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.

*words are twisted to suit

Scary stuff on here - particularly the proposal to hang the likes of 'Venables'.

Look at it this way. There are many baby 'Arthur's out there. There really are. Children subjected to severe neglect and abuse. Children with no positive example in their lives other than the vile parents or guardians they have been exposed to.
They don't stay 'baby Arthur's' or 'baby Venables'. If they survive the chronic neglect they may grow up into 'feral youths' or just an 'Arthur' or 'Venables' - the prisons are littered with them.
Mumsnet often talks about these 'hooligans' than none of us want to live next to.
Society does not sympathise after the baby stage - it directs its fury at the teenage thugs, out of control youth, or gang member. Somehow we imagine the 'baby' finds normality and good morals magically in the years between babyhood and adulthood. Those years where the 'child' is often not even accessing full time education, parental supervision or employment.
How is that 'baby' ever going to have a chance of being a responsible citizen.
Do we really sympathise with the baby 'Arthur's' and hate the adult 'Arthur's', or weep over the death of the baby 'Arthur's' and call out for the execution of the adult 'Arthur's'?

@StoneofDestiny

Scary stuff on here - particularly the proposal to hang the likes of 'Venables'.

Look at it this way. There are many baby 'Arthur's out there. There really are. Children subjected to severe neglect and abuse. Children with no positive example in their lives other than the vile parents or guardians they have been exposed to.
They don't stay 'baby Arthur's' or 'baby Venables'. If they survive the chronic neglect they may grow up into 'feral youths' or just an 'Arthur' or 'Venables' - the prisons are littered with them.
Mumsnet often talks about these 'hooligans' than none of us want to live next to.
Society does not sympathise after the baby stage - it directs its fury at the teenage thugs, out of control youth, or gang member. Somehow we imagine the 'baby' finds normality and good morals magically in the years between babyhood and adulthood. Those years where the 'child' is often not even accessing full time education, parental supervision or employment.
How is that 'baby' ever going to have a chance of being a responsible citizen.
Do we really sympathise with the baby 'Arthur's' and hate the adult 'Arthur's', or weep over the death of the baby 'Arthur's' and call out for the execution of the adult 'Arthur's'?

Completely agree. There are many parallels between the childhood of Robert Thompson, who no doubt they would have hanged alongside Jon Venables, and that of Arthur. One was tragically killed, the other tragically survived with severe damage.

As James Bulger has been mentioned, I'd like to add a thought, and this is taking nothing away from James' family or keeping his memory alive.

Two 10 year old boys had their life chances and education drastically improved by killing a toddler.

Just think about that.

Before we think about bringing back the death penalty we should be thinking about the circumstances some children live in.

sashh
Indeed. We need to put more into the early stages of children's development, including Social Services support for parent and child. No different to healthcare - prevention much cheaper and better in the long run than treating the illness.

Look at how public services are funded - we have insufficient social workers, mental health professionals, teachers, prison officers and police. Those who fall through the net inevitably end up in prison.

We know prisons are over crowded and it's unreasonable to expect a prison officer to be a jailer, counsellor, mental health expert, social worker, guardian, teacher and sympathetic ear. They cannot do all these things to a community of prisoners made up of some very disturbed, violent, vulnerable, aggressive, illiterate, mentally ill, suicidal people - some times prisoners are all these things at once!
That, as well as trying to keep themselves super vigilant in case they are attacked themselves. Prisons need to rehabilitate - but with so few officers in a poorly paid profession, it's not likely to happen any time soon!

Tbh Emma Tustin has probably signed her own death warrant. Somebody, somehow, will get to her. There is usually a price on the head of those who have committed unspeakable crimes. There are people in jail who have little to lose so my guess is eventually, she will be killed.
The only way for it not to happen is keep her in solitary for the entire sentence e

@StoneofDestiny

Scary stuff on here - particularly the proposal to hang the likes of 'Venables'.

