Mother killed her kids because they got in the way of her sex life is jailed for life.

[StriderX]

That is already a possibility... for example see the Iranian embassy siege, for example.

Likewise at times in Northern Ireland it was deemed preferable to wait for situations where IRA members could be legally killed rather than pre-emptively arrest them.

I'm not talking about the shady allegations of collusion but say receiving intelligence that an attack is to take place and rather than arresting the members of an IRA unit and then not necessarily having sufficient evidence to necessarily convict all of them instead take the risk, wait for them to carry on and attempt the attack and then ambush and kill them.

The UK isn't a war zone and that sort of comparison is wholly inappropriate, we're talking about a system of justice here in peacetime.

 

[dowie]

The UK isn't a war zone and that sort of comparison is wholly inappropriate, we're talking about a system of justice here.

The person you talked about was talking about the government making a choice to kill people. Those killings can be carried out as a matter of choice/policy, I've just given examples. That is, from a moral pov, the government or people working for the government having the option to use a form of death penalty.

This has nothing to do with war zones? I'm not sure what "The UK isn't a war zone has to do with anything I posted there".

 

[StriderX]

It isn't a death penalty when you force the situation into becoming self-defense. It is inappropriate as it is extrajudicial as well.

 

[dowie]

It isn't a death penalty when you force the situation into becoming self-defense.

It is the state choosing to kill people.

 

[StriderX]

It is the state choosing to kill people.

Without trial, thus irrelevant and cannot be used in all situations. It is utterly impossible to equivocate to someone killing people at random with no evidence for premeditation.

 

[dowie]

Without trial, thus irrelevant and cannot be used in all situations.

No one claimed otherwise. Are you not following the discussion here - the other poster mentioned the state killing people, in his example it was killing someone on their doorstep.

I'm highlighting that the state already does choose to kill some undesirable people on some occasions when the opportunity is presented, form a moral perspective we already have that form of "death penalty" exercised, legally.

It isn't irrelevant (no more so than a general discussion of the death penalty is to the thread as a whole), it is a comment made in direct response to that point made by another poster. The death penalty as a punishment for convicted criminals can't be used in all situations either.

 

[StriderX]

Whatever, i made a pointless attribution and dont really want to further that.

How about you just tell me the reason you want capital punishment.

 

[dowie]

Whatever, i made a pointless attribution and dont really want to further that.

How about you just tell me the reason you want capital punishment.

I never said I did want capital punishment - I said, twice:

I'm not advocating removing them, I'm saying that I'm open to the argument for it in extreme cases provided a higher standard is in place in the first place.

I'm not advocating the saving of pennies, I'm stating that I'm open to the argument for the death penalty in extreme cases if there were a higher standard of guilt required.

If say the Dunblane shooter (had he not successfully killed himself) or the Lee Rigby killers were to be put to death via say a lethal injection after being given both pain relief and anaesthesia then I'd not have a big issue with it.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Death penalty would have been a nice fit in this case.

I think when it comes to murder of children your life is forfeit. Especially when done in such a cold blooded manner. Get off the planet please.

 

[Ninco!]

I find it deeply troubling that it seems that there were several alarming incidents prior to each murder and it went unnoticed?

 

[rare]

Hang her and be done with it.

Why should the state carry the financial burden of maintaining her for the next 30 odd years.

 

[Threepwood]

As a country, we the UK, the second largest arms dealers of the world... Have sold bombs and guns that have been used to kill children.

I hope that every person in here who is appalled by the killing of these two children are also campaigners against our arms trade, because we provide weapons to those committing horrific war crimes.

 

[StriderX]

Hang her and be done with it.

Why should the state carry the financial burden of maintaining her for the next 30 odd years.

Morality.

 

[TheVoice]

It is clear in the sense that we know 100% that she murdered her two children.

If the death penalty was re-introdued then the government would have to bring in new legislation and policies of which crimes deserves it.

I'm sure if we were executing people regularly then the cost would go down.

Be as sure as you like, the reality is it would inevitably a long and lengthy process in order to prevent its misuse and allow the correct appeals processes to occur. You can't just skip those "because guilty". Nothing about our criminal justice system is particularly quick, efficient or cheap, so it's baffling that people think there'd be some additional motivation to make the introduction of the death penalty just that.

I'd like to ask you, in this particularly case, why don't you think the death penalty is appropriate? Or is it more about your own sensibilities?

I don't think it's necessary in any circumstances really, it serves no functional purpose. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't save money or improve public safety. The relatively few cases in which the death penalty would realistically be applicable would be so few and far between that it would have absolutely no effect on the rate of recidivism of the most serious offences. If the state were to kill this woman are aren't going to see a noticeable and attributable drop in the number of murders of children.

