Bad actors stoking hate again (Southport Stabbings)

A quick Google finds a ton of studies, here’s a precis of one

They are American studies with a very different economic model for both the lawyers, courts and prison system.

The average cost of an average prisoner in the U.K. was £51724 per year in 22/23. That’s £2.7m with no inflation from 22/23 costs and he will cost more than the average prisoner

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1202172/cost-per-prisoner-england-and-wales/

Tesco value rope and last meal requests limited to “what flavour crisps”?

Your representation when appealing your place on death row...

They are American studies with a very different economic model for both the lawyers, courts and prison system.

When I find a UK study on the UK model of capitsl punishment, I'll let you know.

The average cost of an average prisoner in the U.K. was £51724 per year in 22/23. That’s £2.7m with no inflation from 22/23 costs and he will cost more than the average prisoner

And what?

I am genuinely gobsmacked that people on here would make the argument that judicial killing is better than incarceration, because <checks notes>  "it's cheaper" 🙁

Spare us your thoughts on state funding of social care for vulnerable adults, children at risk, the elderly.

People saying it's for x y and z, but seems to be not mentioning they don't get to choose how it's used.

Spare us your thoughts on state funding of social care for vulnerable adults, children at risk, the elderly.

All of whom would be infinitely more deserving of having huge amounts of taxpayers money spent on them.

And what?

It means with even a conservative estimate for inflation of 2.5% we are going to spend £6m on his prison stay.

I'm loving the mental gymnastics involved in calling for this guy to be killed, and then a few posts later claiming that you're not calling for a return of the death penalty! Peak internet logic right there!

It means with even a conservative estimate for inflation of 2.5% we are going to spend £6m on his prison stay.

I am actually surprised that it costs as little as £1k a week to keep someone in a maximum security prison, it sounds like a small price to pay to help keep the public safe. costs more than that to employ 1 police officer.

But be that as it may if you add up all the costs of keeping the 65 individuals currently serving whole life tariffs in UK prisons that's a fair wad of cash  *strokes chin*

All of whom would be infinitely more deserving of having huge amounts of taxpayers money spent on them.

The trouble is, once you've set the moral precedent of saying it's too costly to house and feed people at taxpayers expense, some people will try to expand that arguement beyond just prisoners.

It means with even a conservative estimate for inflation of 2.5% we are going to spend £6m on his prison stay.

Forgive me for the repetition, but same question again. And what?

Oh give over. I’m not arguing for capital punishment to be brought back, just trying to be honest on what the point is in keeping him in prison for the best part of a century when he’ll never be released or rehabbed.

Still trying to figure out what it is you are arguing for, because it’s clear there’s only one actual option, you just won’t state what it is. Go ahead, don’t be coy, we won’t take you out and stone you.

The trouble is, once you’ve set the moral precedent of saying it’s too costly to house and feed people at taxpayers expense, some people will try to expand that arguement beyond just prisoners.

We already ration healthcare and people die as a result.

But yeah executing people, though potentially expedient, ain't a great look

Well for fear of loosing the moral highground on STW I'd happily see him shut in a cell with nothing but a rope for a month and see what happens when we reopen the door. Can't bicker any longer as cooking tea for the kids because luckily none of them were stabbed over 50 times in daycare today.

The whole reducing it to a figure of 'tax payer money' is such a grim reductivist neoliberal trait. In the context of public spending, £6m over 60 years is like an infinitesimally small amount! 2023/24 prison budget was nearly £7 billion.

£50k of 'tax payer money' per annum is a small price to pay to be a country that doesn't execute prisoners.

I took would probably be happy to see him shut in a cell for a month with nothing but a rope. This is exactly why we take the emotions out of it and have a legal framework that prevents the state from killing prisoners.

Well maybe I am for very isolated and clear cut cases such as this

All criminal convictions are clear cut.

I am actually surprised that it costs as little as £1k a week to keep someone in a maximum security prison,

It does the £1k a week is the average for all categories of prisons. Maximum security will be higher than the average

Still trying to figure out what it is you are arguing for, because it’s clear there’s only one actual option, you just won’t state what it is. Go ahead, don’t be coy, we won’t take you out and stone you.

Penal battalions?

Oh give over. I’m not arguing for capital punishment to be brought back, just trying to be honest on what the point is in keeping him in prison for the best part of a century when he’ll never be released or rehabbed.

Surely in this particular case the point is very easy to understand. To keep him away from the rest of us.

£50k of ‘tax payer money’ per annum is a small price to pay to be a country that doesn’t execute prisoners.

Seems fair to me.

I suspect his time in prison will reflect his offending. I fear I'm failing my own moral high ground in not being too concerned about that.

Penal battalions?

Which then gives the disturbing follow up question of who are we going to attack to use those battalions against.

I vote for Greenland, to kiss up to Trump, or maybe Luton since that could get the entire country behind the cause.

It does the £1k a week is the average for all categories of prisons. Maximum security will be higher than the average

And. What.

Go ahead, don’t be coy, we won’t take you out and stone you.

