Do you agree with death penalty?

[Bungle965]

Capital Punishment has had a varied history around the world, and continues to be the subject of much debate.

Do you think that as a society we should have the death penalty for murder, or for heinous crimes.
For
It could be good justice `Eye for an Eye`
It reduces the cost over custodial sentences
Against
There is always a risk of miscarriage of justice
The state is bringing itself down to the level of a criminal
Does it make society too barbaric?
Personally I believe that the death penalty is wrong, because I believe in universal human rights, however it could have some advantages when it comes to terrorism.
Sam

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Absolutely not. State endorsed vengeance.

 

[bb21]

I can see this one ending badly. Have a browse of previous discussions.

 

[Busaholic]

For anyone who wasn't around at the time when the death penalty was abolished in the UK (save for treason and arson in Her Majesty's Dockyards), which I guess is the vast majority of people on this forum, may I suggest a reading of Brendan Behan's 'The Quare Fellow'. It had a tremendous effect on me, and convinced me that Sidney Silverman, the back-bench Labour MP who was absolutely instrumental in achieving this fundamental change in law, was right. Time has not altered my view, but I do believe more, but by no means all, life sentences should mean just that.

 

[NSEFAN]

It could be good justice `Eye for an Eye`

It would be good in Game of Thrones, not so much in the modern world.

It reduces the cost over custodial sentences

Not really. Look at how long prisoners can be kept on death row in the USA.

 

[trevwilliams]

Another reason against is people have to be involved in administering it. Is it fair to ask people to kill or be involved in the killing?

 

[Mojo]

I think one of the reasons for being against is that death isn't really a punishment. Let them suffer in prison.

 

[trevwilliams]

I think one of the reasons for being against is that death isn't really a punishment. Let them suffer in prison.

Agreed. Ian Brady is a great example of this being a worse punishment than death. The man wants to die, and the state will not let him.

 

[tony_mac]

It reduces the cost over custodial sentences

The experience of the USA is very much the opposite.
e.g.,

Seattle University study finds Washington death penalty cases cost at least $1 million more than when death not sought

https://law.seattleu.edu/newsroom/2015-news/seattle-university-study-finds-washington-death-penalty-cases-cost-at-least-1-million-more-than-when-death-not-sought

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The main reason I have opposition to it is because you can't trust those in power - if you could I would have no problems with it whatsoever.

There are just some people who are and will always be a threat to anyone around them and it is not fair to the staff at institutions housing them to be at risk every day they are in contact with such people - plus there is the prospect that they may escape or even be released.
Now for some 'made up 'figures well not really but for the very very rare miscarriages of justice how many innocent victims have there been of 'mad dog' murderers who have been released to kill again ? It would be nice to see a comparison of people executed wrongly and people murdered by released psychopaths - every time anyone bleats about Timothy Evans or the 'what if' about the Guildford 4 can we have a little balance towards those who have lost their lives to people whoare vicious killers who were deemed okay to release after 10 or 15 years in prison.

The death penalty is NOT a deterrent, it SHOULDN'T be vengeance but it CAN protect the innocent from those who are a continual threat.

 

[Harbornite]

I used to be in favour of it because it obviously removes the risk of reoffending, but you would need to be 100% sure that the person being executed is guilty.


Now though, I'm not really sure because it does seem like an outdated relic of an earlier age. In the USA, it's got to the point where life imprisonment is cheaper than lethal injections due to the EU halting the supply of the chemicals needed. If I had to make a choice, it should only be used in extreme cases but I'm not sure what. I don't really want it reintroduced.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The main reason I have opposition to it is because you can't trust those in power - if you could I would have no problems with it whatsoever.

There are just some people who are and will always be a threat to anyone around them and it is not fair to the staff at institutions housing them to be at risk every day they are in contact with such people - plus there is the prospect that they may escape or even be released.
Now for some 'made up 'figures well not really but for the very very rare miscarriages of justice how many innocent victims have there been of 'mad dog' murderers who have been released to kill again ? It would be nice to see a comparison of people executed wrongly and people murdered by released psychopaths - every time anyone bleats about Timothy Evans or the 'what if' about the Guildford 4 can we have a little balance towards those who have lost their lives to people whoare vicious killers who were deemed okay to release after 10 or 15 years in prison.