That's why they have brought back being shot.

As far as I'm aware it's because states that still have the death penalty were finding it impossible to import the drugs/chemicals used for lethal injections because companies in Europe who manufacture them refused to supply them for that purpose. Didn't stop them coming up with some of their own utterly barbaric cocktails though.

 

[BowdonUK]

I don't think it's necessary in any circumstances really, it serves no functional purpose. It doesn't deter crime, it doesn't save money or improve public safety. The relatively few cases in which the death penalty would realistically be applicable would be so few and far between that it would have absolutely no effect on the rate of recidivism of the most serious offences. If the state were to kill this woman are aren't going to see a noticeable and attributable drop in the number of murders of children.

Ok, I'll go with the flow and suggest the alternative. Would you be for life meaning life tariff for this woman, and others like her, in prison?

I think part of the reason people are for the death penalty is that its final. Because in todays society murderers get out. I posted the horrific story on one thread about a guy, David McGreavy who killed 3 children and put them on spikes in public. This guy as now been deemed eligable for release. While there are legitimate arguments against the death penalty, as long as murderers are being let out of prison after committing the most vile crimes then people will still call for the dealth penalty to make sure people like him, and this woman, are ended once and for all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ail-release-parole-board-murder-a8667066.html

A man who murdered three children and hung their mutilated bodies on a fence is to be released from prison.

The Parole Board found David McGreavy has “changed considerably” since the 1973 killings, which earned him the nickname the “monster of Worcester”.

The victims’ mother branded the decision a “betrayal” but officials concluded that it was “no longer necessary for the protection of the public that McGreavy remained confined in prison”.

 

[rare]

Morality.

Illogical and expensive. It costs circa £35,000 to keep a prisoner annually.

Would rather spend the money on education or the NHS.

 

[Threepwood]

Illogical and expensive. It costs circa £35,000 to keep a prisoner annually.

Would rather spend the money on education or the NHS.

But it costs more to kill people, so you would have less money for education and the NHS?

 

[TheVoice]

Ok, I'll go with the flow and suggest the alternative. Would you be for life meaning life tariff for this woman, and others like her, in prison?

She may well be eligible, it'd need to be on a case by case basis.

I think part of the reason people are for the death penalty is that its final. Because in todays society murderers get out. I posted the horrific story on one thread about a guy, David McGreavy who killed 3 children and put them on spikes in public. This guy as now been deemed eligable for release. While there are legitimate arguments against the death penalty, as long as murderers are being let out of prison after committing the most vile crimes then people will still call for the dealth penalty to make sure people like him, and this woman, are ended once and for all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ail-release-parole-board-murder-a8667066.html

He's out of prison but it's not like he's got his freedom or liberty back in entirety:

"Officials said a “robust plan” could manage him on release, under intensive supervision and licence conditions including a curfew, exclusion zones and other restrictions to prevent contact with the victims’ family.


McGreavy, now 67, will be GPS tagged and subject to measures to protect children, and be made to continue psychological therapy and counselling."

People will always want the harshest punishment possible, they want to see people getting punished for their crimes. You see it everywhere, someone gets sentenced to prison and people think it should be double. Someone gets their car seized for no insurance/tax, people want police to crush it. A terrorist gets shot by police and survives, people say the officers should have killed them. Unsurprisingly aren't too concerned about how proportionate the punishment is to the offence or what measures are in place to prevent the harshest penalties from being misused, they just want to see it happen.

 

[rare]

But it costs more to kill people, so you would have less money for education and the NHS?

Depends how you do it.

 

[Dis86]

She may well be eligible, it'd need to be on a case by case basis.




He's out of prison but it's not like he's got his freedom or liberty back in entirety:

"Officials said a “robust plan” could manage him on release, under intensive supervision and licence conditions including a curfew, exclusion zones and other restrictions to prevent contact with the victims’ family.


McGreavy, now 67, will be GPS tagged and subject to measures to protect children, and be made to continue psychological therapy and counselling."

People will always want the harshest punishment possible, they want to see people getting punished for their crimes. You see it everywhere, someone gets sentenced to prison and people think it should be double. Someone gets their car seized for no insurance/tax, people want police to crush it. A terrorist gets shot by police and survives, people say the officers should have killed them. Unsurprisingly aren't too concerned about how proportionate the punishment is to the offence or what measures are in place to prevent the harshest penalties from being misused, they just want to see it happen.

Love the complete contradiction of the justice department and parole board over him. Oh, he doesn't present a threat? Then why is he tagged, monitored and subject to continued therapy and counselling?