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.)

No, we wouldn't, a completely pointless platitude, total twaddle that means nothing. If I put down a rabid dog, I don't become equal to a rabid dog. If I put down a child rapist or child murderer I don't become the equivalent of a child rapist and murderer. I become a person who has saved other children from being raped and murdered, delivered justice and fairness to the raped and murdered children and made the world a far far better place, and I continue to contribute to society without raping and murdering children, and being a useful and helpful society member who is not a danger to children.

When all you have is a meaningless platitude, it's best to say nothing.

I don't understand the relevance of the cross dressing to the crime.

Can anyone help?

Other than that - YABU. State sponsored murder won't bring that baby back.

This is a particularly horrific story, it really took my breath away and made me feel sick when I read it. It is utterly tragic and there's a lot of questions to be asked as to how this was allowed to happen and there need to be serious consequences for this man including incarceration and extensive psychological intervention.

But no, in my mind death penalty is never the answer. Too much risk of wrongful conviction and to be honest I think it's a sign of a society that is morally bankrupt. The best judge of a civilised society is how well they treat the worst of themselves. What he's done is abhorrent, at the same time we know very few crimes happen without context and often people who commit crimes (not necessarily this man but speaking in general) are vulnerable/ victims of previous crimes or abuse that have brought them to a very dark place in life. We can't simply wash our hands of people, that's a slippery slope.

No, it's quite the opposite, it is a morally bankrupt society where people are too cowardly to do the right thing and remove these cancerous non humans entirely from society. They're not people, and it is very wrong indeed to inflict them on actual humans to deal with in any capacity - morally bankrupt and cowardly to make such a call.

And there is almost zero risk of wrongful conviction, however if you are going by stats (which is what you are doing when you make that part of your argument) the almost microscopic number of people who would be wrongly put to death is massively outweighed by the enormous benefits of removing these non human societal cancers from the gene pool, from the lives of real humans and giving true and fair justice to their victims.

As you are making a cost benefit analysis by mentioning the microscopic number of wrongful deaths by execution, the cost benefit analysis is hugely skewed in favour of executing these cancerous non humans.

There's no relevance at all. It's just the Mail's attempt to stir up hatred. They might as well said he votes Labour or helps at an immigrant centre - anything to confirm people's prejudices.

Difficult to take seriously posters talking about putting down rabid dogs in the same breath as accusing others of meaningless platitudes….

Sally Clarke
Victor Nealon
Sam Hallam
Andy Malkinson

That small list is the tip of the iceberg. All recent miscarriages of justice who may have been subject to the death sentence following wrongful convictions.

Rationalise that.

I can’t take posts seriously that repeatedly insist the worst criminals are not human.

Also - calling avoiding the DP cowardice (proof, please, that this is a factor) and breezily arguing that the benefit of executing genuine criminals morally outweighs the risk of innocent people dying.

Big emotive statements that don’t actually say why the DP is a moral imperative.

Perfect example of why the death penalty should not be reinstated!

You would want this person as a member of your jury? I don’t think it would be a fair trial, if they think someone with opposing views is akin to a murderer.

the almost microscopic number of people who would be wrongly put to death is massively outweighed by the enormous benefits of removing these non human societal cancers from the gene pool,

There you have it. Someone who believes the sacrifice is worth it, that it doesn't matter if innocent people die as long as people get their pound of flesh. I knew we'd get there eventually.

Where, if at all, are you drawing the line? Are you saying every single person convicted of killing should be killed, no matter how extenuating the circumstances? Is there really no hope for that person who commits a mercy killing after years of seeing someone they love in awful pain and knowing it will only get worse?

If you are the person wrongly convicted of a murder you didn't commit, will you go to the gallows cheerfully accepting it because the overall benefit to society justifies it? How about if it is your child or someone else that you love?

The day you decide that human life should be part of a cost benefit analysis is really the day you forfeit any claim to a rational opinion.

@ohnotthisagain2025, you should also put into your cost benefit analysis the fact that juries are reluctant to convict in death penalty cases. Is it worth letting guilty people off scott free?

I wonder if they’d feel the same if it were one of their children, I mean it’s just collateral damage isn’t it. It’s not like a real human is being killed.

How would you feel if your child was one of the microscopic? Hopefully, you’d just take it on the chin, shrug your shoulders, because it’s worth it?

I'm not sure you can expect a coherent argument from someone who describes others as cancerous non humans. They don't tend to think things through. They don't realise that human rights apply equally and that includes them.

"Gene pool"?
If it is just genes then sterilise them
And all their family members??

But it s way more complex than genetics
Education past experiences etcetera

In general, I don’t approve of statements like “these people shouldn’t be allowed to vote”. Everyone should be entitled to make their views heard. But I’m leaning towards an exception for people who characterise any human as non-human and express a keenness to be sentencing judge and executioner.

They really are just a hairsbreadth away from becoming exactly what they (and I) hate.

And there’s our problem. You think killing people is permissible - in fact it’s to be recommended - and I don’t.

Except for patronising twats, obviously. In that case, I’d pull the handle myself.

Surely the crux of the issue is dehumanisation. The criminal has dehumanised their victim and the villagers want to dehumanise the perpetrator.

It’s a relief to see that the majority think that the OP is being unreasonable. But enough of the “some collateral damage is worth it” dehumanising brigade to be deeply depressing.

I guarantee that every single 'hang'em and flog'em' poster is either a Reform voter, or is attracted to that end of the political spectrum. I also suspect they mostly know absolutely nothing about our prison system, think prison is an easy ride, and think anyone who points out that the majority of those in prison have mental illness, learning difficulties, and are vastly more likely to come out of the care system, is 'making excuses for bad people'. These are the people responsible for so much inhumanity in the criminal justice system, and the high rates of recidivism that go with that inhumanity.

My daughter works with category 1 ex-prisoners. The worst of the worst. I'm so glad she's able to see even their humanity enough to want to support them to live better lives outside of prison and hurt fewer people going forward. You can't do this if you spend your life wishing these ex prisoners were dead. I'm proud of her for what she does, particularly as she was a victim of a serious crime as a child.

Spot on, Nasrine.

"hurt fewer people going forward"? Why take the risk. Why accept that innocent people will be brutalised by these people that have already proved themselves to be monsters. Why should criminal lives take precedence over law-abiding people's lives?

If they are given a full life order or a long sentence they are unlikely to outlive, then they won’t be out on the streets able to hurt anyone again. So that argument is invalid

that leaves myself, my colleagues and other prison staff as well as fellow prisoners. But nobody cares about that, as evidenced on this thread. Nobody thinks it through properly, just sweeping statements saying ‘execute them’ no thought given to how behaviour will change whilst waiting for the system to give a prisoner a ‘date’ … how dangerous they will become. How unpredictable. And then every other prisoner will be wondering if they are next…

i

Keep the prisoners locked in their cells. That way they can't escape or cause trouble. And the death sentence should be carried out quickly after conviction. There's no point in having endless appeals or delays.