Why can’t we just hang scum like this?

[NameChangedToProtectTheGuilty101]

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

Worse than being a killer.

Nobody thought it was possible the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 etc didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of because the evidence was infallible. They were convicted because of poor science, corrupt police and racism. I believe that these are ongoing issues so because of that, and coupled with the proven unreliability of witnesses, we cannot ever say we are 100%.

You keep bringing those cases up over and over, but they're categorically not what I'm talking about, and I've made that very clear. Those, from what I know, are cases based on forced confessions and shaky circumstantial evidence that could be falsified or misinterpreted (and was).

The cases I have mentioned, the perpetrators were mostly literally caught in the act of stabbing people. Do you truly think they might not have been guilty? Really? If so, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I think being caught while actively stabbing someone, with other victims strewn about, and then admitting it afterwards, is 100% conclusive.

I'm not PP, but to answer this point: it's not about whether I think they're guilty (because I do) but because there aren't two grades of "guilty" when it comes to a conviction. There is just guilty.

Rudukubana is just as guilty, in law, as the cases PP mentioned at the time they were convicted.

If a conviction of murder carried a death sentence, then both Rudukubana and the less certain cases would both face the death penalty. Even though Rudukubanas conviction, for the sake of argument, is more "certain".

If you start introducing grades of doubt into convictions and say "well person A is clearly guilty of murder so they can get the death penalty but person B is less definite so they can go to prison for life" then you leave the door wide open to those "less certain" convictions being challenged, and you end up with only the rare cases like Rudukubanas being convicted of murder with everyone else walking off scott-free.

You CANNOT devise a sentencing system based on the assumption that cases will always be cut and dry because they are not.

It doesn't matter whether I believe they were guilty or not. What I do believe is that human falibility coupled with corruption could result in an apparently irrefutable case that fits your criteria.

Which is precisely why I said there is a chance that a very small percentage of innocent people might be executed. It depends on whether society as a whole thinks that is an acceptable risk or not; opinions on that, in the past and now, have varied.

I'm fairly certain people already challenge convictions and appeal sentences based on the quality of the evidence? I don't think only having the death penalty as an option for a small range of cases would change that.

And no, cases aren't cut and dry for the most part. Which is why I don't think those cases should be eligible for a hypothetical death penalty.

Albert Pierrepoints autobiography (which few here have or will read) is a good starting point to address these questions.

When you learn he used s a "special" strap for certain victims (including Ruth Ellis) you suddenly feel a little less settled about the role of executioner.

Even he acknowledged that not a single person he hanged deterred anybody from killing. Although post-Gove who cares what experts think ?

I admit the recent Nuremberg film does raise some fascinating and disturbing questions. It may shock some, but I'm not really a fan of capital punishment. And that has to be absolute. Not ever. In any circumstances. However I am also not weeping salt tears for the Nazis who were executed. And even though there was an established abolitionist movement before the war, it probably didn't recruit many members in the late 1940s.

Not at all, it's clear in all those cases that they killed people. But that doesn't automatically make them totally culpable.

In the case of Rudukabana, he had been under the care of MH services but stopped engaging with them. He wouldn't have been under their care if he wasn't unwell, so I couldn't be confident that he was 100% sane and responsible for his actions. Adam and Saadallah had also had involvement with MH services. In a different climate, they may all have succeeded with a diminished responsibility defence had such been put forward.

These cases remind me of the Valdo Calocane case. The enquiry into the MH services involvement with him found failings in his psychiatric care: Valdo Calocane MH report . Of course, we'll never know if things would have been different if there had been a more assertive approach to his care and treatment, but it raises a question.

I worked in a non-medical role with MH clients for 18 years. Over that time, services were cut and cut, and clients who used to have regular contact and input from MH professionals were getting nothing unless they went into crisis, someone noticed, and they engaged with services. My colleagues and I were often the first to raise concerns with local MH teams, because they weren't getting regular support. It really shouldn't be down to homelessness, resettlement and welfare rights staff to raise alerts about the deteriorating mental health of people who are under the care of mental health teams, MH services should be checking it out themselves.

I really wouldn't want to live in a society that fails to address deteriorating mental health in people who are already under the care of mental health services, and then executes those people when it all goes tits up.

In the Bendall case, it rather looks as though probation dropped the ball, again because they were overstretched and struggling. Bendall: probation review

But this is what happens when governments cut funding for these essential services. There was a time when mental health and probation services had assertive outreach teams that would monitor clients regularly and get them admitted to hospital or recalled to prison if they considered it necessary. That work just isn't being done these days.

The very first thing a totalitarian regime does, is declare that it has solved all injustice.

Once you have that decided, then it obviously you can eliminate he undesirables. After all, you don't make mistakes do you.

Most advocates for the death penalty do it from a place of emotion (of some description). The whole point of having a legal system is to remove emotion from the process. Speaking purely for myself I am happy we take that approach to trying to keep society safe. I am not really convinced a return to the days when justice was meted out individually would improve society.

I don't consider culpability relevant, personally. If someone is so dangerous that a lapse in their mental health care can cause them to stab multiple children, then they should never be allowed free again. In fact, the fact that they have zero control over their actions makes them more dangerous.

