EGF how do you decide who was “rightly convicted”?

A fair number of the “rightly convicted” end up being cleared after other evidence or police malfeasance comes to light. It depends on how many of these innocent people being killed you’re prepared to accept and sadly I think the answer would be “quite a few”.

Anyway, the way to prevent murder is by turning our attention to pre-crime. If we went out there and executed those we thought were getting a “bit murdery” we could end this scourge on society.

So how long do you think it would take to reintegrate Lee rigby’s killers. Two or three sessions with a shrink. Four absolute tops then find them a nice job at an army recruitment office.

Love the “Huntley was innocent…hand wringers” point…do you write for the Mail?

I’d guess “to” rather than “for”…

I’d also hazard a guess at “in crayon”…

I would further guess, for the hat trick, “while closely resembling a slab of pickled pig meat”*

*Or “while closely mimicking the density of a bucket of pig sh!t”…

No.

I would say that the examples given in this thread by the execute happy posters are the exact people that would not have been deterred by a death penalty.  So what is the point of the death penalty again?

If it is not to stop any crimes taking place then it is just revenge for what the person has done isn’t it?

Of course a death penalty for speeding offences would stop people speeding but those people are largely law abiding and need a harsh reminder to obey the speeding law, they are not the same as people who murder.

After watching a number of television prison dramas in my time I believe everyone in prison is innocent so a no from me.

was this question not settled in 1965? no.

If it is not to stop any crimes taking place then it is just revenge for what the person has done isn’t it?

That and aggressive cost reduction strategy, of course it doesn’t prevent any crime or deter anybody.

I wonder if conviction rates would fall if the death penalty was an option? Would juries become reluctant to return a guilty verdict?

The right to life is a fundamental human right and the state should be upholding rights not removing them.

Human rights are for everyone, including murderers and other criminals.

State administered justice cannot include revenge. If it does, it isn’t justice at all.

It is often quite odd that many of the people very pro the death penalty are often very anti Islam and sharia law which depending on local variations advocates similar punishments.

mind you when I was in the states the most ardent supporters also often said that only god has the right to kill (pro life) but were also very pro death penalty. Very few ever saw the irony.

it prevents nothing so it can only be justified s a cost saving method or revenge. Neither of which should exist in a civilised society. The line at which a crime is bad enough is never set and moves with public opinion which really is not a good thing.

once someone is dead they and their crimes are just a number in a book. While they are alive in prison for the Huntleys and the Sutcliffs they serve as a reminder to force us to remember the bad things people can do and that we as a society are better than them because we did not sink to their level

Definitely a no from me. Other than cost cutting and revenge what does it bring to the table? I’d make prisoners work though. Make them do something productive that benefits society as a whole.

If our justice system was better I would vote YES.

its not revenge, it’s removing the monster that is a threat to other members of society.  If they cannot be redeemed or are just plain evil then the state shouldn’t have to pay for their upkeep till they die of old age.

However as every justice system seems to be riddled with incompetence, corruption and luck then it has be NO.

How disturbing that some on this thread would consider execution on the grounds of cost saving.

Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.

There are costs involved in living in a civilized country and I’m happy that we pay them as the alternative is barbaric.

How about the death penalty only for those who advocate for it. That way if you like it, the state can murder you and you get your wish

 Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.

Wait a minute. Will there be a tax cut?

However as every justice system seems to be riddled with incompetence, corruption

I think funding and approach may be related to success in rehabilitation also .

@Ming the Merciless. You never learn do you? Last time you tried to execute someone he came back and kicked your ass.

@spin

not everyone has the support of Brian blessed though….

Hard death sentence or soft death sentence?

Hard death sentence or soft death sentence?

Depends on on if it was a good crime (money laundering, white collar fraud) or a bad crime (drugs, robbery)

the definition of what is deserving or undeserving of such penalties will depend on the time, public opinion, media reaction not just the actions of the individual.

Might as well just set up a WhatsApp justice mob

Cost savings seems to be a motivator, but because of the rigorous appeals and the high security a death sentence in the USA is more expensive than a life sentence.

