Would you want capital punishment back?

[Mynameisnew]

There are people who do such vile things in this country and are jailed for a decade or two. Perhaps released for good behaviour a bit earlier.

Afaik CP was stopped amongst other reasons because there were a number of errors made and innocent people being convicted.

But these days with DNA proof or cases where it is on cctv /phone messages or has been admitted (thinking of Emma Tustin)

Would it not make a good deterrent? Even if one person is saved from being murdered...

I appreciate that in the USA people still commit murder, but they also have guns there which means a higher incidence of spur of the moment violence.

But a sustained campaign of abuse - would such an abuser as Tustin have been put off if CP was an option, even if very rarely used?

It's easy for me to say that I would be deterred, but I'm not a psychopathic and sadistic person so the issue is, it's hard to say if people like that would be put off such a crime. Perhaps it doesn't even enter their heads that it's wrong.

@MintJulia

One mistake would be one too many. And they would happen.

I understand your thinking. There are certain individuals - child torturers etc - who don't deserve the air they breathe but hanging them would reduce British justice to their level and that is unacceptable.
I'd be happier with more life terms, where there is absolutely no chance of parole, for the likes of Rose West et al.

Yeah. I can accept not having the death penalty because even one person wrongly put to death is a tragedy

But not because killing is wrong, for me. The lives of some murderers etc. Are just worthless far as I'm concerned. If one of their friends in prison gets the job done, I won't be sad about it

It's a bad idea in practice because of innocent people being killed not sadistic killers/rapists.

No. Its not much of a deterent, its obviously useless for rehabilitation, its not great for revenge, given its quick and once you're dead you don't know anything about it, so its only purpose is to remove a danger from society. Its a huge step for a civilised society to decide to kill its citizens, not to mention the process being extremely expensive, and carrying collateral damage; and when it achieves only one of the aims of punishment, not worth taking.

So for the person saying that a few deaths of innocent people is worth it for the greater good.

You have a son, he is killed because he is wrongly convicted. You absolutely know he is innocent but the jury didnt believe him. Do you really mourn his loss less than you would if he was killed by a random person. Do you really believe his death has helped the greater good. Do you really feeling confidently it was worth it?

I wouldn't, I would be devastated, every bit as devastated, if not more, than if it was a random killing. Because its in the name of justice but its not justice.

I wouldnt be overly happy if this son ended up in prison for the same theoretical murder, but I would be a whole lot less upset than if he was dead.

@5128gap

No. Its not much of a deterent, its obviously useless for rehabilitation, its not great for revenge, given its quick and once you're dead you don't know anything about it, so its only purpose is to remove a danger from society. Its a huge step for a civilised society to decide to kill its citizens, not to mention the process being extremely expensive, and carrying collateral damage; and when it achieves only one of the aims of punishment, not worth taking.

To dismantle each of those arguments in turn:

1. It doesn't matter that it's not much of a deterrent. The fact that murders still happen when capital punishment is available is not an argument against capital punishment. If it were, prisons should clearly be scrapped, community service got rid of and fines abolished, because those punishments don't seem to act as a deterrent either.
2. It doesn't matter that it's useless for rehabilitation because by definition it removes any need for the criminal to be readied for reintroduction to society.
3. The criminal justice system isn't focused on revenge so it doesn't matter "it's not great" for it.
4. It's not always quick, depending on your definition of the term. Taking a few minutes to be strangled by hanging is quicker than being tortured over a prolonged period by the people who are supposed to care for you I suppose.
5. You don't know that death is the end, there is plenty of unsubstantiated opinion that consciousness doesn't die when the body does.
6. Removing dangerous people from society is a good thing.
7. Civilised societies have been killing their citizens since the first civilised society developed. The ancient Athenians and Romans were civilised societies, so were the Aztecs, so to a large degree is the USA today - but all kept the death penalty.
8. Capital punishment is significantly cheaper than keeping someone in prison for decades. It's about 44K per prisoner per year. An execution could be done for a fraction of that, I think I could do it for under 2K per criminal including disposal of the body, less if they have family who want to reclaim it.
9. "Collateral damage" - what do you mean? The fact that innocent people could be wrongly executed? Guess what, people are wrongly convicted already, sometimes having decades of their life taken away from them. Execution is just a natural extension of this miscarriage of justice.

10. Execution achieves all aims of punishment - the forfeiture of the offender's life. That is the ultimate punishment. Execution might not allow for rehabilitation but rehabilitation is not supposed to be "punishment" - it's supposed to help the offender. 11. On moral, ethical and above all financial grounds, capital punishment is a step that is well worth taking.

Christ no, it’s barbaric. Let them suffer.

I'd like for certain people to be tortured and murdered in the same way they tortured and murdered their victim.

It's not right though, we can't reduce ourselves for murderers to feel a sense of revenge. The same for the death penalty, it might make people feel better but we're not a barbaric society.

I do think while life sentences should be a thing. Occasionally someone does something so abhorrent that it's not worth the risk to let them free.

