Death Penalty. Yes or No

[opel80uk]

Until the death sentence can be reversed in the event of miscarriages of justice, it should be avoided like the plague.

Spot on.

[goatmonkey]

From a personal standpoint I have no problem with the man being killed as it would ultimately be better for society but I find the idea of a society simply destroying that which does not fit in with it pretty disturbing.

[IronWarrior]

Death penalty is for savages and primitive uncivilised counties, it's revenge punishment and not a deterrent at all. It does not stop murder or other grave offences.

I would prefer criminals who deserve such a powerful punishment to be made a use to society, they could be used as hard labor where they work to support themselves and do some good, building work for example.

For the real hardcases, I would force them to join the military with explosive neck collars that only have enough power to kill them and no one else. This way you can control them and gives them the choice if they wish to live or die. If they don't comply with orders, so be it, their choice, they made it.

If they comply, then they could be used as mine clearance or to be used as cannon folder.

[Saracen]

Until the death sentence can be reversed in the event of miscarriages of justice, it should be avoided like the plague.

But by that logic, until someone losing 10, 15, maybe 20 years of the best years of their lives in prison in the event of a miscarriage, prison should be avoided like the plague. The ultimate logical end point for that logic is that until we can be absolutely, 100%, beyond the remotest possibility of error, certain of guilt, nobody should suffer any punishment that is not 100% reversible, so we're down to fines, with repayment with interest and compensation if we get it wrong.

Okay, that's taking it to extremes, but there are cases where we KNOW the person is guilty, often because of either overwhelming evidence, or their own admission. For instance, Harold Shipman.

[Saracen]

Death penalty is for savages and primitive uncivilised counties, it's revenge punishment and not a deterrent at all. It does not stop murder or other grave offences.

It is not just "revenge" punishment, and indeed, one argument often used against the death penalty is that it's an easy way out for those that really ought to suffer the implications of a life behind bars to pay for their crimes.

As for it not being a deterrent .... prove it. It is certain is does not always deter, or there'd be no murders in countries that have it, in which case, there'd be no need for it anyway and the argument would be moot. It may even not very often deter. But that's not to say it never deters.

But just how, pray, do you know that absolutely nobody that has ever considered murder in a death penalty country, or state, has decided not to because of the possibility of their own execution. I would suggest that that is simply not knowable, and therefore, we can't know that it never acts as a deterrent.

As for it not stopping other murders .... well, the threat of it might not stop murders (that being the deterrent point I've already covered). but I'd suggest that once carried out, it sure stops any possibility of the offender re-offending.

So, here's a scenario for you.

You have a mass murderer, convicted on over-whelming evidence of multiple murders, and they have admitted to their guilt, given details only the killer could know, and perhaps led police to the bodies of unknown victims.

In other words, they are guilty.

So, on the one hand, they are executed. It is therefore certain that they cannot kill again.

On the other hand, they are incarcerated for life. They may still kill another prisoner, perhaps one in for far less serious crimes. This has happened. They may riot and kill a guard. They may escape and kill again.

You say execution does not stop murders or other serious crimes. It does in those situations. No executed prisoner has ever re-offended to my knowledge, but if you have examples of it, I'd be interested to hear them. Otherwise, it sure does stop it.

Finally .... " for savages and primitive uncivilised counties". A value judgement, and one open to plenty of argument. A bland assertion that it is the case does not make it true.

So lets take the example of a known serial killer, perhaps one that killed in especially vicious and heinous ways, perhaps targeting children. Having committed those crimes, is it EVER safe to release that person, because to my mind, unless you can be absolutely, categorically 100% certain that they will not re-offend, it is not fair on their future potential child victims to EVER release them. How can we justify releasing a known serious danger to innocent kids, givemn what we know of that offender's past actions?

We can't.

So .... we have to lock that person up for the rest of their lives, which may well be many decades. Not only that, we have to lock them up in a regime involving the highest level of security, because anything less involves increased risk of escape, and that involves further risk to as yet unharmed kids. It is certainly not a sign of a civilised society to put innocent kids in harm's way to protect the rights of known mass murderers.

So, we come down to a value judgement as to the relative savagery of execution versus decades of prison in a very heavy regime, and exactly which one is less humane, less civilised.

And finally, we have the cost. It is expensive keeping prisoners in that kind of heavy security, and as they grow older, it is more and more expensive as medical bills start to go up. Execution, on the other hand, is (or can be) dirt cheap.