The death penalty is NOT a deterrent, it SHOULDN'T be vengeance but it CAN protect the innocent from those who are a continual threat.

We don't make decisions based on utilitarian calculations about more people dying. There are far more sophisticated measures such as quality of life etc.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

We don't make decisions based on utilitarian calculations about more people dying. There are far more sophisticated measures such as quality of life etc.

....apart from dropping bombs on civilians on Iraq you mean

 

[Domh245]

This is a good topic to discuss, I recommend adding a poll (can that be done, mods?) I used to be in favour of it because it obviously removes the risk of reoffending, but you would need to be 100% sure that the person being executed is guilty.

I wonder what sort of sentence the crime of "persistent starting of polls" would receive from the RailUK courts!

 

[Harbornite]

I wonder what sort of sentence the crime of "persistent starting of polls" would receive from the RailUK courts!

Death by 1000 lashes I should imagine, although the forum stasi could use a more subtle method!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

For anyone who wasn't around at the time when the death penalty was abolished in the UK (save for treason and arson in Her Majesty's Dockyards), which I guess is the vast majority of people on this forum, may I suggest a reading of Brendan Behan's 'The Quare Fellow'. It had a tremendous effect on me, and convinced me that Sidney Silverman, the back-bench Labour MP who was absolutely instrumental in achieving this fundamental change in law, was right. Time has not altered my view, but I do believe more, but by no means all, life sentences should mean just that.

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 still excluded treason from its strictures and I have often wondered why in 1984, some 15 years after the passing of that Act, the MI5 officer Michael Bettaney was convicted of treason at the Old Bailey, but only received a sentence of 23 years imprisonment and in 1998, he was released on parole.

 

[Harbornite]

I have created a poll on another thread, it would be good if the mods could merge the two threads.

www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=133402
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 still excluded treason from its strictures and I have often wondered why in 1984, some 15 years after the passing of that Act, the MI5 officer Michael Bettaney was convicted of treason at the Old Bailey, but only received a sentence of 23 years imprisonment and in 1998, he was released on parole.

Coincidentally, the death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Death by 1000 lashes I should imagine, although the forum stasi could use a more subtle method!

Death by a thousand cuts (Lingchi) was still practiced in China until as late as its abolition in 1905.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Coincidentally, the death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998.

But that does not explain why Michael Betteney was not executed in 1984, some 15 years prior to that abolition.

 

[Harbornite]

Death by a thousand cuts (Lingchi) was still practiced in China until as late as its abolition in 1905.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



But that does not explain why Michael Betteney was not executed in 1984, some 15 years prior to that abolition.

I know that, hence why I said it was a coincidence. Do you know what method would have been employed, had he been sentenced for execution?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I know that, hence why I said it was a coincidence. Do you know what method would have been employed, had he been sentenced for execution?

As a matter of comparison, John Amery who was convicted of treason after openly admitting to his crime in court, suffered death by hanging in Wandsworth Prison on 19th December 1945. The execution was carried out by the noted Albert Pierrepoint.

 

[GB]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 still excluded treason from its strictures and I have often wondered why in 1984, some 15 years after the passing of that Act, the MI5 officer Michael Bettaney was convicted of treason at the Old Bailey, but only received a sentence of 23 years imprisonment and in 1998, he was released on parole.

Was he convicted of treason or espionage? The death penalty for espionage was withdrawn in 1981.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I note the OP's mention of terrorism cases being a potential valid use of capital punishment- I'd argue that in crimes with a political motivation all the death penalty does is create more martyrdom which would act as a recruiting device for those who share those aims.

Ultimately though, I believe the mark of how civilised a society is comes from how it treats its least desirable citizens. I'm not a believer in any form of magic sky-fairy but I do have some respect for the sanctity of human life- even for those individuals who have broken that themselves. Ultimately capital punishment is vengeance rather than justice, so has no place in a just legal system.

 

[AlterEgo]

Re: OP's suggestion that terrorist criminals should receive the death penalty.

You only have to look at the Irish hunger strike of 1981 to see how counterproductive that would be in creating martyrs.

 

[DaleCooper]

If the death penalty had not been abolished the Birmingham Six, rather than being wrongly imprisoned, would most likely have been wrongly executed.

 

[Passenger John]

http://www.lifelines-uk.org.uk

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ultimately though, I believe the mark of how civilised a society is comes from how it treats its least desirable citizens. I'm not a believer in any form of magic sky-fairy but I do have some respect for the sanctity of human life- even for those individuals who have broken that themselves. Ultimately capital punishment is vengeance rather than justice, so has no place in a just legal system.

I also believe in sanctity of human life, although realistically, I wonder if it's more by way of an ideal that can never fully be achieved in practice.

As a thought-experiment... Suppose you have someone who has committed multiple violent crimes, shown no remorse, and it appears that in order to protect more people from having their lives destroyed in some manner, there is likely to be no choice but to keep this individual locked up for the rest of his life (which, let's face it, is not going to be much of a life for that individual). Suppose further that for the cost of keeping this individual locked up, you could give the money to the health service and perform operations that would save several other people's lives every year. How does the sanctity of life argument stack up in that situation?

Notice I've also framed this example so that there is no suggestion of vengeance anywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It reduces the cost over custodial sentences

The experience of the USA is very much the opposite.

Is that a problem with the death penalty per se, or is it a problem with the US legal system? In the not too-distant past, many other democratic nations also had the death penalty, and I'm not aware of those countries having had the same problem of costs spiralling out of control.

 

[90019]

Now though, I'm not really sure because it does seem like an outdated relic of an earlier age. In the USA, it's got to the point where life imprisonment is cheaper than lethal injections due to the EU halting the supply of the chemicals needed.

It's not the EU, but the companies that make the chemicals refusing to sell them to the American legal system.
I believe Pfizer bought out the last company that allowed their products to be used for executions at some point last year and changed the restrictions on their distribution earlier this year, meaning they can no longer be used for lethal injections.

 

[Lankyline]

Whilst those wanting to bring back the death penalty have plenty of examples to pick from to justify this given the heinous nature of their crimes, namely Brady (as mentioned) Hindley, Yorkshire ripper, Shipman etc etc, there is still no getting around the possibility that in some cases the possibility of a miscarriage of justice could have taken place. Personally I would have hung all of the above, but that's just me.
My issue is that now life imprisonment does not mean life, thanks to the human rights act, tariffs etc, for those crimes that justify a life sentence that's exactly what it should be, life.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 still excluded treason from its strictures and I have often wondered why in 1984, some 15 years after the passing of that Act, the MI5 officer Michael Bettaney was convicted of treason at the Old Bailey, but only received a sentence of 23 years imprisonment and in 1998, he was released on parole.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 abolished the death penalty for treason and piracy, which were the last two remaining crimes for which it could be chosen.

 

[Antman]

Capital Punishment has had a varied history around the world, and continues to be the subject of much debate.

Do you think that as a society we should have the death penalty for murder, or for heinous crimes.
For
It could be good justice `Eye for an Eye`
It reduces the cost over custodial sentences
Against
There is always a risk of miscarriage of justice
The state is bringing itself down to the level of a criminal
Does it make society too barbaric?
Personally I believe that the death penalty is wrong, because I believe in universal human rights, however it could have some advantages when it comes to terrorism.
Sam

Arguments for and against it.

The obvious one against it being the possibility of somebody being executed for something they didn't do. For what it's worth I've always had serious doubts about Michael Stone's conviction for the Chillenden murders.

On the other hand, the killers of Lee Rigby and creatures like Sutcliffe and Huntley. There would appear to be no doubt whatsoever of their guilt so what is the point in keeping them alive at great expense to the public purse?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst those wanting to bring back the death penalty have plenty of examples to pick from to justify this given the heinous nature of their crimes, namely Brady (as mentioned) Hindley, Yorkshire ripper, Shipman etc etc, there is still no getting around the possibility that in some cases the possibility of a miscarriage of justice could have taken place. Personally I would have hung all of the above, but that's just me.
My issue is that now life imprisonment does not mean life, thanks to the human rights act, tariffs etc, for those crimes that justify a life sentence that's exactly what it should be, life.

It's worth bearing in mind that anybody sentenced to life will never be totally free, if they are ever released it would be subject to various conditions being adhered too.