in prison for all sorts of things is clearly not working. A huge percentage of prisoners are illiterate for a start; what hope do they have of getting a straight job on the outside.

Cost wise : it costs more to execute a prisoner (US) than life without parole. Partly because they can run numerous appeals.

As I said: scrap appeals. Easy enough.

Also you could probably turn a profit on executions if you stoned people to death, and charged people by weight for the chance to throw a rock or two. There would be no more powerful testament to UK justice than a bunch of people banging rocks together believe me.

What is the point in life imprisonment though? Surely as soon as you know you're getting life and never going to get out, you aren't going to be a good little prisoner, you just give up and are even less likely to reign in your bad behaviour? E.g. Why wouldn't you beat someone up in prison who betrays you, if you know there's no chance of you getting out anyway... What incentive is there for improved behaviour?

What is the point in life imprisonment though?

Well let's back up, and ask what's the point of the criminal justice system to start with ? Don't want to fall into the trap of lazy thinking.

Starting with the observation that it's not actually defined in a single place, and therefore involves a lot of guesswork, my suggestion would be:

1. punishment
2. rehabilitation
3. protection of the public

In varying ratios. If you are a bit dim, the death penalty seems to address (1) and (3) without any concessions to (2). Historically in less secular times there was also a feeling that in terms of the convicts immortal soul, (2) was also being addressed as they would get a shot at heaven.

But as we have drifted into a society that seems to reject the concept of rehabilitation, maybe there's a case for completely overhauling what we want the criminal justice system to actual deliver to society. Well above and beyond simple profiteering.

@ProfessorSlocombe I can't believe that you are being anything other than goady. Let's just hope you are never accused of something you didn't do.

@ProfessorSlocombe I can't believe that you are being anything other than goady. Let's just hope you are never accused of something you didn't do.

Is that a whoosh ?

It isn't "murder" when it is justified.

Well we have a difference of opinion there - I don't believe murder (as defined by our law) is ever justified. But if you prefer I can characterise is as "killing other people is wrong - it doesn't become right because the State is doing it". Killing anyone is wrong - that's my belief.

What is the point in life imprisonment though? Surely as soon as you know you're getting life and never going to get out, you aren't going to be a good little prisoner, you just give up and are even less likely to reign in your bad behaviour?
There are sanctions other than release - behaviour can determine other privileges when inside. Prisoners who misbehave can be (and are) keep in isolation.

Well we have a difference of opinion there - I don't believe murder (as defined by our law) is ever justified. But if you prefer I can characterise is as "killing other people is wrong - it doesn't become right because the State is doing it". Killing anyone is wrong - that's my belief.

Without disappearing down a semantic and legal black hole, generally "murder" is simply an unlawful deliberate killing. The key descriptor being "unlawful", since "the law" is merely what the government of the day say it is. No less, and certainly no more.

So execution is not murder since it is lawful - even if it's the wrong person.

By the same token, a policeman shooting a person thick enough to wave a weapon around in public is presumed to be acting lawfully. And in this case, despite the premise that "killing is wrong" (which I agree with wholeheartedly) it's still a justifiable killing - possibly saving lives.

@ProfessorSlocombe

Please accept my apology, stressful day at work and read too quickly! Sorry, my mistake!

@showmethegin

I can't support the death penalty. It's not about the crime committed it's about vengeance. We have to be able to treat others as we would want them to treat us.

Is death a greater punishment than a lifetime in prison? I'm not convinced it is.

Agree, it's about time proper life sentences were handed out though.

I've always maintained the twat who raped my daughter is incredibly lucky I don't know him as I wouldn't be able to stop myself, but in truth that's just punishing DD twice with my revenge spree.

The Prison Service is woefully underfunded and prison officers seriously underpaid.
There should be rehabilitation in the system, but the regime as it is doesn't allow for it. There are too many short sentences for serious crimes that don't allow proper reshaping of characters. There are staffing shortages that do not allow for proper supervision or care. Far too many prisoners with mental health problems, drug issues and development neglect are detained, only to have easy access to drugs inside, or subject to more abuse from other prisoners who form themselves into 'hierarchies' according to criminal offence committed.
The reality is prisons, prisoners and prison officers do the command the interest of the vast majority of people or whatever government is in power. Yet it is obvious that beyond the punishment of detention appropriately given to criminals, it serves us all better if criminals are enabled to turn their backs on their criminal ways and live lives that benefit society - whether that be inside or outside prison.

The Prison Service is woefully underfunded and prison officers seriously underpaid.

Well dividends and bonuses have to come from somewhere.

I can't support the death penalty. It's not about the crime committed it's about vengeance. We have to be able to treat others as we would want them to treat us.

No, what we have to do is take out the trash

No, what we have to do is take out the trash

Finally ! Reasoned debate ! You've convinced me. Where do I sign up ?

“No, what we have to do is take out the trash”
Shudder.......

No. I absolutely don’t agree with the death penalty and I personally have experienced someone close to me being murdered. I don’t believe taking a life is justice.

I do think prison needs to be made less appealing. It should provide very basic needs, certainly no play stations, cigarettes, Christmas dinners. Prison sentences in the UK should be more severe, no half sentences for good behaviour.