Usually, at this point, someone sites one or two old US studies about how expensive the death penalty system is, but, being US studies, they DO NOT reflect the cost of the legal system in countries other than the US. A very large part of the large cost those US studies cite is expressly because the rather absurd way the US legal system handles death penalty cases, especially involving appeal after appeal after appeal, often on minor technical grounds that all sides, including the defence lawyers filing them, know will be denied, and that are in fact simply delaying tactics explicitly designed to frustrate the rulings of courts and the clear intent of the legislators.

Unless you have a legal system that goes to those same often ridiculous extents, and in the UK we do not, then the costs of a death penalty system where that process can often take well over a decade to exhaust, by which time a good proportion of the cost of long-term incarceration has been incurred anyway, in addition to small (or large) fortune in legal costs for the appeals simply aren't applicable.

So ... if considering the comparative costs of the death penalty to life in prison in the UK, in would have to be done on the basis of the legal system in the UK, not the legal system in the US.

And at that point, you find a far lower cost because of the lack of all those numerous technical appeals, and a far lower cost.

So instead of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds keeping that heinous mass murderer in jail, thereby arguably inflicting worse punishment on him or her by decades of such misery, we can spare them that misery with a simple execution and spend the resulting savings on something worthwhile, like a kids hospital, or decent care for the elderly. Quite what is savage or uncivilised in wanting to provide care for the vulnerable in society rather than a lifetime of misery for mass murderers?

And before someone says that it's putting a value on human life, well, maybe. But funding for projects that save lives is not unlimited. Perhaps the savings could be explicitly used to something that is likely to save lives. Maybe extra cancer screening equipment, or an extra air ambulance here or there, without which lives of people that aren't mass murderers could have been saved.

We do, by direct implication, put values on lives all the time. We factor in the cost of doing or not doing something with the projected statistical cost in lives. What are the safety and the economic implications of, say, imposing a maxi,um 30 mph speed limit on all roads, including motorways? Or 20 mph? And, perhaps, of electronically limiting all cars so that they won;t go faster than that. It would no doubt save a lot of lives in road accidents if nobody could go faster than 20mph. But we don't do it because of the economic implications, both of hugely extended journey times and on economic output. We therefore make the value judgement that we will each take our small part in the risk of being one of those that gets killed in a traffic accident for the economic well-being of the society. We do, effectively, put a value of life because we KNOW, within a predictable range, how many lives that decision will cost every year.

Again, actuaries can tell you how many lives, statistically, will be lost in any major engineering project, and indeed such figures are often part of a risk assessment. We KNOW that for every major project, risks are involved and that sooner or later, those risks will be realised, and someone will die. One of the most obvious examples is occupations like mining, but another is offshore fishing. Every time a boat goes out, they know there's a chance of freak weather, or some accident (like getting run down by a supertanker or clobbered by a submarine, and that someone may not come home that day. But as a society, we do it anyway.

We might be able to argue that building a hospital will save lives and that justified the risk in building it, but what about a shopping centre, multi-screen cinema or a fancy hotel? Again, a decision is made about the risk and the cost in lives of doing such-and-such a project, and we do it.

Human life, therefore, is not sacrosanct to us, because pretty much every day, we make decisions that involve risking it. We pretty much all make that decision every time we venture out on to the roads, whether we realise it or not.

So, if we are going to make a decision that building a bridge, or tunnel, or shopping centre justified the risk to human life that such projects inevitably involve, then it;s no different to make a value judgement on whether to spend several hundred thousand pounds keeping a vicious murderer locked up, ir whether to execute him and spend it on an MRI scanner instead, that might, or indeed almost certainly will, save lives.

So it's not just a case of what it costs in money to keep someone in jail, but what it costs in lives, because the opportunity cost of spending that money on long-term incarceration is that society does not get the benefit of spending that money on something else that could save lives. Suppose one MRI scanner costs £500,000 and one life-long imprisonment costs £500,000. Our budget is limited, and the money only gets spent once. Spend it on locking that murderer up and the price we pay ids that any lives saved by that scanner, or whatever project we spent that money on, don't get saved. Queues get longer, and delays cost lives. And it's not just a scanner. It could be on early cancer screening, or anti-Alzheimer's medication, or all sorts of things.

