Why can’t we just hang scum like this?

[NameChangedToProtectTheGuilty101]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k4qd8q97eo

Worse than being a killer.

My point was merely that ordinary people are very capable of killing.

cold, brutal and deliberate, the very characteristics we abhor in the perpetrator of the crime

That's not what society abhors in the case of a murderer. Someone can kill someone gently out of 'love' (euthanising a suffering love one), out of a hot-blooded rage (a drunk bar fight), or without deliberate intent (drink-driving). What is, and should be abhorred, is that in the case of murder, a person has broken the social contract and taken another, innocent person's life without sanction.

We should surely want the state to be cold and deliberate, if execution was an option. As for brutal...well, that depends on the method employed, I suppose.

Regardless, the death penalty isn't hypocritical. You can find it unpleasant, or consider it immoral by your standards, or ineffective as a dissuasion tactic, but state-sanctioned execution is entirely different to murder, much as state imprisonment is very different to an individual locking another person in their basement.

Of course it's hypocritical.

It's wrong to kill so let's kill those who kill

Hypocritical

Apparently the Birmingham 6 were as good as caught red handed as they had traces if explosives on their hands.

Newsflash: they didn't.

By that logic, prison is wrong, as it is both wrong and illegal for an individual to imprison someone against their will.

We should therefore abolish prisons, according to your reasoning.

I feel as though 'traces of explosives' (which is evidence that can be falsified) isn't quite the same as the police arriving on the scene while a stabbing is actively taking place.

Regardless, the death penalty isn't hypocritical. You can find it unpleasant, or consider it immoral by your standards, or ineffective as a dissuasion tactic, but state-sanctioned execution is entirely different to murder, much as state imprisonment is very different to an individual locking another person in their basement.

That;s your opinion. It's not an objective fact. And you can discover that a respect for human life in someone (raises hand) can lead to a diametrically opposite view. However it's not an equally opposing view. Because in one case you have a dead prisoner. In the other you have a prisoner who can be released when you realised you have got it wrong.

Once again, for people who pretend they are all about the justice. Once you have hanged the wrong person, the entire system then closes behind it, and will become very resistant to any future developments that could prove it made a mistake. And for every wrongly executed innocent there will be a murderer who not only got away with it, but could kill again.

None of the execution cheerleaders on this thread found time to comment on the Timothy Evans case. Where thanks to a biased legal system, and some clap happy hangers, the real culprit went on to kill more women. And - had he not been mentally deranged - could have easily killed many many more.

I can understand why you would be reluctant to remind people of the case as it is the paradigm of why capital punishment is a crock. All that we can safely agree on is that it is a process which results in someone being killed. I will happily accept that is a 100% outcome. (Unless we get Capita to do the job. Then it will be a miracle if anyone is killed, let alone the actual condemned).

When you can reverse an execution, then you can be right.

Your move.

But again: you're either convicted of a crime or you're not. The conviction is black and white. There are no degrees of "definitely guilty, we all saw him do it", and "well he's probably guilty". There is just "guilty".

Anyone convicted of murder, regardless of the strength of the case, could therefore be sentenced to death. Even if the conviction is later quashed.

You can't reverse someone losing twenty years of their life to prison. They will never get that time back, and nothing will make up for that lose.

Besides, my argument was in regards to people saying it's hypocritical to kill people when killing is illegal. By that logic, it's hypocritical to imprison people against their will when doing so is illegal.

But again, personally I'm undecided on state-sanctioned execution. My sticking point against it, is that the state is too corrupt to be given that power - it could be a slippery slope. Ultimately, it's probably better to have actual life sentences, not executions. But the appeals to emotion that people make about 'innocent people dying' hold very little water. The state allows innocent people to die every day by withholding medical treatments based purely on cost.

As long as you have the death penalty, you will have appeals. And as long as you have appeals you won't have justice. in fact quite the opposite.

Are all the proponents of capital punishment here claiming that their support is based on a support for justice ? And if so what are they doing right now to ensure we have justice everywhere. For all crimes - say violence against women ?

If someones support for the death penalty is within a wider framework of activism in justice, it's a worthy debating point. However, it seems to me to be more the single note issue of someone trying to learn an instrument, rather than a pleasing improvisation using scales, modes, cadence and rhythm to convey a melody of integrity and sophistication.

But that's probably just me.

Why are we letting men have unfettered access to our babies?

