Should the UK re-instate the death penalty?

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

killing is justifiable murder ain't yo. doesn't matter if it's state murder or individual murder, still a murder innit

 

[silkyman]

And if that murderer walks free and kills again? Another innocent person dies still. The death penalty should only be used in the most exceptional cases, Huntley and Brady seem to be the two popular examples. Terrorists are another I'd reserve the penalty for.

When exactly are Huntley and Brady going to be let out to be wandering around town to go on another spree?

You can't use reoffending as a reason to bring back the death penalty, and then use two cases who will never, ever walk free again.

With Huntley, of course, half of the country would have strung up Maxine Carr, too. And probably still would.

 

[silkyman]

To whom? A small price to pay.

To people who support him. To other white supremacists. Islamic terrorists use martyrdom as one of their main calls to action. It's a powerful thing for someone to die for their cause. Let him rot. Alternatively, go through appeal after appeal, giving him chance after chance to spew his bile in court, before eventually executing him in 25 years.

 

[Gilly?]

Not even a little bit.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

And if that murderer walks free and kills again? Another innocent person dies still. The death penalty should only be used in the most exceptional cases, Huntley and Brady seem to be the two popular examples. Terrorists are another I'd reserve the penalty for.

'Ordinary' murderers? No, life is adequate because in most murders there is a cause that triggered it, an argument or some such.

Which is why most people are advocating life, and life meaning actual life, no parole or any of that shit. Life in prison.

However for committers of manslaughter, which I, and probably many others understand can be a genuine mistake, then yes, they should have the chance to walk free. For me, it depends on the circumstances of the death of the other party. If it is just a genuine fight gone wrong, then obviously they need imprisonment, however they should still have a chance at life afterwards, as no one (well, very very few people) goes out to have a fight to intentionally kill someone. Premeditated murder should carry a VERY long sentence, but with a chance to get out as long as there is some reason for doing so, and not just that they wanted that person dead.

Murder/manslaughter are very strange things to judge on, and should come down to the individual circumstances of the incident.

Still, no matter what a person has done, I completely disagree with the whole eye for an eye idea. It's fundamentally wrong and something that should have been gotten rid of in the middle ages, not 1965.

 

[slaphead]

When exactly are Huntley and Brady going to be let out to be wandering around town to go on another spree?

You can't use reoffending as a reason to bring back the death penalty, and then use two cases who will never, ever walk free again.

With Huntley, of course, half of the country would have strung up Maxine Carr, too. And probably still would.

Brady and Huntley are not a sort of murders who I was referring to. In both there cases there was not doubt of their guilt. I, as you well know, was referring to convicted murderers where they were convicted beyond resonable doubt but not absolutely. A case in point would be Winston Silcott. Convicted of killing a copper but always maintained his innocence. I have read the case and can see why the jury reached the verdict it did, but me there remained enough doubt not to hang him so life is appropriate. I still have no doubt he was involved in the killing of PC Blakelock, but changes in law have allowed for him to be released.

Another case I've been involoved in study off is Sutcliffe. And no I wouldn't hang him, he has a mental disorder that people far higher qualfied than I have decided it was a factor in his killing spree. Because their always remains a possibility, no matter how small, he could be rehabilitated, then life in a secure hospital is again appropriate.

I can use reoffending as a case for not releasing someone, there have be plenty of cases of people being released on technicalities and have killed again.

Maxine Carr is a crass example to use, she was never involved in the killings and never charged with them. I highly doubt half of an educated country would want her 'strung up' for perverting the course of justice. You do our Justice system a disservice if you think that's true.

As for your point about martyring Brevik, you really think there is a queue of white supremists out there waiting for him to die before seeking his revenge?

 

[spireite]

Brady and Huntley are not a sort of murders who I was referring to. In both there cases there was not doubt of their guilt. I, as you well know, was referring to convicted murderers where they were convicted beyond resonable doubt but not absolutely. A case in point would be Winston Silcott. Convicted of killing a copper but always maintained his innocence. I have read the case and can see why the jury reached the verdict it did, but me there remained enough doubt not to hang him so life is appropriate. I still have no doubt he was involved in the killing of PC Blakelock, but changes in law have allowed for him to be released.

Another case I've been involoved in study off is Sutcliffe. And no I wouldn't hang him, he has a mental disorder that people far higher qualfied than I have decided it was a factor in his killing spree. Because their always remains a possibility, no matter how small, he could be rehabilitated, then life in a secure hospital is again appropriate.

