Why can’t we just hang scum like this?

[NameChangedToProtectTheGuilty101]

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

Worse than being a killer.

He’s admitted it. I don’t want to pay for him to live in prison. I’d like him killed.

None of those “perks” make up for having to constantly look over your shoulder forever. The prison officers can’t be everywhere all the time.

Among all the noise here, there is the serious question about how to treat people who may need to be incarcerated for possible decades until their death.

But just killing them because we can't think of the answer seems a tad defeatist. We've put a man on the moon, broken the genetic code, and are almost within touching distance of online GP appointments. Surely we can put some effort into a solution.

It's unsettling common for people to admit to crimes they didn't commit.

I'm not saying that's the case here at all but a confession should not be used as a basis for a conviction, let alone a death sentence.

Excellent way to increase the number of men who kill. Well done you.

Timothy Evans confessed. Which of course was a great comfort to the women that Christie went on to kill after Evans execution.

Because the state should not have the right to murder its citizens.

As you say, he’s admitted it and has definitely committed the crime. He should be killed.

Maybe he should be. But there's no way to put a system in place that will never make a mistake and lead to the death of an innocent person. So I will always be against the death penalty for that reason.

Are you volunteering to do it? What method were you thinking of?

Putting aside that this isnt so much a slippery slope to eugenic genocide but actually already arrived down there….you don’t actually need to kill anyone to remove their genes, you could ‘just’ forceably sterilise them instead.

Isnt Ian Watkins unalived in prison?

I have to be less harsh on mn but you know where I am going

The Drowned and the Saved

A friend of mine is old enough to remember when the Death Penalty was in use

His comment was that it 'coarsened society'

Can you see what might happen when a notorious killer goes to the gallows?

Farage at all hoping that the hangman bodges the job.

Another comment was from New Zealand where they had a very 'Pro Hanging' PM in the 50's and they had to limit the number of executions as they were only carried out in one prison and there was a limit to what the staff could stand

Even if he turned his morals inside out and begged god to forgive him, will we forgive him ? Will he ever be able to forgive himself ? He has ruined his life and potential eternal existence.

Stop with the Daily Fail gnashing of teeth and "Scum" tagline.

its dull and predictable, and gets us no further forward.

I agree.

Euthanasia as in humane and painless - I actually find the -ooohhh lifetime in prison for them to suffer - brigade cruler and morally bankrupt -as the cases I think most of us pro are actually contemplating are so mentally ill/damaged that punishing them for the rest of their life for something they probably had little to no control over is quite barbaric.
In Holland/Canada people with incurable traumatic mental health issues can apply for and are accepted for euthanasia - I think there are a few very selective murderers that should be afforded the same grace.

Don’t agree with hanging.
I just wouldn’t send my child to a nursery with male nursery workers.

You are correct but these are very rare and most of them still get released if they’ve had good behaviour.

And yes prisoners can get recalled but that’s not a deterrent for someone like this
It also brings no comfort to the family of the victims or future victims.

I believe in rehabilitation and believe most people can be rehabilitated.
Getting in a fight and killing someone should not mean the death penalty.

Raping babies or finding a child or woman to deliberately rape, torture and kill is another story.

I have always been fully against the death penalty but people like Axel Rudakubana have started to change my mind.
Why are prison staff being attacked and almost killed by someone like him.
He’ll either get out and be even more messed up in the head or he’ll die in prison and so it seems pointless.

I don't believe in the death penalty and I don't welcome vigilante violence and retribution by inmates in prison either.

"A tad defeatist"

Errrm.......unless you know different it's a binary choice, life, incarcerated, or death - I cannot think of third alternative?

The whole "where there is no doubt“ thing is what i never understand on threads about the death penalty. Numerous people post that where there is no doubt or where someone is 100% guilty they should get the death penalty. But out justice system doesn't work like that.

In England and Wales a jury can find someone not guilty or guilty. And if they find them guilty they are saying they think beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. There is not a second tier of guilty, abs option to find someone "100% guilty". Are people proposing we introduce two levels of guilty for the jury to choose between? Or are they intending for a judge to decide which of the beyond a reasonable doubt people is 100% guilty and this eligible for the death penalty? And if we have two levels of guilty, where does that leave the not 100% guilty people? If we're not certain enough of their guilt to kill them, surely we are also not certain enough to put them in prison for years?

Or the evidence is clear because of corruption, mistakes or out and out racism/sexism/classism.

The evidence against the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire, the Winchester 3 etc etc was extremely clear due to police corruption, mistakes and racism. It was, however, quite clearly incorrect once the judiciary were forced to examine the corruption and errors. The judge in the Guildford 4 case publicly regretted he couldn't pass the death penalty.

But yeah, they was no doubt.

Some people are convicted on strong circumstantial evidence that could be overcome by better forensic evidence (if it exists). We know that technology has meant that DNA forensics, for example, has improved dramatically from its conception until now. So much so that I am sure there are people who were originally convicted on DNA evidence and have had it overturned as technology has improved.

Other times, there are mitigating circumstances that mean the person has a chance of rehabilitation in the right conditions.

That's different to someone who has a proven history of violent crime, despite intervention and rehabilitation.