Look at it this way. There are many baby 'Arthur's out there. There really are. Children subjected to severe neglect and abuse. Children with no positive example in their lives other than the vile parents or guardians they have been exposed to.
They don't stay 'baby Arthur's' or 'baby Venables'. If they survive the chronic neglect they may grow up into 'feral youths' or just an 'Arthur' or 'Venables' - the prisons are littered with them.
Mumsnet often talks about these 'hooligans' than none of us want to live next to.
Society does not sympathise after the baby stage - it directs its fury at the teenage thugs, out of control youth, or gang member. Somehow we imagine the 'baby' finds normality and good morals magically in the years between babyhood and adulthood. Those years where the 'child' is often not even accessing full time education, parental supervision or employment.
How is that 'baby' ever going to have a chance of being a responsible citizen.
Do we really sympathise with the baby 'Arthur's' and hate the adult 'Arthur's', or weep over the death of the baby 'Arthur's' and call out for the execution of the adult 'Arthur's'?

Fabulous post!

There are few things I feel more strongly about than keeping the death penalty banned, no matter how horrible the crime being punished.

@sashh

As James Bulger has been mentioned, I'd like to add a thought, and this is taking nothing away from James' family or keeping his memory alive.

Two 10 year old boys had their life chances and education drastically improved by killing a toddler.

Just think about that.

Before we think about bringing back the death penalty we should be thinking about the circumstances some children live in.

Venables has had chance after chance and doesn't appear to have changed. At what point do we say enough is enough, he is a permanent danger to society and doesn't deserved any more chances?

Before someone twists what I'm saying I am NOT suggesting we execute him, that he should have been executed as a child or that he's handed over to a baying mob. I feel that at some point when people show no inclination or ability to change they should be removed from society and remain in prison until they die.

I have always been against the death penalty for all the very good reasons pp have listed. And I still am. But I do wish pain and suffering on those who hurt children.

I think Venables is so damaged he can’t live in the community

The damage started from before he was 10 years old

I agree some people should never be free

There is a difference between 'not ever being freed from prison or secure mental hospital' and being 'imprisoned for life with the additional daily torture from other prisoners whose equally vile crimes got them incarcerated in the first place'.
We need protecting from dangerous people. We also need to intervene much sooner that we do now to stop people becoming such a danger to us.
We need to value our public services much more than we do - the people,e we expect to notice, intervene, refer and change things.

It says a lot about our societies values that these professional people are the ones who are often paid the least and are the most difficult to recruit and retain.

I hope people will look at the case of Stefan Kiszko. A completely innocent man with a mental age of 12, he was wrongly convicted for killing a young girl. He served 16 years in prison where he was regularly beaten up by convicted prisoners because he was a 'child killer'. 16 years of terror and abuse. He developed a severe mental illness as a result.
Those who believed in him fought for justice. It was found witnesses had lied, police AND forensic scientists had hid evidence that would have proved his innocence.
He was eventually freed only to die a year later as did his mother soon after.

Never imagine that evidence or witnesses or indeed our justice system can be relied upon to prove a case. There is human error, deceit and corruption not far from many decisions or conclusions we humans make.

Stephan could have been hung based on 'the evidence' presented. As it was, he lived 16 years of his life in a living hell that so ebon Mumsnet would have said 'on the evidence' was well deserved.

God, that's horrendous. Poor man, and his mother. Did they ever find the real culprit?

It's like that solicitor (Sally Clarke?) who was jailed for supposedly killing her babies. After several years it was realised that she was totally innocent (a genetic problem with the babies was the cause) and she was eventually released. But they had taken her youngest into care, and too late to reverse that. She was free but her life was destroyed and she died not long after. Poor, poor woman.

Under CP they would both have been executed perhaps. Can't believe some pps think this is acceptable 'collateral damage'.

See also Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 etc. Their 'crimes' seem to have been being Irish living in England. Gerry Conlon and his father also died before their time.

Miscarriages of justice have happened frequently. We can never go back to capital punishment.

A lot of people are not interested in justice, but in vengeance. They’re not overly concerned about who that vengeance is visited upon, as long as they see it played out.

And the machinery of the law knows that. They understand the public needs to see someone pay. So they’ll find someone.

Pemba

More than 30 years after Leslie was killed, the real killer, Ronald Castree, was caught as a result of his DNA sample matching the semen found on Lesley’s clothes

Stefan was infertile and the police and forensic team hid that very easy to check fact.

@StoneofDestiny

I hope people will look at the case of Stefan Kiszko. A completely innocent man with a mental age of 12, he was wrongly convicted for killing a young girl. He served 16 years in prison where he was regularly beaten up by convicted prisoners because he was a 'child killer'. 16 years of terror and abuse. He developed a severe mental illness as a result. Those who believed in him fought for justice. It was found witnesses had lied, police AND forensic scientists had hid evidence that would have proved his innocence. He was eventually freed only to die a year later as did his mother soon after.

