In answer to the question no I would not vote for the death penalty. How do you deal with a) the miscarriages of justice discovered late? b) the morality of teaching that killing another is wrong then using killing as the ultimate punishment? c) the impact on juries and convictions? many would be unwilling to convict where they new that their verdict would place the life of the accused in the judges hands.

Bellfield is serving a whole life tariff and no doubt in a high category non cosy jail . I can't think of any thing more fitting than that.

If some one harmed my family I'd want them tortured to death which is exactly why i should be the last person to have a say in their fair and just punishment.

I'm pretty sure there is absolutely no evidence that killing people convicted of attrocious crimes is in any way a deterrent. The only plus I can see is that these criminals cost alot more alive then they do dea. So here is my proposal. If they have repeat offended twice ie three crimes then it the death sentence, if they have been found guilty of murder/rape/any other serous crime then kill them. If they have any dissability without commiting a crime then kill them, if they are a minority group in any way then kill them.

crankboy – Member

If some one harmed my family I'd want them tortured to death which is exactly why i should be the last person to have a say in their fair and just punishment.

Well put.

Actually I have read, as part of my research into a university essay years ago, that in some parts of the world where they introduced the death penalty, the murder rate actually went up. Now it is probably impossible to say if the two are related but it does confirm that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

"it does confirm that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent" There is some argument to suggest that a criminal who commits a crime that carries the death penalty is more likely to kill potential witnesses to avoid detection and therefor execution.
In addition how many people are really deterred by the consequences of conviction, i would suggest most who commit crime, from speeding through burglary to rape or murder do so in the belief they won't get caught or never even consider the consequences, not because they don't fear the punishment.
Of the three purposes of sentencing retribution and rehabilitation make most sense, reductivisim ( the reduction of crime by deterence of the offender or the wider public) Seems a little blunt as a tool. The only really effective use of a reductivist sentence is the whole life or the Indeffinate Sentence for Public Protection . I'm in favour of the whole life sentence for criminals such as this but very sceptical of the Indeffinate Sentence for Public Protection.

Should bellfield face the death penalty?

I firmly believe that he should not face the death penalty. As a civilized country we have no place for the death penalty within our judicial process. As a civilized country I believe that we do not have the right to judge whether we take another persons life because we are then putting ourselves on the same level as the person we are condemning. Take away their privileges and take away the comfort we afford to them. Life should mean life, especially in bellfields case.

However, if the victim was a member of my family or a close friend I think that I would not rest until I had confronted and dealt with the person that had committed the crime against my loved one. Hypocritical, maybe but I have thought long and hard about this and I would accept the repercussions of my actions. Maybe if I find myself in that situation I may not think this way as I have never been in that situation. Even more so, hopefully I will never ever be in that kind of situation.

More police officers has more effect on crime than the death penalty (can't be bothered to look up the references, but you just know it's true).

Plus, rather depressingly, the legalization of abortion. Apparently.

Luke – strictly speaking I believe its the odds on being caught but to a great extent its the same thing.

in a word, no.

Capital Punishment is not legal in the UK, nor should it be in any society, civilised or otherwise.

"an eye for an eye makes us all blind"

However, that does not mean that he should not be incarcerated for life – and I mean life – in barely humane conditions, even if only to protect the public from this monster; I doubt very much whether any sentence that is passed will contain much of a "rehabilitation" portion…

wwaswas – Member

because we're better than him?

+1
I guess that's easy to say if you havent had a close relative murdered. I also can see the point made by PIHA, if someone killed my nearest and dearest then it would be hard not to seek them out and deal with them in nasty way..

KT1973 – Member
Should Levi Bellfield face capital punishment?
I think so. His reggae reggae sauce was shit

LOL!

KT1973, you really are Not Very Well, are you?? 😆

Well done KT1973, the only worthwhile post on the entire thread.

From a cost saving point of view, almost certainly. I'd imagine there's buggar all chance of rehabilitating that scumbag so why waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on him? The money could be far better spent elsewhere.

I'd hang him – I'd make a gameshow out of it and put it on after the lottery on Saturday night. Viewers could vote on method of execution, and bet on time of death, another chance to win on a Saturday if your numbers don't come up 😉

I'm personally in favour of Capital Punishment but the beyond reasonable doubt bit gets me every time. The death penalty is very fitting indeed to some crimes. However, proving it beyond reasonable doubt is the problem. Once hanged, shot or whatever miscarriages of justice cannot be rectified. The penal system is meant to rehabilitate offenders so they don't re-offend. The efficacy and cost effectiveness of that policy remains in question and rightly so.

TBH I don't think that the death penalty fits any 'civilised' society as mentioned above – but life imprisonment should mean life though – not 7 years or so. The safety of the public means more than the human rights of a very sick individual like Levi Bellfield.

Anyway – my thoughts and sympathies are with Milly's family – that's the important thing here imho.

If you are talking from a cost point of view certainly in America it costs far more to kill prisoners than to keep them locked up for life due to the cost of the appeals system.