I can almost hear some people objecting to apparently putting money value on such things, but it's naive id we suppose such things aren't done every day. When a decision to spend money on an MRI scanner rather than an x-ray machine, or an extra operating theatre, are made, a decision is made as to what the real need is, what gives most benefit. Given a choice between having more equipment of these types, in some mix or other, and having less, which hospital would choose less? Therefore, given a limited budget, they have to decide what to spend on and what to not spend on, and the "not" category often costs lives that could be saved, or suffering that could be ameliorated, were it not for limited budgets.

Spending money locking a prisoner up for decades has a cost in terms of what we sacrifice by spending the money that way, whether we like looking that harsh reality in the face or not.

I would therefore suggest that a civilised society would choose to spend that money on things that will truly be of the most benefit to the most needy in that society, and not to perpetuate the cruel punishment of locking someone up for decades, with the potential for the mental anguish that knowing they will spend the rest of their lives locked up, facing a harsh prison regime, with no freedom of movement, and other in control of when they get to go outside, what they eat and when they eat it, and knowing that you face that, year in year out, decade after decade, until they eventually die.

I used Harold Shipman as an example of a candidate for the death penalty earlier, on the basis that he's a notorious serial killer with a minimal chance of ever getting released. If he could answer us, which he clearly can't, I wonder how he'd explain why he chose to commit suicide rather than face the rest of his life behind bars.

It is not as simple as dismissing support for the death penalty as being savage or uncivilised.

[IronWarrior]

tldr

Sorry my good fellow, I'm unable to read the barbaric wall of text defending murder. Shoot me a message when you join the civilised world.

[Saracen]

Sorry my good fellow, I'm unable to read the barbaric wall of text defending murder. Shoot me a message when you join the civilised world.

Personal insults are not allowed on here.

If you want to argue your point, do so, but do NOT just insult people.

Account suspended for 7 days.

I expect an apology for that remark, or it'll be permanent.

[Zadock]

Very well rounded arguement Saracen.

Esp the last point. To insist on lifetime imprisonment so someone can suffer for as long as possible for their crime doesn't seem like particularly 'civilised' either in fact it sounds just as vengeful as wanting someone sentenced to death. I would argue that a 'civilised' society is probably in favour of euthanasia or any other means of minimising suffering.

But as you say this is definitely not a black and white situation, I don't think we will ever all agree on this.

[Saracen]

.....

But as you say this is definitely not a black and white situation, I don't think we will ever all agree on this.

Oh, I'm sure we won't.

For a start, some people will argue that their religion says that any killing is wrong. And then, it gets complex. For a start, we can argue whether "thou shall not kill" should actually be "thou shall not murder", and the distinction, clearly, is that murder is illegal killing, and not all killings are illegal. Killing using reasonable force for self-defence is not, for a start, and neither is state-authorised killing if it's done in compliance with the laws if that jurisdiction.

But beyond that, when someone says "God says it's wrong" it begs some serious questions, such as "Can you prove that God actually exists?" and "Can you prove that that's what he (or she) said?"

Inevitably, that cannot be proven. It's a matter of faith, of belief, which, however honestly and genuinely held, may be mistaken.

And you can then get into arguments over who has authority over the affairs of man, as opposed to the affairs of the spirit, the soul. If, for example, Christian belief is that the affairs of man are subject to secular authority, and the penalty for murder is a secular matter, where does God mandate that he cedes authority over given matters to those secular authority, and where does God assert that his instructions override secular authority. And that brings us back to whether the commandment is correctly interpreted or not, and whether "not kill" should be "not murder", and that the former is a Middle Ages misinterpretation of the social context of the commandment. If it's "not murder", that would certainly resolve any conflict between secular authority and God's authority.

And given all that. when one person says "the DP is wrong because God says it is" and another person says "God doesn't exist", you have an issue about which agreement is never likely, and neither side is likely to be able to prove their case to the other.

Arguments about the DP always seem to end this way. You can tackle some issues, and expose some contradictions, like the cost issue, but at the end of the day, some people believe it's inherently and fundamentally wrong, and others don't and rarely will either side change the other's mind.

[Tattysnuc]

Personal insults are not allowed on here.

If you want to argue your point, do so, but do NOT just insult people.

Account suspended for 7 days.

I expect an apology for that remark, or it'll be permanent.

Harsh, but fair, especially considering the well articulated, considered response the Saracen wrote. That's just flaming!