Never imagine that evidence or witnesses or indeed our justice system can be relied upon to prove a case. There is human error, deceit and corruption not far from many decisions or conclusions we humans make.

Stephan could have been hung based on 'the evidence' presented. As it was, he lived 16 years of his life in a living hell that so ebon Mumsnet would have said 'on the evidence' was well deserved.

Also remember the case of Colin Stagg luckily the judge threw it out, but the police had a very good attempt to get him convicted.

He was innocent.

No, it's barbaric

Oops
that so many on Mumsnet would have said 'on the evidence' was well deserved

Possibly the most famous case -

Timothy Evans, a 26-year-old man in London was hanged for the murder of his wife and daughter in 1950. Three years after his execution it was concluded Timothy Evans was innocent of the crime. The real perpetrator was his housemate at the time, John Christie, who had testified against Evans at his trial.

The cases PP are referring to were long before the DNA technology we have today, and CCTV, mobile phones and internet history etc. Nowadays it’s much easier to prove guilt. Also quite a few murderers admit guilt (obviously try to get off on manslaughter though).

Does anybody think Rose West is innocent? She is living a good life in prison with Christmas parties and lesbian lovers from accounts I’ve read in the past. We all like to think they suffer in prison but in reality, they are protected. eat well, never have to worry about a roof over their heads, get medical care, study, have a gym and carve a life out there. Adapt and normalise it. So the argument that that capital punishment is an easy way out and they should live to suffer for the rest of their lives falls flat somewhat.

I don’t believe capital punishment is ‘state sponsored murder’. We’re OK with abortion, wholesale slaughtering of sentient animals for food, putting dogs down when they bite. Why not putting adult humans down when they kill premeditatedly and in cold blood? As far as I’m concerned they have then crossed a line that can never be rehabilitated and it serves no purpose to keep them housed and have staff to look after them. It’s actually cruel as I can’t imagine be able to live after taking someone else’s life, and on the staff having to deal with these people knowing what they’ve done

There are many ways to make it humane, massively than their victims death. They can be anaesthesitised.

It also doesn’t matter if it’s not a deterrent as it’s not supposed to be, it’s a sentence but it may make some people think twice. It would me!

I’m sure the families of most murder victims would prefer they weren’t breathing the oxygen that their loved ones had taken away from them or have the stress of them getting out. I think society owes them that.

And in the case of Thompson and Venables, the vast majority of abused children (I think that was overplayed as well) don’t go on to commit crimes like that, especially at that age. Ever read A Child Called It? Obviously it is a step too far to euthanise children but they both should have been in a secure facility for life without ever being released. That they could ever have a normal life after the horrific and savage acts they committed on James Bulger is even worse than that.

Nothing would 'deter' some of the killers, rapists, abusers or terrorists we are talking about. They assume they will never be caught. Indeed, if they thought they would face the death penalty for their crime, they most likely will kill any witnesses to their offence - they can't be hung more than once.
Rose West is in prison - so we are safe from her. Killing her doesn't make us any safer.
If you really think our "advances" in evidence gathering is foolproof, you've not been keeping up with the news. Countless scientific theories are upturned on a regular basis.
Your faith in CTV is even more amazing - because Arthur's guardians and killers installed CTV to show what good parents they were - proving even that can be manipulated to tell a different story,

Innocent people are in prison still because of police and scientific failures. Guilty people remain at large because of police and scientific inadequacy.
They can be anaesthetised
Have you heard how that's going on in the USA?

It’s actually cruel as I can’t imagine be able to live after taking someone else’s life

So you're pro-capital punishment, but who do you think is going to carry out the killings? Someone has to.

The cases PP are referring to were long before the DNA technology we have today, and CCTV, mobile phones and internet history etc. Nowadays it’s much easier to prove guilt. Also quite a few murderers admit guilt (obviously try to get off on manslaughter though)
There have been cases where evidence has been covered up, twisted or straight up fabricated. Examples in this thread.

I am just not OK with the state taking away the basic right to live from people, regardless of what they have done. If they take away human rights from one, it's feasible they can take them away from others.