I can use reoffending as a case for not releasing someone, there have be plenty of cases of people being released on technicalities and have killed again.

Maxine Carr is a crass example to use, she was never involved in the killings and never charged with them. I highly doubt half of an educated country would want her 'strung up' for perverting the course of justice. You do our Justice system a disservice if you think that's true.

As for your point about martyring Brevik, you really think there is a queue of white supremists out there waiting for him to die before seeking his revenge?

nt sure if srs

 

[HertsWolf]

True but cases are extremely rare and I have faith in our Justice system over the Americans.

Of the last 26 people to be executed in England, there are serous concerns about the safety of four cases. That's 15% of all executions.
Furthermore, the convictions of two executed people earlier in the 1950s have since been quashed, but it's a bit late now to let them out of prison because they're - errr - dead. A third was pardoned and would almost undoubtedly have his conviction overturned were it not for the high cost of doing so. Three innocent people executed is three too many.

Before having too much faith in our justice system you might want to read up a bit about the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four or any number of people who have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. It's nowhere near as rare as you might believe.

Even if I believed there to be any moral case for murdering people in the name of the law, I have insufficient faith in the capabilities of the police farce, the CPS or our 9,000 year old judges to entrust them with making serious decisions about the lives of others.

 

[JimJams]

If someone punches me in the face and I lose the sight in one eye, can I poke one of their eyes out?

 

[Stevencc]

If someone punches me in the face and I lose the sight in one eye, can I poke one of their eyes out?

Don't be ridiculous. You may blind them in one eye in return.

 

[silkyman]

Brady and Huntley are not a sort of murders who I was referring to. In both there cases there was not doubt of their guilt. I, as you well know, was referring to convicted murderers where they were convicted beyond resonable doubt but not absolutely. A case in point would be Winston Silcott. Convicted of killing a copper but always maintained his innocence. I have read the case and can see why the jury reached the verdict it did, but me there remained enough doubt not to hang him so life is appropriate. I still have no doubt he was involved in the killing of PC Blakelock, but changes in law have allowed for him to be released.

Another case I've been involoved in study off is Sutcliffe. And no I wouldn't hang him, he has a mental disorder that people far higher qualfied than I have decided it was a factor in his killing spree. Because their always remains a possibility, no matter how small, he could be rehabilitated, then life in a secure hospital is again appropriate.

I can use reoffending as a case for not releasing someone, there have be plenty of cases of people being released on technicalities and have killed again.

Maxine Carr is a crass example to use, she was never involved in the killings and never charged with them. I highly doubt half of an educated country would want her 'strung up' for perverting the course of justice. You do our Justice system a disservice if you think that's true.

As for your point about martyring Brevik, you really think there is a queue of white supremists out there waiting for him to die before seeking his revenge?

You explicitly mentioned Huntley and Brady, so I'm basically totally confused. Are you talking about 'life meaning life' or the death penalty here?

Did you now see the witchhunt against Carr, which continues to this day with the press reporting on her life then complaining about the cost of keeping her identity secret - while women who look like her have been attacked? You don't think those people were wanting her strung up at the time?

This was a few months ago: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-vilest-women-maxine-carr-4551920

And as for Brevik. Go and let ISIS know that martyrs don't give people a cause to get behind.

 

[silkyman]

If someone punches me in the face and I lose the sight in one eye, can I poke one of their eyes out?

What if you get the wrong person? Is he then allowed to have your other eye?

That's a point on the death penalty.. If they do get it wrong and someone innocent is executed, can the family of the executed person demand that someone else is killed for their revenge? The judge? The prosecution? The defence? The hangman? Surely they have the same right to a blood debt as the family of the murdered person. (Who get two, assuming the actual killer is eventually found)

 

[HertsWolf]

What if you get the wrong person? Is he then allowed to have your other eye?

That's a point on the death penalty.. If they do get it wrong and someone innocent is executed, can the family of the executed person demand that someone else is killed for their revenge? The judge? The prosecution? The defence? The hangman? Surely they have the same right to a blood debt as the family of the murdered person. (Who get two, assuming the actual killer is eventually found)

Ah! **Now** you're talking! This is the "two wrongs make a right" style of justice, as championed by the tabloid media. All for it! The moral high ground brought to you by the people who brought you phone-hacking, Hitler's Diaries, Katie Hopkins, full page spreads on M-list celebrities, and full features + pics on what Man United players have for elevenses most days.

