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.

No. I find it weird how people are fetishizing their hatred of Tustin, it's a real baying mob vibe.

The criminal justice system is there to keep dangerous people out of circulation, rehabilitate people wherever possible and act as a deterrent. If needs more funding to do the first two things. It's not there to satisfy the public's bloodlust when bad things happen.

Plus, even with DNA and forensics there is always scope for miscarriages of justice, people being fitted up etc. And capital punishment is very expensive to administer, lots of appeals and long waits and special facilities etc.

Do you really think someone considering murder thinks 'oh well, life in jail is not so bad, I wouldn't do this if the death penalty was in place?'

It’s not the fear of capital punishment or even jail time that deters me from heinous crimes.

I feel that anyone who is capable or willing to commit these crimes wouldn’t be put off or would think they wouldn’t get caught. Child molesters and abusers are famously known to suffer in prisons at the hands of the other prisoners and that doesn’t stop people.

And the reason why we have parole and early release for good behaviour etc is that otherwise there is very little incentive for people in jail to behave well.

The hope of getting out slightly earlier is a powerful way to make people learn to control themselves. Otherwise prison would become a total horror show. You might say that's fine, leave them to rot but tbh anyone can end up in prison, you don't have to be a total monster. A bad decision to drive after drinking etc can do it.

I don’t agree with the death penalty. I think it’s a step backwards morality wise but I do agree with more funding being put into the whole legal system and more prison spaces so we can give out more whole life sentences. I also think prison should be harder and harsher than it is. Why should Rose West be able to have a budgie and spend her days watching TV? Madness.

Tustin tried to commit suicide twice during custody in the trial and has tried a few times before; once throwing herself off a car park. Why should we give her what she wants (death)?

I don't agree with cp.

You are asking someone to kill another human.

It doesn't work as a deterrent and one mistake is too many.

Eh, NO!

It’s not a deterrent, and the consequences of error too great.

Awful idea, think of the amount of innocent people who would be killed. Not convinced it acts as a deterrent in any way.

Arthur's case made me think. But on balance I say no. I did jury service recently for a child related case. It felt a big responsibility getting a verdict. Glad that verdict couldn't have lead to CP.

For those who’d want it back, I ask this…..could you pull the switch or carry out the injection? You’d be taking the life of another person.
It must never come back.

I don't agree with CP under any circumstances. The potential for mistakes to be made should rule it out on that basis alone. But I don't think it's a deterrent anyway and two wrongs don't make a right.

Not in a million years. It’s revenge not justice and will be used in politically motivated cases or against non-whites more ( as it is in the USA) or against vulnerable people.
It’s not a deterrent. It never will be and therefore cannot be justified.
Lock up those vile child murderers forever but our government killing them would only shame us all.

I don’t agree with the death penalty

It lowers the state to the same level as the criminal; there’s something wrong in the idea that you should not kill but if you do then you will be killed.

There are still miscarriages of justice and you can’t reverse the death penalty.

A lifetime in prison to think about what you’ve done and live with it should be punishment enough

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

It's not a deterrent.

State murder is also wrong.

Long incarceration is the best punishment.

No. It doesn't seem to be a deterrent. We're better than that.

Clearly it isn't a deterrent. We had capital punishment for most of the time the Moors murders were going on - obviously Brady and Hindley weren't deterred.

I find the idea of the state cold-bloodedly killing people, no matter how evil they are, absolutely abhorrent. I don't want that to be done in my name.

No. In case they get it wrong, also, an eye for an eye and the world is blind.

No, for several reasons.

• one innocent person being killed by the state is one person too many.
• it's not a deterrent.
• it's more expensive to keep someone on death row than it is to have them spend their lives in prison due to all the appeals etc.
• you can't murder someone because you think murder is wrong. The logic there is all kinds of messed up.
• why would you want to live in a society where it's the states' right to end your life?

@RilkeanHeart

No. Some people do abhorrent and barbaric things. The state shouldn’t do abhorrent and barbaric things in response.

This.

Think about if from this viewpoint:

Killing another human is the ultimate crime in our society. The ultimate taboo in many respects.

The state is the guardian of our justice and morality.

Can the state kill and appropriate the ultimate crime for itself?

In other words, if killing humans is so bad, why can the state do it?

For me, the answer to this dilemma will always be NO.

More death does not resolve a death.

I must admit I can see the attraction. Prisoners get a far better quality of life than my DM in a funded care home. There is far more staff, they have access to all sorts of enrichment and get medical treatment when needed. I’m pretty sure the food couldn’t be any worse either. When Covid19 was at its worst were they prevented from seeing their loved ones totally for months on end or was it their human right to have contact.

Personally I don’t think prison in this country is much of a deterrent to those who are that way inclined and I’m not sure why they deserve to live when their victims didn’t. Let’s save a few billion and make old age better for the ones who didn’t do anything wrong maybe. There’s not an infinite pot of money and I think maybe it should be spent on those who’ve lived a more law abiding life.

Some crimes are so abhorrent that they provoke an emotional response in people when they hear about it. It's understandable that those emotions make us think that the perpetrators shouldn't live anymore.
But I don't think state sanctioned murder is right, and I don't think it's a deterrent.
I wonder if those advocating for capital punishment would be willing to take the job? And spend their working life putting people to death? Could you actually do that?
Or are you happy to call for it as long as someone else actually does the deed?

It dose annoy my that in the UK sentences for multiple charges are served concurrently, what's the point? In Arthur's case, the charges for cruelty and the charges of murder and manslaughter should be served consecutively, they won't be in prison thinking about the number of crimes they're serving time for, they're just in prison. So the length of time should be increased to reflect the crimes they've done, the victims of these crimes deserve that.

@RilkeanHeart

No. Some people do abhorrent and barbaric things. The state shouldn’t do abhorrent and barbaric things in response.

Completely agree with this. A state should not lower itself to the level of murderers.

Some cases do tempt me, but no. Hard cases make bad laws.

There are some things it isn't the state's place to do and the cost is too high.