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.

In theory I think paedophiles deserve to die and would support the death penalty in that case. They can't be "rehabilitated" and are worthless to society. I would prefer they were actually locked up forever and had a miserable time in prison but with sentences so abysmal that doesn't happen and so out they come free to be a threat to other children and I think it's so, so wrong considering the lives they ruin.

There is always the fear of miscarriage of justice though which is what it will always come back to. Same with euthanasia. In theory I agree with it but I'm not sure I could fully support it as of fear there will always be people who will exploit it. Honestly though, in my angrier moments (I have worked with victims of child abuse) I would vehemently support CP for child abusers and would sacrifice the potential for miscarriages of justice if it meant saving other children from abuse. So I'd sacrifice an innocent adult male for innocent children every time. It's all so needlessly complex really. If men would just stop being so fucking degenerate these ethical issues wouldn't exist! NAMALT blah blah blah...

@jaffacakesareepic makes lots of excellent points. I’m absolutely against the death penalty for all those reasons.

@ArabellaScott

There is no credible argument for the death penalty, and many very strong arguments against it.

Surely a credible argument is that the murderer/abuser will never have the chance to escape or be freed and hurt anyone again? Pretty compelling argument if you ask me even if you don't agree with the death penalty.

No, I fundamentally disagree with the death penalty in all cases.

I have no problem with a whole life tariff.

We've enough deaths in state custody by those working for the state (not even including where they've turned a blind eye for others in custody to do it for them) that giving them further authority to justify killing without consequence makes me uneasy to say the least. Reducing violence in society needs to include reducing state-sanctioned violence.

I do think it's reasonable to think there needs to be a shift away from prison being seen as a time out deterrent for the types of crimes we would associate with the death penalty. Time is an okay starting point, but really, we need better assessment on how much of a risk someone is to others and ways to handle those who will continue to be threat. Part of me sees the appeal of having them work for life under supervision, doing something of use to wider society, but how that's worked in the US, I'm wary of how our systems would work that out when there is profit involved.

@Justheretoaskaquestion91

Also, we have a justice system which is systemically racist and sexist, where women and people of colour get handed out disproportionally harsher sentences than white men for example

What?!?! Racist, yes. It’s a very valid point. Sexist, yes, against men! Men get far harsher sentences than women!

That Hughes arsehole ordered the murder of his own son and was convicted only for manslaughter, 21 years.

His girlfriend, who did the murder he demanded was convicted of murder and won't see light of day for at least 29 years.

That is sexism in conviction and sentencing.

I used to agree with the death penalty but I've changed my mind. I read that Pierrepoint (who pulled the trap door on many a murderer) said that after all the years he was an executioner he did not think the death penalty was a deterrent for murder. It was based on the belief that if you kill someone, you are 'not right in the head' so you just don't think you will be caught, or you are a psychopath and don't care.

Much better to keep someone locked up for the rest of their natural lives with every possible liberty taken from them.

For Tustin, I hope she is looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life. She is the epitome of evil.

No, personally I wouldn’t. Mainly because it necessitates an endless appeals process which winds up being extremely expensive for the taxpayer.

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.

*That Hughes arsehole ordered the murder of his own son and was convicted only for manslaughter, 21 years.

His girlfriend, who did the murder he demanded was convicted of murder and won't see light of day for at least 29 years*

That’s not sexist: they are fundamentally different crimes they each committed. Both are as abhorrent as the other but one is murder and one is not. The crimes carry different sentencing snd different tariffs.

I think the death penalty is slowly dying g out in the US. 27 states currently have the death penalty and of those many rarely use it. 3 of those states that have it are under moratorium.

23 states have abolished it.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state

Nope.

There is no evidence of deterrent. It is way more costly than keeping someone in prison. People want it for revenge, not for punishment.

We are supposed to be a civilised nation. Killing criminals isn’t civilised.

Also, we have a justice system which is systemically racist and sexist, where women and people of colour get handed out disproportionally harsher sentences than white men for example
100%.

I wouldn't want it, for a few reasons. I'm against the "eye for an eye" mentality, it solves nothing. There is also too much potential for miscarriage of justice and people being wrongly executed.

No. Never. Not for any reason.

It would be a money saving experience.

It doesn’t save money.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity

@EmeraldShamrock

Not 100% - her statement is 50% accurate only

That Hughes arsehole ordered the murder of his own son and was convicted only for manslaughter, 21 years.

His girlfriend, who did the murder he demanded was convicted of murder and won't see light of day for at least 29 years

Whilst this is true, he was charged with murder by the CPS. The murder charge failed because the jury didn’t feel they could be certain that he intended to order Emma Tustin to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to his child so he was convicted of manslaughter instead (with a high degree of culpability).

Frankly I was surprised, based on what I read of the evidence, that the jury weren’t at least happy to conclude that he intended her to cause his son grievous bodily harm. I read the sentencing remarks and I thought the judge’s comments implied that he disagreed with the jury - but the jury’s verdict is what it is.

A friends father was brutally kicked to death by a thug he was a ft taller than his innocent victim.
My friends father was a slim man, he was unrecognisable after the beating.
The likes of him and Arthur's murderers don't deserve air.

@Justheretoaskaquestion91

From the prison reform trust:

• It is important to note that while many women appear in Court following arrest and charge a great many more women are prosecuted for non-criminal offences. This includes TV licence evasion, welfare fraud, fare evasion and sanctions relating to the non-attendance of children at school. Because these cases are not dealt with by the police there is no option to use an out of court disposal. • TV licence evasion accounted for 36% of all prosecutions for women, but only 6% for men. In 2015, 70% of all the 189,349 defendants prosecuted for this offence were women.*

In my opinion I think putting a hell of a lot more women than men in prison for tv licence evasion is harsher sentencing for women, but I dont think I explained it well so I apologise.

I guess what I meant is that women are more likely to receive a prison sentence for things like tv licence evasion and school non attendance than men (where are the fathers in the school non-attendance sentencing. Father leaves mother to raise child alone, often with little to no financial support and if the child is a school refuser the mother is often the only one to end up penalised.) In my opinion that is both sexist and harsher on women.

However, you are correct, men are receiving harsher sentencing for the exact same crime which is also sexist and should also be stamped out I am against sexism in any form, I just didnt explain myself well so apologies!!

Yes. For people where the evidence is 100% clear that they killed or tortured children.

@Chasingaftermidnight

That Hughes arsehole ordered the murder of his own son and was convicted only for manslaughter, 21 years.

His girlfriend, who did the murder he demanded was convicted of murder and won't see light of day for at least 29 years

Whilst this is true, he was charged with murder by the CPS. The murder charge failed because the jury didn’t feel they could be certain that he intended to order Emma Tustin to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to his child so he was convicted of manslaughter instead (with a high degree of culpability).

Frankly I was surprised, based on what I read of the evidence, that the jury weren’t at least happy to conclude that he intended her to cause his son grievous bodily harm. I read the sentencing remarks and I thought the judge’s comments implied that he disagreed with the jury - but the jury’s verdict is what it is.

"But the jury's verdict is what it is"

And therein lies the sexism.
Juries convict or acquit and they bring their own prejudices to the table in doing so.

Under identical circumstances, they would disproportionately convict more women (and many more ethnic minorities) of capital murder than men (and white people) due to racist fear, and harsher judgment of women's actions than men's.

The death penalty is mob justice. The State has to rise above that.

Although there are some cases where I'd turn a blind eye to mob justice - Wayne Couzens being one of them.

The main issue with locking people away is that you then have do-gooders trying to get them out, like Myra Hindley. Thank goodness she died before she got out.

I dunno, I’d happily push the likes of Ian Huntley, Wayne Couzens, Steven Barker - to name a few, into an inferno….or deep wet concrete… Low cost and will free up their prison beds. I know CP may not be a deterrent but means these people can’t ever be happy or hurt anyone again.

Barbaric? Yep, and so was what they did. Someone who picks up a 17 month old baby by the legs and swings him hard so his head hits the wall…multiple times, so hard that teeth fall out, deserves the most inhumane and barbaric death. Ironically being pushed in lava will actually cause less suffering than he caused his baby victim.