Think I’ve made it fairly obvious what I think. I get that many are uncomfortable with it, I am too. But I don’t think keeping him in prison for potentially 70+ years is better than the alternative. We all know what’s going to happen to him in any case, why string it out?

All criminal convictions are clear cut

Guilford 4.  Birmingham 6.  Malkinson

This man is mentally ill and his crime should and could have been prevented .  Thats the real tragedy here

Cases such as Guildford 4 are irrelevant.  We are not going to be finding in 20 years time that he wasn’t guilty.  And yes there is clearly a mental element to pretty much all serious crime, i.e a person in a good mental state would never have done them.

My point is that once you have done something to this level where you are  without doubt the person that did it then you have blown it.

Cases such as Guildford 4 are irrelevant. 

It's an example of flaws in the justice system, whether in this particular case whether he's not going to be found innocent later on isn't relevant. What's relevant is in ANY cases where the death penalty is applicable for use is there a risk of an incorrect conviction that's relevant. And you don't get to choose the bar at which the penalty becomes an option. That's at best, a collective indirect influence where you are only one of tens of millions, at worst well have zero influence and will be beholden to whichever idiots we've given that choice to, who don't honestly explain their position in an election. Have you ever been lied to by a politician? Have you ever looked at what people are voting for and thought WTF?

Half a chance that's Farage at some point. No thanks.

That's all setting aside the wider ethical questions.

This man is mentally ill and his crime should and could have been prevented .

Oh come on, I know that common to try to find an explanation for incomprehensible horrific crimes, and blame someone, but do really think that he should have been locked up the moment he displayed weird behaviour? Or maybe you think he should have been "cured" of the mental illness which you claim he has?

What sort of society do you think goes looking for people to lock up or "cure"?

Unfortunately any society can only do so much and none can make horrific crimes like the Southport stabbings impossible.

Think I’ve made it fairly obvious what I think. I get that many are uncomfortable with it, I am too. But I don’t think keeping him in prison for potentially 70+ years is better than the alternative.

The only thing that seems obvious to me is that you appear to be talking nonsense. On the one hand you are saying "give over" as you claim not to be suggesting capital punishment, and on the other hand you say that keeping him in prison is not "better than the alternative".

So can you clarify what you mean by "the alternative" to prison?

The trouble is, once you’ve set the moral precedent of saying it’s too costly to house and feed people at taxpayers expense, some people will try to expand that arguement beyond just prisoners.

pensioners are ****in expensive and they are only going to get even older and cost lots of healthcare money before they die. It’s only logical to expedite the process.

I'm strongly against the death penalty but cases like this stretch the belief. Not break it.

The economic argument is irrelevant to a civilised nation, that's the cost of being a civilised nation, as Tom-B and others have said.

As for the 'leave them in a cell with easy access to a rope' - an interesting moral argument. We don't execute criminals but should we maintain a death penalty for crimes like this where the decision on whether applied comes down to the convicted murderer - not the courts, or the victims family, or anyone else.

I can't put myself in the mind of someone like this, but faced with 50+ years in prison as a marked man and knowing that I'd done it, vs a drink of an overdose of barbiturate (akin to Dignitas) - I think I know what I'd choose. Also begs the question whether the punishment is meant to include the physical and mental punishment he'll be going through as a prisoner. Prison for someone like this is far more than loss of freedom.

Think I’ve made it fairly obvious what I think.

Eventually

Oh give over. I’m not arguing for capital punishment to be brought back

Well maybe I am

So you are after all, aligned with Farage, Tice and the hang 'em flog 'em wing of the Tory party. On this issue at least?

As I said earlier, this surprises me.

We all know what’s going to happen to him in any case, why string it out?

newsflash: you are going to die too, why string it out? I’m sure you could find a bit of rope if you set your mind to it.

pensioners are **** expensive and they are only going to get even older and cost lots of healthcare money before they die. It’s only logical to expedite the process.

Oi.  Thats me you are talking about

Ernie.

Systems are in place with checks and balances and he had come to attention.

Opportunities were missed to prevent the crime

Ernie.

Systems are in place with checks and balances and he had come to attention.

Opportunities were missed to prevent the crime

I think Ernie's point is, that sadly hundreds if not  thousands of kids carry knives, come from troubled backgrounds, display violent tendencies and come to the attention of the authorities because of it. Most won't go on to do what the Southport attacker did. Do we lock them all up indefinitely for what they might do?

4% Of young people who responded to our survey said they’d carried a weapon in the past 12 months – equivalent to over 140,000 13-17-year-olds in England and Wales.

Considering how casually some dismiss the death and injury caused to hundreds on the the roads (and eg wail endlessly about the prospect of lower speed limits) it’s odd that so often the same people will agitate for the preemptive punishment of some supposedly suspicious characters to possibly save a handful of people from violent attacks.

It’s almost like there’s a double standard at play.

Opportunities were missed to prevent the crime

So what do you think should have been done to stop the Stockport stabbings that wasn't done?

Guilford 4.  Birmingham 6.  Malkinson

In each of those cases the jury was sure that they were guilty. Piemonster explains it well.

