With a life sentence though as mentioned it is reversible, if mistakes were found to have been made. A lot of people would see death as worse.
In terms of re offenders go, I think it says more about our prison system than the individuals. The majority of criminals aren't psychotic killers who do it for the sheer pleasure, and if prisons focused more on rehabilitation and then support after release we would probably see the percentages of people re offending go down.
The majority of criminals aren't psychotic killers who do it for the sheer pleasure, and if prisons focused more on rehabilitation and then support after release we would probably see the percentages of people re offending go down.
Precisely, the real answer is having a more appropriate rehab system in place to stem the flow of re offenders.
There might well be a work around to make death the cheaper option financially, but there's no doubt it absolutely is the cheapest option morally. That's not a 'filthy lefty' opinion, that's a belief in the fundamental decency of mankind to be better, to do better.
That's easy to say up until the point where you're in the situation where those are your two options. I'm not sure everyone here would make that choice if they actually had to.
It accomplishes keeping the worst of the worst off our streets and will save millions of pounds and maybe more lives.
Revenge ? No, it's what they deserve.
If a person can't respect life why should we respect theirs?
It accomplishes keeping the worst of the worst off our streets and will save millions of pounds and maybe more lives.
Revenge ? No, it's what they deserve.
If a person can't respect life why should we respect theirs?
In some cases we know with 100% certainty we have the guilty man. There is no doubt or uncertainty. In these sort of cases, where the crimes committed are so horrific and reprehensible (for example, Dennis Nilsen the serial killer and necrophiliac, or Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper), any decent society with a proper respect for the lives of the innocent victims would execute the murder.
The question to those not in favor of the death penalty is why in this kind of case, should the murderer not be executed?
To anyone who seeks to answer the question: Don't hide in the margins and say something like 'but we don't know with 100% certainty'; suppose we have clear evidence that the individual is guilty, and then try to answer the question.
In very specific cases like that, where the murder admits his guilt, shows no remorse and shows no potential for rehabilitation, then that is fine. In the vast majority of cases there is at least some doubt and any case with even the smallest bit of doubt there should be a process to appeal for the sake of scrutinising a possibly wrong decision. These appeals end up costing insane amounts in the form of legal fees.
The logic of executing murderers is idiotic. Killing people is judged to be wrong, so for society to then kill people for killing other people also has to be wrong.
The logic of executing murderers is idiotic. Killing people is judged to be wrong, so for society to then kill people for killing other people also has to be wrong.
There are plenty of circumstances where most (Though I accept not all) people would accept that killing is NOT wrong and is actually perfectly acceptable (if perhaps regrettable after the event)
Warfare
Self defence
In the defence of a third party.
End of life euthanasia (Still debatable, but many approve)
And so on (I am sure there are many other examples)
Execution for certain crimes is just another one of those examples where Killing is not considered wrong by a significant number of people
Those who are in favour of having execution as an available legal sanction are not making the "Killing people is wrong, so those that do it deserve to die" argument at all.
(Indeed, For me, "Most" murderers probably would not deserve execution, and yet there are other criminals whose offences do not involve Murder that undoubtedly richly deserve it )
They are making the argument that, under certain circumstances, legal execution is entirely justifiable and a useful tool (for whatever reasons) in the sentencing armoury.
To use the "Killing people is judged to be wrong, so for society to then kill people for killing other people also has to be wrong" as an anti-capital punishment argument is therefore much straw man.
It accomplishes keeping the worst of the worst off our streets and will save millions of pounds and maybe more lives.
Revenge ? No, it's what they deserve.
If a person can't respect life why should we respect theirs?
It is all to the good that any myth should be expunged by the cauterising effect of truth, but there are even more fundamental assumptions underlying the whole criminal justice system. They are these:
Jurors can safely rely on the memory of an honest witness;
Jurors can safely assess when a witness’s memory is mistaken;
Jurors can safely assess when a witness is lying.
Unfortunately, each one of these assumptions is a myth: a “commonly held belief that is not true.”
Killing people is not the answer. An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. Keep him alive and make him endure his captivity, that's punishment. I'll happily pay a few more pence in taxes to fund his incarceration.
Well, up untill the point where it was abolsihed...
The Murder Act of 1752 specified that execution take place two days after sentence, unless the third day was a Sunday in which case it would be held over until the Monday. From 1834, a minimum of two Sundays had to elapse before the sentence was carried out, and from 1868 onwards, three Sundays. From 1902, this was reinforced by the Home Office, which suggested Tuesday as the day for execution. In some cases, 20th century prisoners spent longer in the condemned cell due to waiting for their appeal hearing, but many condemned chose not to appeal and their execution was frequently carried out within the three week period.
