AIBU to ask whether the death penalty should apply for certain crimes in the UK?

[PenelopeJoanSterling]

Because the topics got mixed up on my previous thread i thought id ask here, for certain types of crime in the uk, would you be either for or against the death penalty for certain crimes and why ?

No.

1. Because it's barbaric, and I do not want to live in a country where the state has the power to kill its own citizens.

1. Because there is no credible evidence that it works as a deterrent.

1. Because there is credible evidence that it might actually delay the healing process for victims and their families, thus extending their trauma.

1. Because there will always be miscarriages of justice.

Because you’re killing someone who was groomed. They’re not psychopathic, they’re not without redemption, they have potential to be reformed.

sympathy is a bit of a nothing human emotion. I couldn’t care less if you or anyone else has sympathy for groomed gang members. It’s totally meaningless and doesn’t impact anything to do with the way the justice system treats them.

That’s not true. Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

how have you decided that their death penalty is the reason behind that though? Correlation v causation

The Southport attacker very clearly had extremely serious mental problems. That he was able to be free to commit these crimes is also very clearly due to failures in our sadly flawed systems.
So even if we executed such people a/what does it say about us? and b/where would it end? Schizophrenics or other seriously mentally ill people to be executed ‘just in case?’

No

I will never support state sanctioned murder

the only exceptions are political assassinations where there is a very high risk of civil unrest

Well obviously you can’t ’prove’ it, but it’s commonly cited as one of the main deterrents to crime. Seems highly unlikely that it has no impact.

Are we so horrendously short of humans that we have to potentially (hopefully) reform criminals that have chosen, of their own free will, to rape and torture innocent people, and send them back into the same community that their victims reside in, where they may well come into contact with them?

I mean, I know state sanctioned execution is dangerous because it's not good to give the state that power, and I'm still not in favour of it because of that, but setting that aside - on a practical, social level, 'potential' reformation of sadistic abusers just doesn't seem sensible or necessary.

Most crimes in SA don’t attract the death penalty though. I don’t think it’s cited in an evidence based way?

Human kind is what it is. Who are you to decide it’s just too time consuming to see it through?

humans committing crime is an unavoidable part of life. We’re made that way. We don’t get to opt out of it.

There are a huge amount of problems with the concept of re-introducing the death penalty, not least it being morally indefensible. But for the sake of information, here are two of the reasons I’ve seen discussed time and time again on this topic:

— It can actually deter people from reporting crime, especially victims of rape and child sexual abuse. So many of those cases are perpetrated by family or people known to the victim, and knowing that the death penalty is a potential outcome can make victims reluctant to report their crimes.

— PPs have suggested a three-tier justice system, which presents issues in and of itself. Do you see the problems that could arise from having three potential verdicts; not guilty, guilty, and super definitely no-doubt guilty? Those judged as “regular” guilty then have significantly more reason to appeal their verdicts, as you’ve introduced the idea that our currently accepted proof of a crime isn’t actually proof enough for a harsh sentence.

Time consuming? No. It's not the time that bothers me.

I'm thinking about the potential for re-offending, and the harm to victims who may see their abusers - especially if they see them thrive and succeed, while they themselves have been too damaged by the abuse to live full and happy lives themselves. Or families of victims who have no life at all, in the case of murder.

And who are you to decide that execution is 'opting out' of dealing with human crime? That doesn't make any sense at all. Execution is one way of dealing with (specific) crimes. Attempting rehabilitation is another way.

my freinds brother was in prison for murder. after 13 years of campaiging he was exhonerated and released . he died a few years after as the trauma turned him to alochol. So no no no to death penalty. ever.

The other way is what we currently do- keep people in prison for long sentences, subject to parole for release, or for their whole lives in the case of the worst cases. Which means you don’t have to worry about ok it them reoffending.

I'm sure that knowing that your abuser will likely just get a slap on the wrist if they're even convicted, and potentially not even get a prison sentence, before being sent back into the community where they can get revenge on you for reporting, is a pretty big deterrent too, to be fair.

But that doesn’t happen on cases that would attract the death penalty.

john Childs/ Jeremy bamber/ Arthur Hutchinson types aren’t returning home after a slap on the wrist. You’re conflating the crimes you’re saying should attract the death penalty with all crimes

Yes, actual life sentences are a good compromise. Although purely on principle, I'm not against the death penalty. It's just that giving governments that much power seems unwise.

No. It doesn't matter if the evidence is perfect. This is not just about miscarriages of justice - though obviously they're a big reason against. Taking life is never an acceptable punishment. It's a terrifying thing to give a state the power to kill as a form of punishment - you only have to look at countries which use the death penalty to see that. We got rid of it here because of miscarriages of justice and the entirely inappropriate use of the death penalty (Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis). Being wrongfully incarcerated is extremely traumatic but the death penalty cannot be undone. It has no deterrent effect - you just need to look at the States to see that. It also encourages societal thinking that means that killing is more likely to occur - again, look at the US. And, whether they see it that way or not, applying the death penalty turns other people (the executioners) into murderers. It's also an extremely expensive system and more expensive than locking up prisoners - again look at the US: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/what-to-know-costs-and-the-death-penalty The death penalty is a terrible thing and detrimental to society.

On principle, I wouldn't be against some rapes and child sexual exploitation crimes getting the death penalty, and quite frequently those convictions can earn a slap on the wrist.

Well do all death penalty countries have lower crime than non-death penalty countries? There seems to be no correlation.

There is no evidence that it has any additional deterrent effect beyond the general threat of imprisonment: https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act500062008en.pdf When people are committing a crime, they're not usually imagining they will get caught. And the US has a much higher murder rate than other western countries, despite having the death penalty.

And it's a huge mistake to give the death penalty to non-homicide crimes; it's just an invitation to the criminal to kill their victim. When South Africa implemented the death penalty for rape - rapists took to murdering their victims. It was decades ago but my DH has a South African friend who was kidnapped, raped and held prisoner and only managed to escape being murdered because one of the gang took pity on her and released her. It also discourages the reporting of the rape if the sentence might be death: https://worldcoalition.org/why-is-the-death-penalty-not-the-answer-to-rape/

A uk comparator is armed robbery. The sentences for taking a gun to a robbery are very very high- as high as murder- whether or not you use it. The sentences for taking a replica gun are very very high also.

for this reason armed robbery is rare in the uk. It’s not worth getting a gun and risking 10
extra years inside vs taking a knife or baseball bat, when effectively all you wanted to do was rob anyway.

Thanks, @Backedoffhackedoff - that's interesting.

Are you not aware of what a prison is??

I never understand why people talk about these punishments as a deterrant. Aside from the fact that statistically we know the death penalty absolutely does not work as a deterrant, it also suggests that people only don't commit awful crimes for fear of the punishment. I don't know about others, but the reason I don't go around killing people is because it is against my morals and values, not because I'm worried about going to prison etc. Even if there was no punishment for doing so, I still wouldn't do it. And therefore also won't support state santioned killing.

I would hope that most people feel similarly - that with or without the 'deterrant', you would have no desire to take another human's life. And the people that don't feel like that will not be deterred by any punishment they're threatened with (because they still continue to commit these crimes, even in countries where the death penalty is used).