Should capital punishment be brought back?

[Christmas themed thank]

There has been much debate and discussion whether capital punishment should be brought back following the Letby case.

I am totally opposed to it. There have been countless people arrested and locked up and then exonerated years later, not only in the US where they still have the death penalty but also in the UK when we had it too. Since the death penalty was abolished here, there have been notable cases including the Birmingham Six and one just recently that would have almost certainly have received the death penalty. These people would have been killed by the state despite their innocence.

Not to mention that killing people is an abomination, whether it is the state or a person doing it.

It must never be brought back.

 

[Fubsy]

Instinctively, no.

Mainly because of the high threshold of evidence required to be absolutely certain you have the right person.

Even clear cut cases, CCTV of someone committing mass murder. The use of the death penalty could be used as a tool for those motivated by martyrdom.

We are also entering an age of even hard video/audio evidence could be doubted because of AI interference.

This doesn't mean that I believe 100% in rehabilitation, I just think it's safer for society to not have sanctioned murder. I'm also a believer that prison can be a worse punishment for some.

 

[Resident]

100% emphatic yes.

Why should the state burden it's people of the cost of keeping absolute animals fed, clothed and housed for the rest of their life? Especially when we cannot do it for the law abiding citizens whom have paid their dues in service/taxes.

Murderers, rapists (especially child rapists) should be a no-brain decision, off they go.

The cases you reference were indeed miscarriages of justice however they were exonerated due to advances in evidence gathering, detection and procedural changes specifically implemented to prevent such.

 

[Yaayuh!]

Instinctively, no.

Mainly because of the high threshold of evidence required to be absolutely certain you have the right person.

Even clear cut cases, CCTV of someone committing mass murder. The use of the death penalty could be used as a tool for those motivated by martyrdom.

We are also entering an age of even hard video/audio evidence could be doubted because of AI interference.

This doesn't mean that I believe 100% in rehabilitation, I just think it's safer for society to not have sanctioned murder. I'm also a believer that prison can be a worse punishment for some.

This.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Needs a referendum, can't beat a good referendum with a previous few months of "experts" and statisticians spouting off. Bring it on

 

[Resident]

This doesn't mean that I believe 100% in rehabilitation, I just think it's safer for society to not have sanctioned murder. I'm also a believer that prison can be a worse punishment for some.

One of the main issues, in my opinion, is that prisons now are too soft. Pretty much hotels that you can't leave.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

The cases you reference were indeed miscarriages of justice however they were exonerated due to advances in evidence gathering, detection and procedural changes specifically implemented to prevent such.

It's interesting how you unwaveringly said yes to the OP's question but then state this.

Have you considered that further advances in all the things you mention now, could lead to what we thought of as open and shut cases today being exonerated in future?

 

[throwaway4372]

I think it's unreasonable for criminals to expect us to pay for them to be kept in prison for long periods of time. I think there should be some cut off, such as multiple murders, where the sentence is sufficiently long that they're put down instead.

I think some of them might prefer it too, similar to how some old people would rather end their lives. That can be justified for cost reasons too, keeping people alive but not living isn't a good use of resources.

I also don't believe in rehabilitation generally. So perhaps there should also be a 3 strike rule - go to prison 3 times for whatever and that's a death sentence.

Also we don't have enough space in prison and this could free some up.

Also we have too much crime and need to be tougher.

 

[Felon]

Not practical or sensible.

I also think it's a mistake to think that because it costs money to keep prisoners for life sentences, that execution would somehow end up being a cheap option. I think the cost of incarceration would amount to chump change, compared to the costs of execution.

By the time you add up all of the procedure, legal time, appeals process, everything else - the cost of executing somebody would be absolutely gigantic.

Before someone says "Nah, just shoot them once guilty" - I don't want to live in a country like that, we're more advanced and better than some third-world **** hole, that's not how we behave.

Whole life orders are I think the best, most sensible and reasonable solution.

 

[tom_e]

The cases you reference were indeed miscarriages of justice however they were exonerated due to advances in evidence gathering, detection and procedural changes specifically implemented to prevent such.

And yet they'd be dead but it's ok because we figured it out in the end?

 

[jigger]

No, I don’t think so. Now corporal punishment…

 

[potatolord]

There are many cases of people convicted of offences who are later exonerated.

Whole life sentences for those convicted of the worst crimes is a better option.

Occasionally I will have an emotional reaction to a particularly horrific offence. Then I remember that emotional decisions are generally not the best ones.

 

[Hades]

No. There are too many cases where we later discover the person was innocent.

 

[doodah]

If 1 innocent person can slip through, that's all I need to know. Plus, at least with the American model, it can be more expensive.

It feels like with some, it's wanted to make them feel better about it rather than serve the victims/act as punishment.

It doesn't work as a deterrent.

 

[GGizmo]

I believe it should be brought back and used in the same way the whole life order is ministered, in exceptional cases.

We now have dna advancements that have corrected decisions in the past. I don't know any cases that dna evidence was wrong?

I think there also as to be some thought about the alternative whole life order. How it humane to lock someone up with no possibility of leaving prison? The ones that do leave prison on good behaviour, how is that fair on the murdered person's family?

 

[SilverTongue]

I agree with many others here in that there have been too many cases where the person convicted was later found to be innocent.

However I presume that a specific case has sparked this thread and when it comes to cases like that I definitely feel that whole life sentences are better as it is going to potentially be harder for them as they potentially start regrets etc, death penalty would be easy way out for them.

 

[joey1211]

One watch of Ian Hislop debating Priti Patel on QT should put this to rest.

 

[PlacidCasual]

For some death is a release, less punishment than whole life sentence. Also it precludes any rehabilitation even without release and even the smallest risk of a miscarriage should be enough to ensure we think it unsuitable in my opinion.

How do people feel penal labour? I do sometimes wonder if prison isn't punitive enough and also we're locking up lots of people without getting anything useful out of them. it's a question I'm somewhat split on.

 

[clv101]

Also we have too much crime and need to be tougher.

I often hear this but I don't think the evidence backs it up. Plenty of examples where countries are 'tougher' on crime and yet crime rates remain higher. Also countries that are less punitive where the crime rate is lower. In my opinion the kneejerk response of getting tougher rarely achieves the desire result.

 

[Robert]

Instinctively, no.

Mainly because of the high threshold of evidence required to be absolutely certain you have the right person.

Even clear cut cases, CCTV of someone committing mass murder. The use of the death penalty could be used as a tool for those motivated by martyrdom.

We are also entering an age of even hard video/audio evidence could be doubted because of AI interference.

This doesn't mean that I believe 100% in rehabilitation, I just think it's safer for society to not have sanctioned murder. I'm also a believer that prison can be a worse punishment for some.

Great post