This is why we should bring back the death penalty

[bluewanda]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14918815/drug-addicted-cross-dresser-abused-lover-murder-son-hospital-ward.html

(One example of many.)

I don’t support the death penalty because innocent people will die. It doesn’t reduce crime. It doesn’t act as a deterrent. With all the appeals etc it is not cheaper than keeping them in prison. The standard of evidence of higher so fewer people will be convicted meaning more murderers walk free.

I would also be concerned that people would expect it to be done to paedophiles or any other sex criminals. I’d be concerned this would make perpetrators more likely to kill their victims after attacking them (killing them means it is less likely they’re caught and the punishment is the same either way).

It is completely normal to have a very strong reaction to a case like this. I am often in tears reading articles like this. However I don’t believe that our justice system should be formed based on emotional responses and a need for revenge.

I think it should be formed based off evidence of what actually works and what reduces crime. Countries that focus on rehabilitation, on reducing poverty, social care and early interventions have less crime than countries with the death penalty.

I find the whole baying for blood thing a bit disturbing, especially when someone questions the value of working with offenders. This kind of work prevents (some) of these crimes happening in the first place which - in terms of the horror of a story like this - is some of the most valuable work that can be done.

A quick google shows that 25 people were executed in the USA in 2024. That's out of a population of around 350 million people.

Singapore executed 9 people in the same year. That's out of a population of 6 million.

Clearly, Singapore executes more people per capita than the US.

Recidivism rates increase as time go by. You have to give the number of years after release along with the percentage. I used the rate after 2 years. I got my date from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country

Also, sentence given is different to sentence served. It is completely normal for prisoners to be released early before completing all of their sentence.

This is all very well, but I'm surprised no-one's addressed the most important and relevant part of the case that the Mail were sensible enough to put right at the beginning of their article - the fact that he was a cross dresser.

I mean, allowing people who murder babies to live is one thing. But perverts who murder babies AND wear their girlfriend's frilly panties? It just ain't right.

The topic isn’t about prison. It’s about the death penalty. I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about it. I also don’t come on and take the piss with a high and mighty attitude.

I’ll never change my mind- serial killers should have their tickets cancelled- the end. So it’s pointless going back and forth and calling me ignorant, over and over again. 🙄Like a broken record.

This thread isnt about serial killers….not ‘topic’, thread. 🤨 . The prisoner mentioned in the article isn’t a serial killer either

yet on you go (like a broken record)

most odd!

She said nothing of the kind and your reaction is way over the top. She was countering a claim that she knows nothing about the subject by providing a direct personal experience, something which you lack.

Has it ever occurred to you that American TV networks choose to profile the cases which can give a closure ending, to make the audience feel better? People are less likely to want to watch cases where the victim's family said they got no closure. It's too sad. If you go to less commercial sources, you will find many who say it brought no closure. There are loads of true crime channels on YouTube, for example. I have seen families interviewed who said that.

It's incredible that anyone would think TV shows (on the big American networks no less) are a reflection of all that exists in real life and that watching them makes you some kind of expert. I'd be embarrassed to say something so gauche.

Per capita you’re correct.

On recidivism rates, your data is still not comparing like with like and that’s because the single figures given on worldpopulationreview.com are underpinned by a complex system in every case. It’s very hard to compare recidivism rates across countries. And it’s particularly difficult to compare countries where the death penalty applies for different offences, as in the case of Singapore and the US.

if you want to compare the deterrent effect of the death penalty you need to look at its impact on specific offences.

In England and Wales the sentence given is always the sentence served. For many sentences, that means some of the time is in prison and some is under licence in the community.

In murder cases, the sentence is mandatory life. The law since 2003 means that the sentencing judge sets a tariff and the entire tariff must be served before parole can be given, and the person remains on licence for the rest of their life.

And here you are again.

It’s about the death sentence, something I agree with for the worst kind of killer. I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand about that
or why you are so obsessed.

Why on earth would you not look at per capita rates? Comparing absolute figures between such vastly differing population sizes is pointless. So your "fact check" was incredibly misleading and my original point stands.

My data on recidivism is still more useful than your next supposed "fact check" where you didn't mention number of years at all. I could say the recidivism rate is zero if I'm just measuring within the first 5 minutes after release from prison. I gave my source for the rates of close to 60% in the UK vs 30% in Singapore after 2 years.

If you're fact checking other people's posts, get your facts right.

It's interesting you should say that, because I know somebody who wants assisted death in Canada and can't get it. There are all kinds of hoops you have to jump through and it takes years. You have to exhaust every single one of your treatment options, even if treatment increases your suffering. If anything it's too restrictive.
There are not many cases in which coercion is even suspected, let alone proven. That notion is based on propaganda from the anti-euthanasia fanatics.
Yes, of course coercion is a possibility. Coercion is possible in any medical procedure, but highly unlikely.