 

[HertsWolf]

Still, no matter what a person has done, I completely disagree with the whole eye for an eye idea. It's fundamentally wrong and something that should have been gotten rid of in the middle ages, not 1965.

Most people believe the death penalty was abolished in the 1960s.
It wasn't.
It was finally struck off the books in 1998 when the heinous crime of "arson in a naval dockyard" was downgraded from requiring a capital punishment to one requiring 30 days community service or 6 years in Ford, whichever is harder. For several decades, politicians debated whether to get rid of state execution completely but decided "No, let's keep the bit where we can hang peasants who torch 14,000 flared blue trousers, assorted sizes, and two coils of mooring rope. Because that's much worse than killing kids."

In this country, you don't get away lightly for messing with The Establishment. Especially the Navy or Labour peers.

 

[Alty]

You even used the 'drain on society' angle yourself!

I didn't mean drain purely in terms of money. And I made that point among a number of others. And I'm just one bloke. And I've consistently made (often unpopular) points on this forum about the need to increase public spending and taxation significantly.

But don't let facts get in the way, eh?

 

[Alty]

I can't tell if Alty is the real Pagnell or not.

Pags thought everyone who advocated the death penalty (along with anyone else who disagreed with his opinion on cars, phones, computers, football or the weather) was a fucking idiot.

As you well know.

 

[silkyman]

I didn't mean drain purely in terms of money. And I made that point among a number of others. And I'm just one bloke. And I've consistently made (often unpopular) points on this forum about the need to increase public spending and taxation significantly.

But don't let facts get in the way, eh?

What other ways are they a drain? And what have the taxation opinions got to do with the death penalty. You can support higher public spending and not support certain things it's spent on.

 

[JimJams]

What if you get the wrong person? Is he then allowed to have your other eye?

I see (!) what you're saying. In my haste and anger at wasting money on a 3D TV I might get someone that only looks like the attacker. What if they have a twin? Holy shit it might not even need to be an identical one given the state of my fucking boggle eye! Should I go to Specsavers?

 

[silkyman]

What you had and the optician was negligent and gave you a suboptimal optical assessment? Could they then be liable for your later misidentification? And as such liable for their own peeperectomy?

It's a fucking minefield, this, and no mistake.

 

[Gladders]

It's a fucking minefield, this, and no mistake.

Great idea, lets use people convicted to clear minefields, everyone's a winner.

 

[infidel]

If and only If the person is proven beyond all doubt then a big YES!

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

it's basically impossible to prove a crime beyond all doubt. we've had murders where the perps admitted to a crime and later been found innocent for example. u can get close but u can never achieve 100%. basically if u want the death penalty you're accepting u will definitely, at some point, execute innocents in exchange for some cathartic bloodlust. ain't worth it. our society has been developing. we enjoy more freedoms than at any point in our existence, this is a fact. we enjoy more legal equality than at any point in the uk's legal history. reinstituting the death penalty is an undeniable backwards step in our temporal development

 

[silkyman]

Great idea, lets use people convicted to clear minefields, everyone's a winner.

Thread Closed. We have a winner!

 

[lordofthepies]

Thread Closed. We have a winner!

That would definitely be quite expensive.

 

[mowgli]

That would definitely be quite expensive.

Fairly easy to clean up though.

 

[Red]

Of the last 26 people to be executed in England, there are serous concerns about the safety of four cases. That's 15% of all executions.
Furthermore, the convictions of two executed people earlier in the 1950s have since been quashed, but it's a bit late now to let them out of prison because they're - errr - dead. A third was pardoned and would almost undoubtedly have his conviction overturned were it not for the high cost of doing so. Three innocent people executed is three too many.

Before having too much faith in our justice system you might want to read up a bit about the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four or any number of people who have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. It's nowhere near as rare as you might believe.

Even if I believed there to be any moral case for murdering people in the name of the law, I have insufficient faith in the capabilities of the police farce, the CPS or our 9,000 year old judges to entrust them with making serious decisions about the lives of others.

Not for those who favour the death penalty, it's totally acceptable to them, until you ask them what their opinion would be if one of their family members was to be executed despite being innocent.

 

[Red]

Great idea, lets use people convicted to clear minefields, everyone's a winner.

You're a bit fucked up aren't you?

 

[silkyman]

Don't think he was being entirely serious, chief.

 

[Gladders]

gotta plant some more minefields first tho

plenty of minefields down the Falklands still.

 

[lordofthepies]

It's gonna be hundreds of years until Cambodia and Laos are free of unexploded bombs and mines. They could use the help.