Execution is just a natural extension of this miscarriage of justice.

Well, that's OK then. Can I assume you would be perfectly happy for one of yoru children or other loved ones to be executed when they were innocent, in the interest of financial advantage?

Bloody hell, and you're probably allowed to vote. It beggars belief that there are people who allegedly qualify as human who think like this.

You're also wrong about the financial savings, unless you're going to disallow appeals: article here

@sqirrelfriends

I'd like for certain people to be tortured and murdered in the same way they tortured and murdered their victim.

It's not right though, we can't reduce ourselves for murderers to feel a sense of revenge. The same for the death penalty, it might make people feel better but we're not a barbaric society.

Really? You’d “like” that? That’s unhinged.

For the poster suggesting the Aztecs were a civilised society we could follow they also used to sacrifice people by ripping their hearts out whilst still alive so not sure they're quite the role model we should be following.

@pointythings

You're also wrong about the financial savings, unless you're going to disallow appeals: article here

I posted exactly that up thread but I’m not sure the “a few accidentally executed innocent people would be worth it” brigade are reading the thread.

@EmeraldShamrock

It would be a money saving experience.

Very controversial however I'm an eye for an eye person, some killers deserve death for their crime.

I like to see some have the pain they've inflicted on another used against them.

The innocent people is the only reason I'd be against it, especially in countries where they have police brutally lying and planting evidence without question.

It would be a money saving experience if you took people straight from the court room and shot them @emeraldshamrock but that's not what happens. The death penalty is very expensive.

If you want to live in a state where the government can summarily execute its citizens, there are plenty of regimes like that around the world.

And by the way, ours is a country where police have been known to lie and plant evidence. I'd have thought someone with an Irish connection would know that!

I'm generally against it but there are certain people that I'd willingly make an exception for. Then again, it's probably too quick and suffering daily in prison would be a better punishment. I would do away with protection for the likes of Tustin and Hughes though and leave them to the general prison population.

@Warmduscher part of me would, yes.

In the same way that people hope those going to prison get a hard time in there.

But as I said, it's only revenge, not punishment and sentencing should never be based around revenge.

No. Aside from the risk of wrongful conviction, it has a devastating effect on the prison workers who must carry it out--being responsible, or being part of, the deliberate execution of another human being can be very traumatic. it is not appropriate in a civilised country.

MorningStarling by collateral damage I was referring to the impact on the people involved in implementing the process. Not least jurers on whom finding guilty of a capital offence can take a huge toll. To the extent where there can be a reluctance to return a guilty verdict, which is another reason against it.
It may indeed be cheap if it were instant, but typically people remain in prison many years prior to their execution, they make multiple appeals, all of which cost the public purse.
Punishment doesn't mean 'to make an offender suffer' although that is one of its aims (which i referred to as revenge) it is a blanket term to cover a number of aims, of which rehabilitation is generally accepted to be one. The idea being that we don't just dispose of our problematic citizens, but that we try to turn to them into something that has some value to society. Even if that is just doing useful work in a prison. For the benefit of society.
I don't think its supports your argument to reference ancient societies, where many practices were commonplace that we wouldn't consider civilised today.

[quote sqirrelfriends]@Warmduscher part of me would, yes.

In the same way that people hope those going to prison get a hard time in there.

But as I said, it's only revenge, not punishment and sentencing should never be based around revenge. [/quote]
You think it’s ok because other people want prisoners tortured too? At least own your bloodlust.

@MorningStarling

Agree with most of your points. Really don't get why people think that we need to rehabilitate or care for every person, or that life in prison is a deterrent- one of the stupidest arguments

But nobody should be wrongly executed it is very sad when you actually see the faces behind those stories

The ancient Athenians and Romans were civilised societies, so were the Aztecs, so to a large degree is the USA today - but all kept the death penalty.

The Romans were not civilised by modern standards. They lit the colosseum with human torches.

The Romans had a slave trade too.

On moral, ethical and above all financial grounds, capital punishment is a step that is well worth taking.

Well very obviously that depends on your view of morality and ethics. Mine is that murder is morally and ethically wrong - and that includes judicial murder.

@DrSbaitso

Also, it doesn't get applied equally. Have a think about which people will be more likely to be sentenced to death for the same offence...

Just a technical point, in British courts, whenever a verdict of "guilty" was given for a murder charge, the judge reached for the black cap. He had no choice but to sentence the prisoner to death. This relieved judges from any matters of conscience on that score. The question of whether someone actually did hang would depend on the family asking the Home Secretary to ask the Queen for clemency. At this stage, yes there is potential for unequal treatment.

I also wonder what the instance of error would be now that we have DNA technology. And the Tustin and Hughes case is cut and dry - or is there a cause for doubt? He admitted it didn't he?

Just a technical point, in British courts, whenever a verdict of "guilty" was given for a murder charge, the judge reached for the black cap. He had no choice but to sentence the prisoner to death.

When murder always results in a death sentence, the inconsistency will appear at the conviction stage...