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 ?

It's not supposed to be an argument, it's to emphasise the point has been made over and over already, and still the "it will save money" nonsense gets repeated ad infinitum.

Yes, because you can wisen up, like most of the individual States themselves have, that you can save money, avoid accidentally murdering innocent people in the name of "justice", and start living in the 21st Century by just doing away with the archaic, barbaric, self-defeating idiocy which is Capital Punishment.

It isn't occasional though. Ian Hislop has explained this very clearly. Almost every issue of the Private Eye has an article uncovering a miscarriage of justice most of which are murders. The Private Eye has 26 issues a year over multiple decades now. That's a lot of people. There are 1500-1800 cases referred to the CCRC per year usually an average of 45ish are referred back to the appeal courts where people are then released. The CCRC are very overwhelmed. At least 900 people have been found since 1997 to have been wrongfully convicted. You can't possibly imagine the scale of the issue if you haven't properly researched this. To set this into scale with fatal dog attacks, 48 have been killed in a 5 year period. Not 48 every year. Also if we're getting rid of dogs then cows, bees and insects need to go as well.

It wasn't very effective, then. Or persuasive. Or accurate.

In Singapore, for instance, it appears that the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment. And certainly, it's not impossible to make execution cheaper than forty years in prison. You can argue you're against it for reasons of principle, but not because it being cheaper is 'nonsense'.

How many people are wrongly convicted of a crime that would be severe enough to merit the death penalty, however?

20 people were killed by dogs in 2023 alone, although yes, it's usually 5 to 10 per year, it seems. And the number of deaths has grown over recent years – not to mention how many life changing injuries there must be, especially for small children.

Cows (arguably), bees, and insects are necessary. Dogs are not. So clearly, you're actually fine with innocent people being unnecessarily and preventably killed. It's hypocritical in terms of reasoning.

@OtterlyAstounding so given you're fine with innocent people being put to death, you would also be totally OK if it was one of your children, your spouse, or a sibling? What makes you think it couldn't happen to one of them?

I think your mindset is completely immoral.

And half of those deaths were caused by the XL bully which is now banned other breeds are severely restricted. Working dogs, it could be argued, are necessary. We as a country have taken actions on the dog risk so clearly we aren't fine with innocent people being killed or nothing would have been done. We have restricted many things that came with a risk from guns to knives to car speeds and car safety measures etc. The country will continue to do so. Do deaths happen yes. Are we fine with it clearly not or guns, knives, certain dog breeds and cars with no seat belts would still be common. Your logical fallacy is that no action is taken to prevent unnecessary deaths. Clearly action is taken and balanced with risk levels.

Are you against dog ownership, then, given the inevitable innocent deaths and life changing injuries that result from it? It's apparently immoral if you're not, according to your logic. After all, someone you love could be killed by a dog.

And as I've already said on this thread, so far no one I love has ever been wrongly accused of a crime, so I think we'd be fine. We're much more likely to be mauled by a dog, killed by a car driven by a drunk driver, or die of a cancer that could be treated if we had a better health system or our family could afford private treatment.

Allowing the random killing of innocent people, is being a sadistic murderer. You are entirely, 100%, on the same level as as every other murderer of every kind if you believe that.

And we wouldnt take tips from those people about the justice system, so we shouldn't from you.

Of course it saves money.

So your response is 'I'm alright, Jack', and you think it's fine for another family to lose a loved one through a miscarriage of justice.... Wow.

The dog ownership thing is whataboutery.

No. It doesn’t.

The death penalty costs more than life in prison because of the constant legal challenges from death row prisoners.

Any breed can kill a baby. Working dogs might be arguably necessary, much like knives and cars, but not pet dogs. So if you're in favour of pet dogs, you're fine with unnecessary and preventable deaths. It seems hypocritical to be fine with that while being horrified by the death penalty.

You seem to lack reading comprehension. I nowhere indicated that I was fine with it. But I'm also not fine with the other things I listed, which are much more likely, and actually currently a risk.

Why is dog ownership whataboutery? That just seems like you trying to dodge a point that you can't argue against.

Anyway, I've said my piece, and I'm not particularly interested in going in circles with hypocrites. Especially given the quality of argument from some has devolved to 'you're just as bad as a sadistic murderer!' As someone who has suffered from CSA and rape, I know exactly what sadism is firsthand, and I know I am very much not a sadist. So. I'm bowing out.

You're conflating risk with certainty. We know for certain that the death penalty, which isn't necessary or particularly effective as a deterrent, will kill innocent people. The average family Labrador is not certain to kill anyone. Yes there's a (very small) risk but not a certainty. Equally, as you point out, we allow cars which are significantly higher risk and with some adjustments to the public transport system potentially unnecessary. Accepting risk is different to accepting certainty.

Yes, the Singapore outlier, which has been brought up repeatedly in this thread, and always by people who completely ignore the fact that politically speaking Singapore is every bit undemocratic as the PRC, and it's also one of the most regressive, illiberal, backward, and callous nations in Asia.

No wonder they execute people "efficiently" when they have practically no regard for human life, legal rights, civil rights, equalities etc.

"We should be more like Singapore" is the last thing anyone should be advocating

I wasn't the one who started the dog comparison. I haven't mentioned it because it's irrelevant. So no hypocrisy there.

You on the other hand are someone who doesn't value innocent human life. If you think it's acceptable for someone who has not committed any crime to be killed by the law then you are indeed no better than any murderer. You are running away from that.

Evidence here says otherwise...

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/research/analysis/reports/international-perspectives-on-the-death-penalty-a-costly-isolation-for-the-u-s

Where's your evidence for your claim?

"How many people are wrongly convicted of a crime that would be severe enough to merit the death penalty, however?"

Even if it is 1 person in 50 years, it's still an innocent person being killed.

Would you still be for the death sentence knowing your child could get wrongfully convicted? And it's your child that was killed?

It doesn't matter if you think they'd never do anything wrong. It's a thought exercise if sorts.

Imagine living in a country where there is a death penalty, and the system makes mistakes. Would you support the death penalty, knowing it could be you, or your child or a loved one that could be executed by mistake. Would accept that as collateral damage because 99.9% of others were "deserving " and actually guilty?

I think the Axel Rudakubanas of the world should have it applied. When the crime is so heinous and there is no chance of a miscarriage of justice then yes, put them to death.

And who would do this? Would you be willing to do it? Not for AR specifically, but generally.

That's a fair question as it would probably be one of the toughest jobs, but if the job paid enough the yes, I think someone could.

Throughout history men have done the job. Maybe not here in the past sixty odd years, but it's always been done. At least we wouldn't have to raise an axe above the block these days.

My opinion on the death penalty has changed in recent years. I used to be very much opposed, but slowly I've gotten my head around the idea that perhaps we do need it as an example in order to deter others. But as I said before, only in heinous, clear cases.

But would you be willing to do it and know that you might murder the wrong person?

No, I don't think I would be willing to do it, much like I wouldn't be willing to become a secondary school teacher. But whether I would or not doesn't really matter though, as somebody would. Assisted Suicide is being pushed, and in the countries that already have it those with non-terminal illnesses are killed. There are employees at Dignitas.

Would you .... know[ing] that you might murder the wrong person?
Like I said before, only in very clear cases. Black and white, no grey area.

Singapore manages to make execution cheaper because they routinely deny people access to legal representation during questioning and for the appeals process.

Imagine if Sally Clarke had been denied legal representation for her appeal?

Singapore is not a nation to seek to emulate. If you fancy living in a country able to execute you without proper legal process, move to Singapore. Don't drag the UK down to your barbaric level.