To wonder if those in favour of the death penalty would be able to pass the sentence themselves?

[couldyoudoit]

Inspired by recent threads about people wanting the death penalty reintroduced, I was wondering - if there was an option for the family member of a murdered person to execute the person who did it, would you do it?

I am very fundamentally opposed to any kind of death penalty but I’m curious to know if those who do agree with it could do the deed themselves, and if so, where would you draw the line regarding method? I suspect a lot of people in favour would be ok pressing a button to administer lethal injection/pulling a lever to drop a trapdoor but would be less keen to (for example) chop someone’s head off with an axe or set them on fire?

Not really an AIBU but I’m really interested in the responses. Not looking to judge anyone for their stance either way, just curious about the thought processes.

NB* Not a journalist or writing any sort of article!

I would want irrefutable evidence that they were guilty but yes, I absolutely would. Take monsters like Axel Rudakubana for example. I would be proud to fulfil such a public duty in his case.

what do you think it means that "it's forbidden"? it doesn't mean it can't be changed, amended, rewritten.

Different topic but that's a very good reason why women and gay rights are not taken for granted either. Because acts are not worth anything when the body in charge or the majority decide to move on.

Haven't people not noticed how quickly things can change with the lockdowns? It doesn't take much.

If someone harmed my children the yes I could.

Laws can and should be changed when society changes.

So yes, while I am broadly in favor of the HRA, I would be comfortable changing this aspect of it (and those aspects of it that were introduced to help refugees after the world wars but now are abused by foreign criminals and the illegal immigration business).

If your sister or daughter was Sara Everard or your daughter/niece was one of Huntleys victims would you be happy their killer was living their life in jail. Huntley in jail walking about in his Man Utd shirt!!! I don't think we felt sorry for his murder and the death sentence was certainly deserved there.

I don't think we should make any assumptions about how the relatives of people who've been murdered think about the death penalty. I think some would possibly surprise you.

I doubt it.
I am a Catholic. I believe in forgiveness but I also believe in an eye for an eye and not turning the other cheek when the person is evil. It’s a thin line.

I've no idea what that organisation is (never heard of it) but seems to be US based so irrelevant.

I think people on here are getting confused between the ECHR and HRA. The ECHR came into force in 1953 and was a response to the war and in no way anticipated the situations we have now so should be abolished but is cleaved to by liberals and human rights lawyers like Starmer as it suits them. But we did previously execute people under it as the last UK execution was in 1964. The HRA was brought in by Tony Blair in 2000 and enshrined the ECHR in law. It had mainly benefited criminals and illegal immigrants as has meant even rapists and murderers can't be deported and benefited mainly human rights lawyers like Blair and Starmer (and said criminals). Again I would abolish it as for most of my life it wasn't in force and the immigration system worked better, indeed in the 80s and 90s immigration was a non-issue as was very efficient and I don't remember any cases like we get now.

I think you’re confused to be honest. Yes ECHR was a post war action but it has since been amended and capital punishment has been prohibited across the block since 1985 when protocol 6 came into effect. This was further strengthened in 2002 when it became prohibited during war too, protocol 13.

The HRA is a mechanism to apply the law as it has been decided in Strasbourg to U.K. courts (stare decicis) essentially lower courts are bound by higher courts decision making. So every time a decision is made (or a protocol amended) in Strasbourg it automatically becomes the standard for U.K. courts.

Yes thanks for the clarification. I think we need to leave both of them and join the majority of countries in the world

So you’re a selective about the bits of religion you adhere to? Because doesn’t the bible literally say you have to turn the other cheek?

Of course I am selective.
Yes, the New Testament does.
Under normal circumstances that’s the best option, forgiveness is freeing however to turn the cheek on evil doesn’t change anything. Human nature kicks up, protecting the innocent against the tyranny.

do you really want to start taking the translations of the entire Bible literally? 😂

Objectivly im agsinst the Death penalty
But if somone maimed or killed either of my children
I woud want them to suffer a painful death
Which i guess is why the loved ones of people who have been murdered get no say in the length of sentence etc

I'm against the death penalty but my mum was abusive to me as a child. I feel nothing for her and would be pleased if she died. I could press a button for her if told to and there would be no comeback.

yes I 💯 % support it and would happily pass that sentence

Yes and a lot of scientific advances since 1964, which can more definitely prove gulit.

I would execute someone who had harmed a child. Also Simon Levi. They would not know they were going to die though and they wouldn't suffer - I'd organise a way they could be in a special room which was fitted with a vent to disperse poisonous gas (something like carbon monoxide). Their eyes would get heavy and close and they would quietly die. And good riddance.

A friend of mine is old enough to remember when we had capital punishment in the uk

His comment was that he thought that it coarsened society

I wonder how many of them would be so pro death penalty if they had to kill the person themselves, and/or would agree to receiving the death penalty themselves if that person was later found to be innocent?