My concern regarding a "No to this" is exactly that explored by Saracen. People who commit crimes and are locked away are supposed to have had their freedom taken. Being able to vote and speak are two things which define freedom in the western world. Recently there was discussion about allowing Prisoners to vote, which sickened me.

For economic and public safety reasons I would reintroduce the death sentence for cruel, and malicious crimes where the prisoner could be released and commit the same crime again. I don't agree that certain crimes should all be considered for the death sentence as this as a rule allows for lawyers to argue technicalities.

Likewise, if a prisoner wishes to terminate his or her life, then I think that they should be allowed to. I have no desire to pay my taxes to keep someone on suicide watch for the rest of their days while we pay for psychiatrists to come and evaluate them.

Prison is no deterrent. The death penalty is no deterrent. They are a consequence of breaking the laws of the country, established by a legal system build by, fought for and voted for by us and our ancestors.

Empower those who enforce the law: Punish those who break it, protect those who don't.

[Saracen]

Harsh, but fair, especially considering the well articulated, considered response the Saracen wrote. That's just flaming!
....

Harsh,? Perhaps, but it's not really anything to do with the size or nature, well-articulated or not, of my response.

It's about :-

1) Rules
2) This forum dying because of that type of post.

I have a particular interest in proper discussion and debate. I have for years. My first forum moderating was on OcUK precisely because of that interest when they first opened a forum for "proper" debate, and MYB and I moderated it.

And when this forum first started on HEXUS, I ran it.

I don't get anything like as much time to do that as I used to, and don't spend as much time in QT, but what I do get, periodically, is people telling me they don't post in here because of the too-often snide and nasty tone of replies they often get. As a result, this forum is nowhere near as well-used as it used to be, or could be.

Well, we've had rules about not insulting other members for years. I know, because I wrote that rule. And the lack of some people following it, and others using very carefully worded posts to hedge round it, is downright detrimental to the forum.

And the mod team, for months, have been going on about people treating others with respect. Tiggerai especially has pout a lot of work into that by explaining, asking and eventually threatening action.

And yet, IronWarrior chose to express his views in that tone, and did it directly to a board admin. That's about as flagrant a flouting of the rules as it gets.

So, when I see it, the use of that tone around here is going to change. Either it will change because those doing it stop doing it, or because they lose their accounts. Having a rule doesn't seem to work, either because people don't bother to read it, or ignore it. And the campaign Tiggerai's fronted clearly hasn't been entirely successful either.

Debate in QT doesn't have to be lengthy, or even well-articulated. A few words can make a point, and that's fine. So people are free to ignore posts if they don't like them, or they're welcome to disagree and argue why, but while I'm around they'd better do it with some courtesy because if I see more of that type of deliberately tone, more people are going to get posting holidays.

Sooner or later, this will quite possibly cost us some members. No doubt some will flounce off in a huff. It won't be the first time, either. But hopefully, some of those that won't post for fear of a flaming will start to do so again, and with a bit of luck, it'll end up with a much more vibrant forum and a wider exchange of views.

It's all about trying to rejuvenate the forum, tatty, because we know that that type of tone is a large reason why a lot of people either won't post in here, or have stopped.

People can argue whatever they like, within the bounds of the rules and the law, but they'd better do it with some courtesy, or more suspensions are likely to follow.

[paul92]

In terrible crimes where they have pleeded guilty or there is conclusive evidence surely the death penalty should be used. i mean some crimes are so sick that you shouldnt expect otherwise. either way our justice system is far too leanient and should be more like the US.

[opel80uk]

But by that logic, until someone losing 10, 15, maybe 20 years of the best years of their lives in prison in the event of a miscarriage, prison should be avoided like the plague. The ultimate logical end point for that logic is that until we can be absolutely, 100%, beyond the remotest possibility of error, certain of guilt, nobody should suffer any punishment that is not 100% reversible, so we're down to fines, with repayment with interest and compensation if we get it wrong.

Okay, that's taking it to extremes, but there are cases where we KNOW the person is guilty, often because of either overwhelming evidence, or their own admission. For instance, Harold Shipman.

That's quite ridiculous. I wouldn't imagine anyone who is arguing against the death penalty would advocate fines in place of prison and would argue that the example you gave of reaching that conclusion is flawed, as most people who disagree with the death penalty understand that whilst no one can ever be 100% sure of someone else’s guilt, society needs to be protected from those convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt' of crimes. The whole point is that when a serious crime is committed a balance has to be found, with regards to safety of society, punishment and retribution for the offender, cost to the tax payer AND the possibility that the person found guilty may well be innocent, as we've seen numerous times happen before.

