Trump reinstates death penalty for federal crimes

I think when talking about this subject the vast majority, probably 99% are guilty as charged. The question becomes are we prepared for the 1% innocent people to die too?

My personal feeling is that in cases were the death penalty as been chosen as the punishment, that another case should be opened to test the verdict of the case and if there is the slightest doubt then the sentence would be changed to life in prison. But if after going through 2 indepth cases and the verdict is strong then they should be executed. Why should we, the tax payer pay for their upkeep when they have done such a vile crime?

David McGreavy: Triple child killer cleared for release
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-46437471

A babysitter who killed three children and impaled their bodies on garden railings has been cleared for release.

David McGreavy was sentenced to life in 1973 for killing Paul Ralph, four, and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha in their Worcester home.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with not executing people in this country, they get released. Why should this guy; A, be released, and B, not have been executed?
 
Usher said:
please give an example of a vile murderer with overwhelming evidence of guilt being let off by the jury
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Angilion said:
Then you're contradicting yourself


I think the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you share the opinion on the second count.

For the first, I'm not so sure I am, though I see your point. My bottom line and examples were at the very , erm bottom? of what I would consider not murder... killing in self defence basically. Yes there is the choice to die, but I'm not sure how much of a choice it is, survival instincts and all that.
 
BowdonUK said:
I think when talking about this subject the vast majority, probably 99% are guilty as charged. The question becomes are we prepared for the 1% innocent people to die too?

My personal feeling is that in cases were the death penalty as been chosen as the punishment, that another case should be opened to test the verdict of the case and if there is the slightest doubt then the sentence would be changed to life in prison. But if after going through 2 indepth cases and the verdict is strong then they should be executed. Why should we, the tax payer pay for their upkeep when they have done such a vile crime?

David McGreavy: Triple child killer cleared for release
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-46437471



This is the problem with not executing people in this country, they get released. Why should this guy; A, be released, and B, not have been executed?
Click to expand...

This is the kind of case where it should be applied without a doubt.

Killing 3 kids is despicable. Someone like that is not fit to exist on this earth.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
This is the kind of case where it should be applied without a doubt.

Killing 3 kids is despicable. Someone like that is not fit to exist on this earth.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they'll give him a new identity now and try to "hide" him in some poor unsuspecting community.

No doubt I'm worrying unnecessarily because he's completely rehabilitated tho. Ahem. Sorry didn't manage a straight face.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Something like the death penalty should never be used unless the evidence leaves absolutely no room for doubt.
Click to expand...

There is always room for doubt. No case can be totally water tight.

weathmatth said:
What about the killers of Lee Rigby, they are 100% guilty of the crime. I believe they should be put to death for what they have done.
Click to expand...

What if it later came out that there was a previously unknown virus or other neurological health issue that would have mitigated the action from say murder down to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility? Nothing is ever black and white.
 
I found it interesting that they've authorised a change in the administration of the drugs. Companies are refusing to supply the US with the three drugs traditionally used to induce unconsciousness, paralysis and then death. The Trump administration has now authorised the use of a single drug, phenobarbital, to overdose the convicted on anaesthetic instead (similar to how animals are PTS).
 
Rainmaker said:
I found it interesting that they've authorised a change in the administration of the drugs. Companies are refusing to supply the US with the three drugs traditionally used to induce unconsciousness, paralysis and then death. The Trump administration has now authorised the use of a single drug, phenobarbital, to overdose the convicted on anaesthetic instead (similar to how animals are PTS).
Click to expand...

Which the manufacturer has also put a lot of effort in trying to prevent it being used in executions.

Edit: I think you mean Pentobarbital, not Phenobarbital
 
Last edited:
200sols said:
Being innocent and incarcerated for life until you die isnt exactly nice. Im not sure its any better than being killed TBH.
Click to expand...

this is true, although at least if you're alive it's possible new evidence etc could get you released.

of course this is an area that isn't black and white, and frankly i'm not sure which side of the issue i stand because both sides have good points.

after all, i'm sure all but the most hardcore anti-execution proponent would have agreed that if we'd caught hitler alive we should have executed him, so where between the genocide of millions and the murder of 1 person do we draw the line that says "ok this person needs to die"
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Which the manufacturer has also put a lot of effort in trying to prevent it being used in executions.
Click to expand...

Quite. It does beg the question what the end result may be though. More electric chair, gas chamber and firing squad executions in lieu of lethal injection? Bringing back hanging (I don't recall it being used in the US these days)? The Chinese death vans don't seem to have any trouble sourcing drugs, so perhaps the US will just start looking further afield for there drugs instead. Or just start putting bullets in people or lining them up on gallows.
 
I wonder if you made it elective how many would take it up?

You have life with no parole or death, your choice?

Although I generally lean to the anti, it is a very nuanced thing and some days I might be persuaded to argue for it.

However I'd suggest it's more a solution to repeat offenders than 'how bad' a single crime is.

If you offer a Norwegian style prison system that is designed to rehabilitate, and does so, yet people are convicted time and again does that change the situation?

Do people feel more comfortable that if a person has been convicted 6 times for burglary then you're as close to 100% certain as you can be that the person is a criminal (no one can be unlucky as to be incorrectly convicted that many times).

Also a system that has been proven to reform the majority of people passing through it has given them every opportunity to change but they will not reform, then perhaps removing them from society is justified?
 
Rainmaker said:
Quite. It does beg the question what the end result may be though. More electric chair, gas chamber and firing squad executions in lieu of lethal injection? Bringing back hanging (I don't recall it being used in the US these days)? The Chinese death vans don't seem to have any trouble sourcing drugs, so perhaps the US will just start looking further afield for there drugs instead. Or just start putting bullets in people or lining them up on gallows.
Click to expand...

If you're going to do it, go one of two ways:
  1. Use hanging, electric chair or other method that makes it really visible how barbaric it is. If people want to watch, don't hide the consequences of the decision to execute.
  2. Go the other end of the spectrum and use something like inhaling an inert gas and cause death through hypoxia. Many advocates of the death penalty don't like this as the inmates get a feeling of euphoria before death interferes with their vengeance.
 
adolf hamster said:
this is true, although at least if you're alive it's possible new evidence etc could get you released.

of course this is an area that isn't black and white, and frankly i'm not sure which side of the issue i stand because both sides have good points.

after all, i'm sure all but the most hardcore anti-execution proponent would have agreed that if we'd caught hitler alive we should have executed him, so where between the genocide of millions and the murder of 1 person do we draw the line that says "ok this person needs to die"
Click to expand...

TBF Hitler could have been incarcerated for life and he couldn't have got to power.

Whether that would martyr him more than his execution is debatable, as is whether his cause would have been successful with other people driving it forward using his martyrdom.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
If you're going to do it, go one of two ways:
  1. Use hanging, electric chair or other method that makes it really visible how barbaric it is. If people want to watch, don't hide the consequences of the decision to execute.
  2. Go the other end of the spectrum and use something like inhaling an inert gas and cause death through hypoxia. Many advocates of the death penalty don't like this as the inmates get a feeling of euphoria before death interferes with their vengeance.
Click to expand...

The last point is telling, is it not? Using an insert gas is a cheap, effective, painless and stress-free way to die if the need arose (it's how I'd do it if I felt the need to end my life). The fact it's not 'good enough' for death penalty proponents speaks volumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom