The Yorkshire Ripper question?

[PassingStranger]

Just read that it cost the taxpayer 11 billion to keep him alive including his funeral?
Do you still feel the same way about him being hung for his murders?

is it acceptable to the taxpayer to pay that much, when there are so many other things that the money could have been spent on, or dosent the money matter?

I'm going to go completely against the grain here and say that I'm all for the death penalty. In cases where there is overwhelming amounts of evidence and the criminal will be sentenced for the rest of their life, I feel it is more humane to end their life and their suffering.

It should be used but for the most disturbing crimes where DNA or other evidence cannot be argued away.

So for example Iain Huntley should have absolutely been sent to the chair where as Lucy Letby could be innocent who knows? I’m 95% sure she did it but there’s a niggling doubt.

Ugh. Sharing the story has shown his ugly mug. That has put me off my afternoon snack.

Thank you. And I’ll rephrase. I believe the OP is being deliberately misleading, goading us and seems to be loving riling people up with their misinformation. Or OP has very, very limited comprehension skills and doesn’t believe in being factual

“ It's the fact that the government would be saying "killing is wrong, apart from when we do it".

Don’t they say that already though?
Governments kill people by the million in wars. Look at Iraq for example.

Surely it's a worse punishment for the murderer to spend their life in prison than to be executed and have done with it all? I never understand this logic. (Against the death penalty btw.)

Edited to add examples: people were angry when Harold Shipman and Ariel Castro died by suicide because they were seen to have escaped justice. How would it be any different from that?

DNA proves nothing. There are many times where the presence of DNA would not prove that any crime had taken place.

I'm always intrigued what constitutes no doubt and who decides that?
I mean false confessions never happen do they?
That poor mum who lost three babies to a genetic condition that a dr claimed in court couldn't have been anything other than murder.
She would have been hanged
Only she was innocent
The medical evidence was beyond doubt....until it wasnt

As long as an innocent life can be executed by a miscarriage of justice, I won't ever support the death penalty.

I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. One one hand, I think it's barbaric and uncivilised; it doesn't bring the victim back; it hurts the perpetrator's family very much, who are innocent; and I'm not sure that being locked up for life isn't worse than being executed. It gives the perpetrator's family a lifetime of grief for something that isn't their fault.

On the other hand, if a perpetrator put someone I loved through something horrific and killed them, I'm realistic enough to know that I might well be baying for their blood.

It's all very well not to believe in the death penalty when it's not YOUR mother or daughter or sister who's been raped and tortured to death.

Well, I think it is the only definition and it is my answer to 'do you still feel the same way about him being hung [sic] for his murders?'

That's what opinion means isn't it.

Oh look, yet more horse shit. There are prisoners in the UK currently serving "whole" life sentences. Some of the more recently convicted that I'm sure people will recognise include Wayne Couzens and Lucy Letby.

As for your other word-bollocks, in the time since Sutcliffe was caught, violent crime has gone down by something like 90%. There are other reasons why we seem to hear about them more often, I'm sure if you really strain your mind you can think of one or two.

It's almost like the daily mail in human form...

The OPs posts are peppered with stuff that simply isn’t true. It’s distracting because people have to correct the bullshit.

Yes! I was thinking that too

But you don't get "blood" - modern executions would be done as quickly and humanely as possible, not medieval-style in the town square. Unless people who want the death penalty actually mean they want people to be publicly tortured to death?

Proves nothing? That just isn't true. There are so many cases where the DNA evidence is the clincher.

Of course you can have cases where the presence of some DNA doesn't mean anything, like a roommate's DNA being on a murder weapon, because the weapon was a kitchen knife that the roommate used to cook. But DNA has been invaluable in catching countless murderers.

click at your peril as its the daily mail online but ermagad, they said 11 billion ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13986235/urse-broadmoor-peter-sutcliffe-frightened-eyes-life.html www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13986235/urse-broadmoor-peter-sutcliffe-frightened-eyes-life.html]]]]

The state should never be able to take a life. Corruption is almost always guaranteed and a life once taken cannot be restored.

Whether that be the death penalty or assisted dying.

"Baying for blood" is a figure of speech. As an idiom, it's listed in most dictionaries. It's not meant to be taken literally. It means wanting punishment - in this case the punishment we were discussing, execution.

Surely the point of a life sentence is the punishment inflicted by denying them a normal existence of freedom, choice, family life, social interaction, autonomy, etc. If you apply the death sentence then that part of the punishment is negated.

Great, daily fail getting clicks via this thread now :(

Even if I thought state-sanctioned murder wasn't wrong, the large number of wrongful convictions that have been overturned (Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Maguire 7, M25 murderers, Stefan Kiszko, Judith Ward, Winston Silcott, Carl Bridgewater murderers, Barry George, to name but a few) show what a dreadful thing it would be to execute people.

Every one of the above, and many more, would have been wrongly killed.

People can be compensated for wrongful convictions, but not for wrongful executions. And if killing people is wrong, it's wrong for governments to do it imo.

Execution should never be used imo.

I presume op that you'd be willing to carry out the execution as you're so in favour of it?

Still wouldnt care if he had been hung. I wont be the only one to think that either

The fact that you are not the only one to think that op is exactly why we need an effective, well-resourced justice system that metes out verdicts based on objective facts and not feelings. I can only pray that Starmer will try and allocate a larger slice of the funding pie to our legal system in the next budget.