So typically right up to the 1960's, It would appear that execution was typically carried out within a month of sentence being handed down.
As highlighted, The Condemned were granted an (automatic IIRC) appeal , but interestingly, most did not take up the offer.
So certainly, The process was not a particularly expensive one compared to long term imprisonment. The main extraordinary fee must have been Pierrpoints. A mere £15/Drop
One might think that there must have been many miscarriages of justice as a result of this rather speedy process.
And yet, despite much searching and campaigning, Abolitionists seem only to have tracked down 5 or so.
I cant believe there were not more, but like these examples, most would be because of views on mitigation rather than fact and "Safeness" over "exoneration"
Derek Bentley was hanged in 1953. In a robbery during which Craig was carrying a gun, Bentley, who had a mental age of 10, shouted “Let him have it!” to his friend who then shot PC Miles. Bentley’s defence claimed he meant for Craig to give miles the gun, but the prosecution alleged he meant to shoot him. He was posthumously pardoned in 1993, and his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in 1998, after a long campaign by his sister Iris. Unfortunately, she did not live to see it.
Ruth Ellis was the last woman to be executed in England for the murder of her lover, David Blakely, at Holloway Prison in 1955. The jury took just 14 minutes to find her guilty. Ellis did not appeal against her conviction. Ellis’ family campaigned for her murder conviction to be reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation. They argued Ellis was suffering “battered woman syndrome”. She had suffered a miscarriage just 10 days before the killing after David Blakely had punched her in the stomach. The defence of diminished responsibility did not then exist.
Timothy Evans was hanged in 1950, convicted of the murder of his wife and daughter, later found to have been actually committed by his neighbour, the serial killer John Christie. In an investigation marked with poor practice, the police failed to find other human remains in Christie’s garden, and were alleged to have coerced a false confession from Evans. He was granted a royal pardon (posthumously) in 1966, but despite an attempt to have the conviction quashed in 2004, judges refused on grounds of cost- although they accepted he hadn’t been guilty.
George Kelly was hanged in 1950, convicted of the murders of Leonard Thomas and John Catterall in a burglary of the Cameo Cinema in Liverpool. The investigation led to Kelly as a small-time criminal active in the area. Kelly’s conviction was overturned in 2003, after it came to light that Merseyside Police had ignored reports of an apparently genuine confession from another man.
Mahmood Hussein Mattan was a Somali national hanged in 1952 for the murder of Lily Volpert. He was arrested and charged by police after testimony from another suspect in the case, which more closely matched another suspect, not Mattan. Evidence was also omitted from court of an eyewitness identification which seemed to exonerate Mattan. His case was the first to be reviewed by the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, and in 1998 the Court of Appeal found the case was “demonstrably flawed”.
Bentley and Ellis were undoubtedly guilty, There is no question as the the facts as to what they had done.
They may have been worthy of clemency, but neither were "Innocent"
Kellys conviction was "Unsound" and Mattans even more "Unsound" since, had withheld evidence been made available, the convictions might not have happened. (This is not the same as full exoneration however, Jurys can be fickle and still might have found them both guilty nevertheless)
The only one that seems to be a clear miscarriage of justice is that of Timothy Evens. (Framed by Christie and the Police fell for it.)
It is inevitable that there will be miscarriages of justice, though they become less likely over time. We should not be judging cases from 20-30 years ago (Or even more) when considering the current trial environment. Nor should we compare ourselves with the USA or anywhere else for that matter.
If this is indeed the worst of it, especially combined with the fact that most condemned didn't appeal (Who wouldn't if they were not guilty) then our checks and balances must have been pretty good really. and truly wrongful executions really rather rare, even back then.
I also remember reading somewhere that In the UK typically half of capital sentences were commuted to prison sentences, so there was a fair degree of Clemency shown in "Difficult" cases, and indeed, where the authorities might have felt uncomfortable about the conviction (Even if they didn't say so at the time)
So yes, it is perfectly possible to have a death penalty protocol that does not need to turn into a Lawyers gravy Train while at the same time, maintaining a degree of safety that will keep wrongful executions to a minimum.
Killing people is not the answer. An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. Keep him alive and make him endure his captivity, that's punishment. I'll happily pay a few more pence in taxes to fund his incarceration.
Mr Moses, you have been found 100% guilty. Not only have you confessed but witness and forensic evidence shows you to be 100% guilty. You will be taken straight from this courtroom and executed.
Now multiply that by 100's and 1000's and that saved money can be used for more worthwhile things.
and the award for the most stupid saying of the day "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind" what a load of garbage.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
....