The risk of an innocent person dying is not the only reason people oppose the death penalty, so the analogy doesn't really work anyway. The other key difference is that assisted death is a definite end to the patient's suffering, but the death penalty does not end the suffering of the victim's loved ones.

In murder cases, the sentence is mandatory life. The law since 2003 means that the sentencing judge sets a tariff and the entire tariff must be served before parole can be given, and the person remains on licence for the rest of their life

I thought there was a "review" which could be held 3 years before the tariff was completed, @Allisnotlost1, with the possibility of being transferred to open conditions if considered suitable?

It's not for me to speak for others, but I honestly believe some objections arise from the fact that tariffs were introduced at all. For some of us it flies in tthe face of a "life sentence" supposedly being mandatory and represents yet another chipping away at public protection

Yes, I agree that there is more than one reason to be against the death penalty and more than one reason to be for euthanasia.

I just find it interesting that many people give innocent deaths as their main reason against the death penalty, along with the state getting involved in killing people.

It does strike me as contradictory if those some people support euthanasia, which also has the potential for misuse and also involves the state legislating for people to be killed.

I know they're not direct comparisons and there are more aspects at play, but I do find it worth exploring.

1/20 deaths in Canada are euthanasia so it can't be that difficult to get.

The main difference, of course, is that in CP there is no autonomy, making it a indisputable that it's murder, with no grey area whatsoever.
I agree it's worth exploring, which is what we are doing, and I'm enjoying the discussion.

That data is from a single year, 2023, which holds the record high.
So it's a misleading statistic often used as anti-euthanasia propaganda.
Nor does it follow that it means it was easy to get. It could just indicate a larger than usual number of terminal cases, because 96% of those cases were for terminal conditions, with cancer being the leader.
More info;
www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/12/canada-medically-assisted-death

Yes, and at that point someone can be transferred to an open prison. Do you think that’s not prison?

Tariffs were introduced to make it clear to all how long would be served. Prior to 2003 judges sometimes made recommendations but decisions to release always sat with the Home Secretary. Those decisions were opaque and the actual time served was shorter than if has been since tariffs were introduced. The law has gone on to increase starting points for tariffs since then.

A life sentence is mandatory because it’s the only sentence that applies when someone is convicted of murder. And it’s a life sentence because it doesn’t expire until the person dies.

Often objections arise because people don’t understand the system - and fair enough, because it’s overly complicated, and it’s massively misrepresented by the media which is most people’s source of information. Of course people can object to the system as it is too, it’s just often not done from a factual starting point.

The fact is that recidivism rates for parole sentences are very low. Tariffs are increasingly longer. Most people are not moved to open prison at the tariff review, most are not released on tariff and the supervision of life licences is stringent and people are recalled very easily.

Public protection failures are far more common where someone is under minimal supervision following a lower level offence.

Data from 2023 showed that 15,300 were killed via euthanasia so it's not that difficult to get. Unless you're saying that the rules were lax that year.

Your original point was not specific and I responded in kind. When comparing per capita, you’re correct. I agree, pointless otherwise, but that also applies to the rest of your points.

The number of years to recidivate is one datapoint, but you also need to compare like for like on sentence type/length. Recidivism rates after 2 years are different for those who complete non-custodial vs custodial sentences, and for number of years on custodial sentences. Then to be really factual, you need to compare offence type - eg a person previously convicted of GBH who is later convicted of not paying a train fare etc. So unless you’re comparing at that granular level, you may as well use the high level combined figure, which is 26% give or take in the UK, and 20% in Singapore.

And you still have yet to show how ‘many people’ convicted of murder are released after less than 10 years.

Me too!

I don't know why that record high number happened and neither do you. As I said, it could have been due to a higher than usual number of terminal cases. Which would mean it likely had nothing to do with it being easy to get. If that was the case the numbers would be expected to be that high, or even higher, every year. The fact that 96% in 2023 were terminal cases tends to support the explanation I proposed.

This might be helpful to you, @MiloMinderbinder925

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-services-benefits/medical-assistance-dying.html

As you can see, the rules are very stringent, which is why a person I know can't get it. His death is not inevitable anytime soon, unless of course he commits suicide, which he has been clear to his doctors he will do if he can't get MAID. He is presently in the process of exhausting all treatment options. He's in unbearable pain constantly and nothing has helped, so who can blame him for wanting assistance to die peacefully.

Who in the hell reported one of my posts? I did not attack anybody, so whoever did it was probably trying to shut down an opposing POV. Tsk tsk.

Again, if we could execute every creature in a human suit capable of this sort of behaviour the world would be a far far better place.

Bringing back the death penalty would only bring justice and fairness to a tiny proportion of these cases, but it would still be a slightly better world.

No, it wouldn't, because we would have lowered ourselves to their level.