I'd rather live in a society that executed some prisoners and provided very good mental health care, honestly. Or a society that provided very good mental health care, and had actual life imprisonment, and no execution.

I don't think killing innocent people is acceptable, regardless of whether it is done by the state or a psychopath.

Good to see you admit that your 100% guilty position is fallible and would potentially result in innocent people being killed.

Personally I respect people who are honest and admit "Shit, mistakes happen, but the overall benefit is worth it" over those who try all sorts of mental gymnastics to underscore their argument as "Well, we don't make mistakes in 2025".

Here's a thought experiment for fun. If it could be shown that randomly executing someone every so often (we could combine it with premium bonds to save costs) regardless of guilt or innocence actually cause a 50% decrease in the murder rate (so can be seen as saving hundreds of lives a year), then would they support it ?

"God will know His own"

I've been very clear about that from the beginning, actually. Obviously there would always be the possibility of human error.

Personally, I don't see much difference between the state withholding life saving medical treatment from innocent people due to cost, therefore passively killing them (something that happens far more), versus actively killing a tiny number of wrongly convicted people.

I understand others feel differently, but weighing up the costs and benefits, I think there are persuasive arguments either way. Certainly, I think the justice system as it currently operates is not good enough.

It depends on the school of philosophy you follow. Utilitarianism would say that it would be unethical not to value the lives of hundreds of people and their hundreds of family members who would have had their lives destroyed, over the lives of one person and their family, especially if that person had been convicted of murder.

It makes me think of one of the variants of the trolley problem; would you actively pull the lever and kill one innocent person, or passively not touch the lever and allow the runaway trolley to kill twenty innocent people? Which do you consider to be morally right? Do you view the former as murder, and the latter as allowing nature to take its course, or do you view the former as taking the least-bad option, and the latter to be cowardice that results in more harm?

It does lead to some intractable philosophical conundrums.

I would class myself as definitely following a Bentham type path. However I'm not entirely comfortable with it's every side road.

Also it's telling that all the mentions of innocent people that have and will be executed by the hard wing of this thread make no mention of the families of the wrongly executed. One can only speculate, but losing a loved one in a terrible violent murder cannot compare to the absolute horror of knowing your husband, wife or child was deliberately killed knowing they were innocent.

I have been on jury duty and to be honest people are pretty thick. Wanting to find people guilty because they have a ‘ feeling’ instead of basing the verdict on the evidence. I 100% get where you’re coming from OP and in ideal world where we could 100% guarantee no loss of innocent life then I would absolutely vote for the death penalty. But it’s just too risky

I think killing people because they're ill and not responsible for their actions is positively medieval.

And we do have actual life imprisonment: Rose West, Dennis Nilsen, Levi Belfield, Peter Sutcliffe, Shipman, all got whole life orders and there are probably loads more that I don't know about.

Judges also have the power to sentence dangerous offenders to an indefinite term in prison for the protection of the public when the offence committed doesn't carry a life sentence. Maybe those powers should/could be used more widely. (Although that would probably require the building of more prisons!)

I often read judges' sentencing remarks in conjunction with the sentencing guidelines for the offence in question, and I rarely disagree with their decision. They have to work within the existing framework, they can't just think "You're a right bad 'un, I'm banging you up for ever". That would lead to a lot of appeals.

So because people die through government neglect (a government elected by the people), it's ok for the state to actively kill others, including innocent people?

What about if the government got the act together, sorted out the NHS and everyone received the treatment they needed when they needed it? Would it still be ok for the government to actively kill people using the death penalty?

Because there will always be some miscarriages of justice.

You don’t know which case they are from reading the newspapers - the judge and jury obviously didn’t realise in the famous miscarriage of justice cases, and the public would probably have thought some of those we prime cases for a death penalty.

There will always, always be some.

And who wants to encourage the sort of person willing to be a hangman? Or worse make it a job that someone might take in desperation for work.

And who wants to encourage the sort of person willing to be a hangman? Or worse make it a job that someone might take in desperation for work.

Pierrepoints autobiography really should be on a syllabus somewhere. Not because of it's (ghost written) prose. But because it really does open a window to illuminate such questions.

The fact that he resigned over an unpaid bill is rarely mentioned. Presumably as it reduces the act of execution to a transaction. And one that the state will skimp on where possible.

Also if we manage to let prisoners out by mistake, how can be sure we wouldn't end up hanging a few by mistake ?(The gag from Blackadder about not only having the right man, but the paper to prove it springs to mind).

Two wrongs don't make a right. 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Quoting scripture, whilst fun, rarely (if ever) leads to a solution. At best someone will find an equal and opposite quote. At worst you are involved in a Holy War.

Bringing back the death sentence doesn't mean bringing back hanging. There are other more efficient methods nowadays.

It should come down to statistics. How many innocent people would die due to miscarriage of justice, versus how many innocent people die at the moment due to murder as criminals have no fear of prison but would fear execution. Or by murderers who are released from prison and go on to kill again.

Well, no, he didn't. That's why he's going to prison.