Should the death penalty be re-introduced?

My view:

In some cases where the offender has deliberately and in full mental capacity murdered someone with pre-meditation, yes, especially multiple murders.

Surely the justice system needs reviewing as too often we hear about offenders getting out of jail way too early.

What about cases where (years later!) new evidence exonerates the accused.

If they are in jail on a life sentence they can be released, if they have been executed ..........

If we decide as a society that it's wrong to kill another human then why is it suddenly right if it's just society baying for vengeance? There are times, certain cases, where my initial emotional response is to want that vengeance too but in reality I wouldn't want the death penalty brought back.

The Rigby murder was premeditated and in front of witnesses so in that case the death penalty should apply.

If we decide as a society that it's wrong to kill another human then why is it suddenly right if it's just society baying for vengeance? There are times, certain cases, where my initial emotional response is to want that vengeance too but in reality I wouldn't want the death penalty brought back.

So what would you suggest hightail??

The Rigby murder was premeditated and in front of witnesses.

As pointed out by Surfer01, the people who committed

this murder could not have cared less and would do the same

again if given the chance, so how should they be punished?

So what would you suggest hightail??

The Rigby murder was premeditated and in front of witnesses.

As pointed out by Surfer01, the people who committed

this murder could not have cared less and would do the same

again if given the chance, so how should they be punished?

So, what is the purpose of the sentence?

To punish the offender?

To rehabilitate the offender?

To deter others from the same offence?

If these offenders believe they will become martyrs if killed : how does the death penalty punish or rehabilitate them?

How will it deter others who desire martyrdom?.

So, a long prison sentence and attempt to re-educate them so they see the evil they have committed. The only plus to a death sentence is society getting a sense of retribution, and to my mind them rotting in prison (& no martyrdom) gives society a better retribution!.

ok here we go again .

timothy evans was pardoned because he was convicted of the wrong murder , he waqs convicted of his babies murder which Christy did do , howver the inquirely made a conclusion that evans probably killed the wife , but since he cannot have a fair trial he was pardoned.

Derek Bently was convicted under the joint enterprise law which meant that if you went out to rob someone with someone else and they shot and killed someone you could be held equally quilty . funnily in the 1930's there was a very similar case and both were hanged

hanratty was confirmed as the killer through dna evidence that obviously was not available at the time .

if people want to form a really good opion I would ask that tier read the biography of albert Pierrepoint since he came to some very interesting conclusions .

finally you should not be in the situation where people are held for decades under the death sentence as for wether I am for or against it I must admit I use to be against it but now I am edging towards pro death penalty

What about cases where (years later!) new evidence exonerates the accused.

 

If they are in jail on a life sentence they can be released, if they have been executed ..........

The death penalty should be given only in cases of 100% certainty of guilt, for example the rigby case as suggested.

The death penalty should be given only in cases of 100% certainty of guilt, for example the rigby case as suggested.

Yet the murderers of Lee Rigby are a poor example, for the reasons I’ve already given ......

How often is there 100% certainty of guilt where there isn’t also:

a) extremism, or

b) mental illnesss / loss of control

leading to the 100% certainty ......

Both have different reasons where there might be 100% certainty (& thus the death penalty by your reasoning), but reasons why the death penalty is inappropriate.

Mental illness is something that excludes the death penalty automatically.

Extremism is not mental illness and it's no excuse.

Anyone killing innocent civilians because of an extremist view, deserves the death penalty in my opinion.

Look for example at that bloke who run over pedestrians in Canada last week.

He should get the death penalty, not a life of comfort behind bars.

Mental illness is something that excludes the death penalty automatically.

Extremism is not mental illness and it's no excuse.

Anyone killing innocent civilians because of an extremist view, deserves the death penalty in my opinion.

Look for example at that bloke who run over pedestrians in Canada last week.

He should get the death penalty, not a life of comfort behind bars.

Extremism isn’t an excuse, agreed. It is, however, a potential reason not to use the death penalty to avoid creating a martyr - a point I’ve made earlier in the thread and which you’ve not addressed.

The recent events in Canada?

Toronto van attack: What we know about suspect Alek Minassian http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43877137

It remains to be seen if the suspect has mental health problems and if he has been manipulated by others .....

So, it remains that these are poor examples as reasons to use the death penalty ...... and for the Canadian case not all the facts have come out yet, and the suspect is still only a suspect as there hadn’t been a conviction!

Never let an absence of all the facts and lack of criminal conviction dissuade the “birch them, then hang ‘em!” brigade, though .....

The death penalty will not bring the victim back to life, under the assumption that the victim of the crime had died as a result of being murdered or had indirectly died as a result of the suspect's actions. I have always said that you can't put a fire out with a flammable liquid, and so therefore you can't bring the victim back by killing the perpetrator.

The way I look at is that only living people can serve life sentences - when they die, it is the equivalent of that person being released from that sentence, and so justice cannot be done in that respect. If suffering is part of a person's punishment than it's better that a person is alive as part of that punishment - dead people don't suffer.

What if there are future charges coming to light and the person responsible has already been executed? It means that the person has got away with it, ironically enough.

The old "Wanted Dead or Alive" concept - better alive than dead. Justice can be done better if the suspect is alive.

