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 ?

What would you do with Lucy Letby OP? Convicted of multiple child murders. I personally believe she is guilty but there's plenty who don't, and yet she's been convicted, is she off to the gallows?

I’m sure the parents of those little girls would advocate it fully.

The money should be spent on the failings in the system, particularly around mental health and children's social care. Not on killing people

that one id say not yet, the whole case is fishy at best

That won't bring the innocent back to life.

Did you read about any of those cases before replying?

i’d gladly fry child killers/rapists, serial killers, mass murderers/terrorists, genocidal maniacs like hitler etc. All completely justifiable and fair in my book. Maybe that makes me a savage but i don’t care. These people can’t be in society and I don’t want to pay to keep them alive so…🤷‍♀️

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

So where does the line get drawn? You end up with a US death row for 30 years system. Saving nothing , costing more in constant appeals and legal process, for what end?

Miscarriages of justice? Just unlucky for the innocent person killed by the state?

im talking about going forward with better tech better forensics not using old cases as reasons not to

Probably not.

What about a convicted serial killer like Lucy Letby? Who might very well not be guilty? Wrongful convictions will always still be a possibility in an imperfect criminal justice system. If they’ve been executed, there’s no going back.

@PenelopeJoanSterling I would like to see zero peadophiles on earth. Although I would never want the responsibility for making a decision whether to execute them or not - it’s not my place or anyone else’s to decide who lives or dies.

So you didn't read about the cases.

Surely she's just collateral damage if her conviction is unsound. Why hesitate? You're OK with some people being murdered by the state in error, so what's the problem?

I just think there are some people who are never going to be rehabilitated

This isn't really in debate. The State already acknowledges this by dint of the Whole Life Tariff and the fact that there are some prisoners the Parole Board will never deem fit for release despite being incarcerated for long enough that they'll go through umpteen parole hearings. So, with people who can't be rehabilitated, the State keeps them in a secure facility for life, and that way ameliorates the risk they pose to society.

The Southport attacker (I wont use his actual name) has also attacked prison guards. He isn’t safe in society or even in prison so it seems. Keeping him alive causes further danger and pain to everyone in contact with him

Then that's really a question of resources, procedures, and processes. If he's a risk to prison staff, then they need to be given the means and resources to deal with that risk first of all, and then the processes developed in order to better tackle problematic prisoners until such time they cease to be such a risk. There are ways of dealing with continually violent prisoners short of just executing them.

Yes, thank you. why?

I can see why people say let's save the money spent on prison and use it to provide medicine/surgery that people need. There are people who are definitely innocent dying and suffering everyday due to the NHS not having enough. And as for those who say the state can't kill if it says killing is wrong, that argument is illogical (as keeping people locked up is normally wrong/illegal, but the state is allowed to do so).
But I am against it, because miscarriages of justice happen.
Agree that anyone should be allowed to choose to have their life ended, whether a prisoner or an ordinary person who is very ill.

If you think that (I agree) then how can you possibly argue for the death penalty?

I think there is an argument for it. Mainly as a deterrent.

I am not so persuaded of the risks of miscarriage of justice as if you look at the US, execution happens so long after the trial that there is such a long legal process that that risk is lowered.

Whether ultimately it is cheaper than incarceration for life is arguable given the legal costs etc but when you see the most horrendous crimes without extenuating circumstances you do wonder why we put up with paying for the perpetrators to be prison at a cost of £75k a year.

No. I'm not even going to engage with this.

because of terrorists and mass murders