If it costs more then it shouldnt do. Guilty of a crime like this, injected with 5 litres of drain cleaner then incinerated. I really don't see why this is unreasonable.

m cozzy – look up the cases of Stefan Kisko and Stephen Downing if you ant to know why that is unreasonable. Then consider the Guildford 4. All would have been hung. all were innocent.

KT1973 top answer have a gold star and a scratch and sniff sticker 🙂

2) what happens with miscarriages of justice? Stephen Downing Stefan Kisko, guildford four?

I don't actually think the second argument is very convincing: mistakes and miscarriages are made with any human system. To say that there would be mistakes with a death penalty system is just to say it would operate like anything else.

I'm against the death penalty on principle, which means always, for everyone from Hitler to Fred West, not "ooh, not usually most people, but maybe if they're really naughty and horrible people". It's pointless, barbaric, ineffective and moronic.

The experience of the death penalty in the US – which is the country which operates the death penalty that is most similar to the UK – is not a happy one: there are certain types of people that received it more than others (guess who) and the death penalty actually ends up costing more than life sentences: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html

Kona bunny – the mistake is a bit final if yo have hung them – the folk I mentioned have all been released so got dome life better than none.

m_cozzy – Member
If it costs more then it shouldnt do. Guilty of a crime like this, injected with 5 litres of drain cleaner then incinerated. I really don't see why this is unreasonable.

I am as worried about you as I am about Levi if you cannot see why that is unresonable. I bet Levi cant see why it is unreasonable to bash someones face in with a hammer when they bug you.

Executing someone is about as cold-blooded as killing can get. So in many ways it could be considered worse than the original crime.

In the past I'd have said yes execute him but I've mellowed a bit with age.

I do feel strongly that anyone who kills or tries to kill another person should lose their liberty for the rest of their natural life (apart from certain exceptions eg compassionate reasons, self defence).

I find it astonishing that murder is so often downgraded to manslaughter resulting in a pitifully short sentence, for example, unprovoked attacks in the street which result in the victims death. If you mindlessly take a life you have forfeit the right to live yours freely.

Rehabilitation and restorative justice are simply inappropriate for some people who will always be a risk to others or who have committed crimes serious enough to no longer deserve their liberty.

Kona bunny – the mistake is a bit final if yo have hung them – the folk I mentioned have all been released so got dome life better than none.

But that's just a cost and in a cost/benefit analysis it might be worth it – if there were any benefits whatsoever. But the mere existence of a cost or risk isn't itself a convincing argument.

But that's just a cost and in a cost/benefit analysis it might be worth it – if there were any benefits whatsoever

killing someone who is innocent is a cost /beneift analysis 😯
It might be worth it!!!
Why not just punish the innocent bet that is a useful deterrent and has some beneofts too.
Please tell me you were playing Devils advocate

Chuck him in a big lake if he can swim to the side without drowning then he should be burned at the stake.

Or is that a different punshment for something else?

killing someone who is innocent is a cost /beneift analysis

The government takes decisions that involve innocent people dying on a cost/benefit analysis all the time: NHS money on diabetes or cancer? Safety measures on cars or cheaper cars? Walls along railway platforms or cheaper tickets? Civilian deaths in invasion or civilian deaths under dictatorship? This is nothing new.

It's not enough to say "the death penalty is unacceptable because innocent people will die" – every human activity involves a risk. You have to go further and say "…and it doesn't achieve enough to justify that". In this case, the death penalty doesn't achieve anything so it shouldn't be a tough decision, if it's being made on rational grounds…

No, he shouldn't be killed. The only arguement I could ever see for the death sentence was cost but I didn't know it actually costs more to kill someone than lock them up for life. There are far greater punishments than death, without causing physical harm to someone.

Why can't the prison system be self sufficient? If it funded itself, tax payers would harp on a lot less about how their money was being used to support crims.

Instead of sewing mail bags, why don't they produce big-ticket items, like Fabergé eggs or designer handbags? Let's face it, they've got plenty of time on their hands. And they could set up public services that utilise their unique skillset – like helping people that have locked their keys in their car…

And they could set up public services that utilise their unique skillset – like helping people that have locked their keys in their car…

😆

Yes.

After being put in the stocks for a week, nay, a month, and then slowly tortured.

Seriously.
He's a wrong 'un.

indeed he is but tortuting the torturer as aresponse?
I assume we all still teach our kids that two wrongs dont make a right dont we?

Now it is probably impossible to say if the two are related but it does confirm that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Quite brilliant. 😀

No to CP, but life should mean life. In this extreme case in solitary and with basic provisions. CP is the kinder option in this case, and I don't see why he shouldn't suffer.

What about a real life "running man" style TV show?
Create jobs (ex-soldiers as the hunters), create advertising revenue (help the economy) and give the offenders (albeit a very slim) chance of getting off scot free! Can't be any worse than celebrity pop w@nk on jungle ice!