Or should we go all China and do it quick and cheap (plus invoice the family).

Maybe we should do a facebook vote for every conviction?

Can we just compromise and execute Piers Morgan, even as a staunch anti death penalty advocate, I would be willing to sacrifice him to pacify the more blood thirsty among us.

 Or should we go all China and do it quick and cheap (plus invoice the family).

They harvest organs to order too don’t they? Profitable rather than cheap.

No.

Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.

There are quite a few funding cuts that mean exactly this, but hit non ‘offenders’.

Let’s hang them publicly. Sell tickets,  tv coverage and film rights. We’ll make it self financing, ’tis the modern way.

Raffle the hangman’s position, sell each inch off rope like they used to.

Combine it with the lottery. A Saturday night treat for the family.

With thanks to Alan B’Stard for the idea. Be careful what you wish for Al.

If you can absolutely guarantee that it’ll never be done wrongly, then sure. But that’s impossible. Yes of course there are some very few cases where it’s essentially indisputable but there’s always a line to be drawn somewhere and as soon as any judgement or room to wiggle comes in, it all goes wrong.

I’ve nothing against the concept frankly but it’s impossible to do perfectly and can’t be any less than perfect.

As for deterrant, nah. Deterrant effects don’t depend on severity of sentencing, except for low grade crimes and career criminals. If you’re not deterred by life you’re not deterred by death- you’re doing it either because you’re crazy, you expect to be caught and welcome it, or you don’t expect to be caught.

Libya would probably pay to take them off our hands.

I doubt they would want our scrotes. Why would they?

It’s yet another extremely nuanced argument that has been simplified into a binary discussion, TBH I can’t see any merit whatsoever in having a death penalty, the very notion of which depends upon a strict set of rules and tests to be of any use in a civilised society, to the point that it becomes a contradiction – and an expensive one at that, given that the state must bear a burden of both absolute proof and of significant culpability in event of a miscarriage of justice that the cost alone is a burden to bear.

If one is found to be guilty of a capital offence which is subsequently ruled to be an unsafe conviction, then at the very least the state must bear significant responsibility to restore your reputation, pursue the genuine culprit and bring them to justice and also to ensure that your dependents are compensated for a lifetime.

 I doubt they would want our scrotes. Why would they?

To sell in their slave markets.

God yes I’d vote for it….it will never go to a referendum as MPs know full well the majority would go for it too.

For me it’s not about it being a deterrent, evidence from countries with the death penalty shows it doesn’t work like that.

For me it’s about getting rid of scum.

Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.

Cheaper and revenge feels great.

I see the “let’s hit reverse… hard” brigade are out in force in this thread… plus a few suprises from otherwise reasonable people who want us to turn back on one of the very real advances we made as a society in the 20th Century.

It’s a NO from me.

“For me it’s about getting rid of scum.”

What’s your acceptable scum-to-innocent-person ratio?

Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.

Is this in your version of utopia where you could just crack on with it without any extra legal issues surrounding the state killing people? You do know it costs more to feed and house a bunch of lawyers than a bloke in a cell don’t you? Have a quick google of the difference in cost between a death penalty and non death penalty sentence in the States for some merry reading. It’s not the thrifty choice.

it will never go to a referendum as MPs know full well the majority would go for it too.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has ever done a correlation between IQ and capital punishment advocacy. Yes, there’s a reason why MPs don’t fancy the general public getting a referendum but it’s the same reason a good number of members of the public aren’t trusted with anything more complicated than a checkout till.

What’s your acceptable scum-to-innocent-person ratio?

4 to 1.

“For me it’s about getting rid of scum.”

I would imagine many people have a different view on what might constitute scum… do you expand the system to cull generational benefit claiming families you know the ones the tabloids call scum…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/25/70-prisoners-serving-whole-life-sentences-uk/

Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.

It must be more expensive to house a killer for 25 years on death row. I imagine the lawyers fees for appeals on death row cases are expensive.

I can completely understand families of victims advocating the death penalty, however thankfully the justice system counteracts this.

A decision to bring in the death penalty in the UK would be utterly despicable IMO.