Regarding serial killers - after sentencing, the probability is that they may have killed dozens more, so perhaps it might be easier for the police and the courts to have the suspect kept alive so that they can be tried for any future charges that could possibly come to light? Dead people don't go to court and dead people are not found guilty - only living people are.

So what would you suggest hightail??

Regarding the extremists: Let them be martyrs and go to heaven to meet their wonderful faith.

That's just an excuse to play the system, none of these people wants to die really.

Keeping them alive and comfortable is a slap in the face for the victims.

If we had hard labour prisons i would be against the death penalty, but as it stands, prison is an improvement to their lifestyle at the moment.

Regarding the extremists: Let them be martyrs and go to heaven to meet their wonderful faith.

That's just an excuse to play the system, none of these people wants to die really.

You don't actually know that (even if you think you do!): suicide bombers show that some do indeed "want to die"! (or, at least, want to die as what is in their eyes a martyr).

You are also ignoring the fact that by making them a martyr, you increase the risk of some of the next generation of disaffected youth being turned to extremism and the concept of martyrdom, exacerbating the cycle ......

Keeping them alive and comfortable is a slap in the face for the victims

No. This I can say from the experience of one of my own family who although not physically injured his horribly affected and probably always will be. It just so happens that in this case it was a suicide bomber but I can categorically say that there's nothing about him being dead which helps in any way whatsoever.

If the person knows that they will not be put to death, but live a life of comfort after a killing, there is no motive to stop them committing the crime. However if they knew that they would be put to death and their body cremated and ashes scattered at sea, maybe they would think twice before committing any violent acts.

If the person knows that they will not be put to death, but live a life of comfort after a killing, there is no motive to stop them committing the crime..

Other than the boredom, loss of agency, lack of privacy and deprivation of liberty of a long (life-long?) prison sentence ....

However if they knew that they would be put to death and their body cremated and ashes scattered at sea, maybe they would think twice before committing any violent acts.

No disincentive to the extremist aiming for martyrdom, the mentally ill, or the sudden loss of control ..........

Shallow comfort for the person subsequently found to be innocent (and their family and friends).

Other than the boredom, loss of agency, lack of privacy and deprivation of liberty of a long (life-long?) prison sentence ....

 

No disincentive to the extremist aiming for martyrdom, the mentally ill, or the sudden loss of control ..........

Shallow comfort for the person subsequently found to be innocent (and their family and friends).

I am still not sure why murderers are being protected by the law and also shout Human Rights etc? How would a murderer like those that murdered Rigby be innocent?

How would a murderer like those that murdered Rigby be innocent?

They wouldn’t, although they would fall under the martyrdom aspect I’ve raised.

The “subsequent found innocent” applies to miscarriages of justice, which have been seen.

One name: Abu Hamza.

Milked the system to the bones, all at our expenses.

This is someone who skinned children alive and convicted of genocide.

Yet, he's well and alive and his family lives here at our expenses.

Nice one!

Yet, he's well and alive and his family lives here at our expenses.

So if we bring back the death penalty will that also mean any relatives of an executed murderer are no longer entitled to benefits? I'm struggling to see the connection.

One name: Abu Hamza.

Milked the system to the bones, all at our expenses.

This is someone who skinned children alive and convicted of genocide.

Yet, he's well and alive and his family lives here at our expenses.

Nice one!

Odious as he is, he was never convicted of murder, "only" soliciting murder, for which he was sentenced (with other charges found guilty) to seven years.

He was also extradited to the USA, whose 'SuperMax' prison he has not found to his liking....

So:

a) he wouldn't have faced the death penalty (even by your currently stated yardstick of when it should apply).

b) He couldn't have been extradited to the USA if he'd faced the death penalty there. It is precisely because an assurance was given that he wouldn't face the death penalty in the USA that he could be extradited there, and his sentence there has a deterrent value if he dislikes it so much.

So, I don't think his example serves your position as well as you thought.

As for "his family lives here at our expense" ; If a relative of yours committed a serious offence, would it be fair that you were stripped of your acquired UK citiizenship and put on the first flight back to Italy?.

One name: Abu Hamza.

Milked the system to the bones, all at our expenses.

This is someone who skinned children alive and convicted of genocide.

Yet, he's well and alive and his family lives here at our expenses.

Nice one!

Abu Hamza wants to come to the UK to be imprisoned and why wouldn't he,

being imprisoned in the UK today is like living in a holiday camp, they don't

have to work if they don't want to, 4 meals a day with a choice of menu,

television in their cells game consuls, recreation etc; etc; (punishment my eye).

If they get ill it is immediately treatment unlike us who have to make an appointment

with the doctor, and how much does this cost you and me. (I bet some lonely OAP

would love that sort of treatment.

This is what you the tax payer is contributing to their life of luxury.

Statistics on just 1 prison.

It costs £40,000+ per year to keep 1 prisoner in Strangways.

The operational capacity of Strangways as of 1st April 2013 is 1,238.

I will leave you to work out how much that is costing the you/country.

No wonder the iis butchers known as the Beatles want to come over hear

to serve their sentence, (leave them in the Kurd prison)as far as I am concerned

if they wish to be martyrs they can dig out, but no they don’t they are just cowards

who get brain washed high on drugs youngsters to do it, other wise if he was so sure

about paradise Hamza would have put himself forward for so called martyrdom.