My point is that if the death penalty was ever brought back, I think it should be restricted to those cases where there really is no shadow of a doubt. Just as different classes of crime carry different sentencing guidelines now, there should have to be very specific criteria for a conviction to fulfil to make the death penalty a possibility.

My sticking point against it, is that the state is too corrupt to be given that power

There are many reasons to oppose capital punishment, and they are all equally valid apart from one. And that is the faux-naive (or honestly dim) argument that now the justice system never gets it wrong. If that is your support for capital punishment then why the hell are you wasting time on MN when you should be learning your times tables. I can't think of anything more terrifying than Priti Patel, Suella Braveman or David Lammy telling us that we now have an infallible justice system, so let them dangle.

If your argument for the death penalty is just that you like the idea of some people being killed and you aren't too bothered about the details, then at least you are being candid. Which I can respect.

But I can't respect people whose support is based on shonky research that when proved wrong results in a serious of soundbites.

Even the police coming on a stabbing while it is taking place isn't necessarily conclusive. For example, the supposed stabber might have actually come on the scene late and be trying to remove a knife, it could be self-defence, or it could be the result of serious mental illness meaning the individual is incapable of forming the necessary intent for homicide.

I object in the strongest possible terms to sharing a planet with men who hurt children for sexual gratification.

You can euthanise men who are: caught on camera, caught in the act, caught by DNA, caught by disclosure by a child.

It is really simple. And a great deterrent I think.

They give chemical castration drugs to children whose parents say they are trans , but rename them "puberty blockers".

That's a whole other fight that mothers have against predatory men...

But - again - your are describing a games show justice system where you are either 100% guilty or (presumably) 51% guilty.

There is a famous comment about being pregnant. Presumably in your life you have known people who are pregnant beyond the shadow of a doubt as opposed to pregnant ?

That's a very good point! I'm not sure it would hold up in the case of Axel Rudakubana, but you're right that even arriving on an active scene, there are grey areas and the possibility the authorities could get things wrong.

Remember only within the last months, the news reporting of the Huntingdon stabbing originally stated that the hero - who suffered terrible injuries in helping prevent more deaths - was mistaken for an attacker ???

That's 2025, not 1825.

You seem to be repeatedly arguing against points I haven't made. So I'll be bowing out, thanks.

You can euthanise men who are: caught on camera,

Even now in 2025, "AI" fakes are good enough to fool the sort of people who want to be easily fooled. How will your "caught on camera" look in 2030 ? 2035 ?

Maybe come up with a better method ?

If you're trying to argue that there aren't real degrees of certainty, or differing degrees of evidence, I'm not sure what to say to you. All convictions have to pass a certain threshold, but that doesn't mean some don't pass further beyond it than others.

Self-evidently my argument isn't an appeal to emotion, as it is based on someone who is certainly innocent being killed by the state. It simply is not good enough to say bad things happen to innocent people in other contexts, therefore we should specifically allow the state to kill innocent people.

I agree that the possibility of killing innocent people is certainly not the only argument against the death penalty. I find the notion of the state saying "Thou shalt not kill, but it's fine for us to do so" morally abhorrent, and I find the concept of setting up a system for killing people in cold blood really horrible. It puts us below the level of the people being condemned.

It would not be a lust for revenge.
It is a just punishment and a preventative.
Society would not be killing them; they have killed their own future.

Modern forensics surely has improved the accuracy of finding someone guilty. Those who admit guilt to heinous crimes, where there is sound evidence found by Police, motive and witnesses should be extinguished.
As a society we should not have to spend money nor thought about their existance for one minute.
Most people found guilty in a court of law are actually guilty, some of horrendous crimes.

Sad for their families but no sadder than having to think of their criminal relative allowed to live while their victims suffer for a life time or are dead.

You can believe in degrees of guilt if you like. However the practicalities of the justice system are against you.

A lot of people appear to be conflating mitigation with exoneration. Someone can be guilty of a crime, but have their sentence mitigated by the circumstances. This is indeed how the death penalty was eventually abolished. It was taken off the table for some types of murder. However rather than "solving" the problem (the Home Office has always been pro death penalty) it compounded it as research found jurors - who probably had seen enough dead bodies during the war - were increasingly reluctant to send people to the gallows. An attitude which the Evans, Bentley and (erroneously IMHO) Ellis cases reinforced.

It would not be a lust for revenge.
It is a just punishment and a preventative.

Preventative ? How so ? You may refer to the John Christie case to prove your point. He went on to continue to kill after someone was hanged on his behalf.

Or have we improved things since then ?