Not to mention Derek Bentley, Cameron Willingham, Pat Sonnier, Timothy Evans, Reuban Cantu, etc etc. All of whom juries were very sure were guilty of the crimes of which they were accused, all of who's verdicts were subsequently found to be... Let's say shakey, at the very least.

I've said it before, but pardons are no good to the innocent dead.

I don't know about the others but I do know a bit about Derek Bentley as he was a local lad and his sister never stopped campaigning on his behalf until the day she died.

The jury weren't wrong about Derek Bentley, it was never claimed by anyone that he pulled the trigger. I think they only had to establish that he was there and it was a joint enterprise.

The state execution of Derek Bentley was utterly horrific and made a complete mockery of British justice. The only good thing to come out of it was that it massively helped the movement to abolish a barbaric medieval form of punishment.

I’ve said it before, but pardons are no good to the innocent dead.

Or those who were guilty, but fresh evidence later suggests that their crimes did not meet the bar needed for execution. Assuming there is a bar, and that it’s a high one. There would be a legal bar that needs to be met, yes? Or is this all at the whim of the mob?

Anyway… executing people for crimes they committed as a child… what other countries do that?

On this issue at least?

On this singular case and the tiny few others like them, yes I guess so. Where I probably differ with the right wing nutjobs is that it's not about vengeance, I just don't see the point in keeping him in prison for 70+ years. As others have said a whole life prison sentence, much of that probably in isolation, is a much worse punishment than a quick and painless execution. I reckon the idea of letting him decide whether to kill himself is probably the best compromise. Some might think that unduly lenient but I'd have no problem with it.

If I had to choose between a whole life sentence or death, I think I’d choose death… even if, or perhaps especially if, I was innocent.

 a whole life prison sentence, much of that probably in isolation, is a much worse punishment than a quick and painless execution

It makes you wonder why so many American convicts on death row appeal against their sentences.

And this lot must have been gutted :

Biden gives life in prison to 37 of 40 federal death row inmates before Trump can resume executions

https://apnews.com/article/biden-death-row-commutations-trump-executions-f67b5e04453cd1aa6383c516bc14f300

Maybe prisons in the United States are much more pleasant?

We are not going to be finding in 20 years time that he wasn’t guilty.

OK but THIS TIME we are totally sure. There's "ultimate burden of proof", right...?

My point is that once you have done something to this level where you are without doubt the person that did it then you have blown it.

Two elements here: Actus reus (did the guy do the physical act?) and mens rea (was the guy's mental state such that he deserves to be punished?).

In these cases, it's not going to be about the physical act. The difficulties will be around his mental state.

What’s relevant is in ANY cases where the death penalty is applicable for use is there a risk of an incorrect conviction that’s relevant.

I'm not convinced by this. I'm against the death penalty but imprisonment as a punishment also bears the risk that we imprison people wrongly - yet we continue to do it despite that risk. Guildford 4, Birmingham 6... People die in prison and you can't "undo" imprisonment either - a zillion pounds in compensation will never give you your time on earth back. 🙁

Where I probably differ with the right wing nutjobs is that it’s not about vengeance, I just don’t see the point in keeping him in prison for 70+ years.

Politely, I don't think that you differ to the 'right wing nut jobs here'. Some yes, they advocate eye for an eye, others give the 'what's the point/what's the cost critique' which you're advancing. Often they interchange/switch between the two.

it’s odd that so often the same people will agitate for the preemptive punishment of some supposedly suspicious characters to possibly save a handful of people from violent attacks.

Where was that suggested?

Where was that suggested?

I'm not sure it's been proposed on this thread, but it's certainly been discussed elsewhere. I posted a day or two back that to be properly safe from cases like this would require a loss of our "normal" freedoms.

Politely, I don’t think that you differ to the ‘right wing nut jobs here’.

Whatever. Doesn't change my opinion. I'm all for rehabilitation, understanding the reasons behind a criminal act, and applying the normal rules of humane consideration but in some rare cases that just doesn't apply, and this is one of them. Looking at it another way, what exactly are we to gain from keeping him alive in prison for the next 70 years? I hear the points about it showing we live in a civilised society but I don't really see what's so civilised about it.

People die in prison and you can’t “undo” imprisonment either

No, but imprisonment offers a chance of redeeming some freedom in the event of a failure of justice being discovered. But if they're dead already they have no chance regardless.

That and the direction of UK politics makes me particularly averse to it being an option.

Looking at it another way, what exactly are we to gain from keeping him alive in prison for the next 70 years?

Are you the guy that just retired (congratulations if so!) or am I confusing you with someone else?

But I don’t think keeping him in prison for potentially 70+ years is better than the alternative

I guess that will be the 'punishment' aspect of the concept of locking people up for a long time to entire life.

Death penalty ? Thats the easy option. Might as well try to make the argument that guns in the US are good, and if several thousand people have to die because they want to own them, then that is acceptable.

We must never look to bring back the death penalty and say, ok we understand X% are actually going to be found innocent later but we need it so ...

I suppose even the concept of locking someone up for the whole of their life is also as barbaric.