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.

@jaffacakesareepic

Totally understand what you’re saying; thanks for taking the time to explain!

Death penalty? No thank you.

I support whole life tariffs.

No. I would like to see life to mean whole life imprisonment.

For certain cases, where they is no doubt, etc it should be brought back. I don't think for one minute it would deter the psychopaths that commit the crimes but it would mean that money wasn't required to keep them in prison for decades, freeing up money to fund departments such as social services which might actually prevent these cases.

These people don't feel any remorse so having to 'live with it' isn't going to bother them anyway and the fact that prison provides three meals a day and a roof over their head is too good for them.

Absolutely not, innocent people have been executed and mistakes are made.
The death penalty is legalized murdered and murdered is never right. Anyone who agrees with the death penalty is twisted

No
It is barbaric and not a deterrent. It's only use is for vengeance. If it worked as a deterrent then there'd be no killings in US states and the various countries where they still have capital punishment

Anyone remember the miscarriages of justice relating to Professor Roy Meadows and cot-death.

"one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, until proved otherwise"

Sally Clark and Trupti Patel were both sentenced to life for child murder. Both were innocent.

A question for those who favour the return of the death penalty. How many deaths of people who would subsequently be acquitted are you prepared to accept?

Its, not it's (for pedants like me)

If killing people is wrong, how can it be right if that State does it?

Yes, for the most severe cases and where guilt is 100% certain.

No, innocent people will always be killed in this system.

And when you look into the history of people who have done truly awful things, they have often had truly awful things done to them in their lives, often as children.

No, absolutely not.

There's no evidence that it deters crime.

Two wrongs don't make a right - there are some inhuman things we shouldn't be whatever someone has done.

Even DNA isn’t as infallible as people think
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1769721220302895

There are rare situations where people have two different DNA profiles - DNA chimera

@BoredZelda

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.

That's exactly right. Of course it's not a deterrent, they're dead? Life in prison isn't a deterrent either.

The worst crimes should be punished.

This doesn't mean we have to kill every murderer or rapist. But the ones we deem particularly heinous and where there is no reasonable doubt, and the victims families support it- the criminal should be executed.

Might only be used twice a year. Some people deserve it. Defending people who commit atrocities comes from a place of privilege imo (as in insisting they shouldn't be punished). You're able to have that opinion next your not the victim, nor your loved ones.

Obviously if a family chooses to forgive that's their choice, but that's different to someone talking from the outside

No. We shouldn’t kill people.

I’m surprised that controversial.

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

If killing people is wrong, how can it be right if that State does it?

Imprisoning people is also wrong, yet we lock people up when they do bad things.

No punishment deters crime, crime exists everywhere. Punishment is a form of justice.

Hanging is too good for them.

Sentences are too short though. With remission you're out in a ridiculously short length of time. Should be time added for bad behaviour, not time off for good. Sentences should also be served consecutively, concurrent sentences are an insult to the victim.

But the ones we deem particularly heinous and where there is no reasonable doubt,andthe victims families support it- the criminal should be executed.

If it's dependent on whether the families support it, it's going to be inconsistently applied.

We'll also need a definition of "particularly heinous".

There are countless reasons why CP is a shit idea, but another one to consider: juries may be less likely to prosecute a seemingly guilty defendant if they think the punishment is death rather than a long sentence.

@DrSbaitso

But the ones we deem particularly heinous and where there is no reasonable doubt,andthe victims families support it- the criminal should be executed.

If it's dependent on whether the families support it, it's going to be inconsistently applied.

We'll also need a definition of "particularly heinous".

First of all there are absolutely things in our society that are deemed particularly heinous. Crimes involving children, exhibit A.

If a criminal is eligible for the death sentence (shocking crime/indisputably guilty) the family get the final say.

If a criminal is eligible for the death sentence (shocking crime/indisputably guilty) the family get the final say.

That’s an awful responsibility to put on a grieving family.

Absolutely 100% against the death penalty. It was the tragic case of Ruth Ellis that brought about the end of this barbaric system.
A simple Google will show that in the US , in the states where the Death penalty has been repealed, the murder rate has dropped.

I know that certain crimes make us angry and people want retribution, but as murder is wrong, why is State Sponsored suddenly OK? Not only that, death is too easy.
Let the murderers of that wee boy suffer in prison, and hopefully stay there for whole life terms.

First of all there are absolutely things in our society that are deemed particularly heinous. Crimes involving children, exhibit A.

We will need a definition to identify them. Would all crimes against children meet the definition? What else? We already have certain things classed as aggravating factors.

If a criminal is eligible for the death sentence (shocking crime/indisputably guilty) the family get the final say.

Even though that would make it inconsistently applied? Leave it wide open to racism or sexism?

What if the family regret choosing death for someone in the future? What a thing to have to live with. There’s a reason why this decision is down to a judge.

If a criminal is eligible for the death sentence (shocking crime/indisputably guilty) the family get the final say.

I think that puts people who are already indirect victims of the crime in an absolutely intolerable position. Asking someone who is grieving to make a decision over someone lives or dies, and then asking them to live with that decision on top of their grief for the rest of their lives is just hideous.

Its all very well to think if someone murdered my child I would want them to be put to death, that's understandable its a visceral emotion driven reaction to a hideous unthinkable situation.

But on top of your grief for your murdered child do you really want to be responsible for their murders sentence directly? To live with that, to agonise over whether you are doing the right thing or not?

Victims and family members should not be burdened with deciding what appropriate justice is. Not when they are grieving. That's why we have a supposedly neutral court system in place.

Besides, practically how does this work. You believe in the death penalty and your husband doesn't, who gets the deciding vote, how many family members are included, are aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents included. What about estranged family etc? The reality is this is completely unworkable and could divide families at a time when they need each others support, deepening the wound caused by the original crime.