As for knowing that someone is guilty of the basis of 'overwhelming' evidence, there have been numerous cases of convictions, which were once thought to be correct on the basis of overwhelming evidence, to be overturned on the basis of advancements in science. No person on a jury can ever KNOW that someone is guilty, regardless of what the evidence suggests. That's the whole point of beyond reasonable doubt. That's the balance that our society has accepted needs to be made, between keeping us safe whilst doing it's upmost to avoid miscarriages of justice. On that basis, the justice system accepts that, while there are safeguards to try and prevent them from happening, miscarriages of justice are possible yet are a price worth paying. (as do I)

In virtually all of the posts that have advocated the death penalty, I have yet to see an answer to what my question would be (and apologies if I have missed it somewhere); Are innocent people executed for crimes that they did not commit a price worth paying for the death penalty?

[danroyle]

surely If we were to implement the Death penalty in this country then the entire justice system would need a complete overhaul. Too many mistakes are made.

An example i live in the town Billy jo jenkins the young foster kid had her head bashed in in the garden in the late 90's. Her foster dad A head teacher was tried and found guilty of murdering her on some blood evidence and other things that i dont know. Anyway this was a heinous crime a 14 year old girl head bashed in by her foster dad SO DEATH PENALTY right thats an easy one.

Except He immediately appealed against the decision had said in interview that he picked her up and hugged her when he found her body and that was how blood had transfered and that they had previously reported to people that someone may have been stalking the young Girl.


After 7 years in prison he has now been fully acquitted. If we had the death penalty then he would be dead by now.

Even the americans who have the Death penalty admit that its flawed so many appeals go on and most people spend 10 20 years in prison before there sentence is carried out so wouldn't free up space.

WE are supposed to be part of a civilized society surely the days of an eye for an eye are long Gone.
People that commit heinous crimes Murder Rape Child abuse do not need killing We need to identify why these people go down this road and help prevent it from happening,

After all the hefty penalty does not stop murder rates in america, IN a fit of rage or whatever if you were about to murder someone you dont hink ooh they may hang me for this.

[Brucelles]

May as well revive this a bit.

I am actually a ditherer on this. I am definitely, intellectually, with Saracen on this, as I have witnessed quite a lot of pooh in my life, and think that the briskly cost-efficient method of dealing with some of it should be the rapid termination of the perpetrator's ability to ever do it again.

I am not going to run over the reasons I think that, Saracen had it covered. I do worry about it getting out of hand, like in Texas when GW Bush was governor there, and the recent spate of literally hundreds of death row or long-term inmates freed by DNA evidence review in America certainly gives food for thought, but in the case of the dead certain, bang-on, no doubt, bad murderers I don't have a problem.

However, emotionally, I am a lot less certain.

I was living in Abu Dhabi when a pair of guys were convicted of the kidnapping, multiple rape, sodomy and brutal murder of a 12 year-old girl. They kept her alive, torturing and raping her for three days before beating her so badly she died.

They were caught when someone came forward to tell the police that they thought they had seen the guys carrying a body to their Jeep. There was blood, in their shared house, in their Jeep and on their clothes. There was semen in all of the victim's orifices, and stomach, one of the guys took the police to where the body was buried, and both confessed in great detail.

So, by my standards, they were both good candidates for the death penalty. Couldn't happen to a more deserving pair of chaps, really.

However, the tiny Gulf state is not used to the death penalty; although it is part of Sharia Law it's not often used, and there weren't many precedents as to the method. There was Koranical precedent for beheading, but that seemed a little barbaric to the Abu Dhabi folk. So they went back to the Koran and looked for what seemed appropriate. They came up with shooting. In order to spare the firing squad there was a sheet between the murderers and the squad, but there were targets drawn on the sheet, so there would be no embarrassing criticism from behind the sheet when it was all over.

So, all was well and good.

Except, because the crime was so heinous, the judge ordered a primitive ritual from the Koran, or the history of Mohammed's family, or something like that, whereby the criminals were to be exposed to the victim's family, and the other inhabitants of their town (al Ain) to allow them to express their anger toward the murderers.

So they were chained between two palm trees in a public place overnight, and an armed guard was placed to ensure that no-one set them free, or approached them too closely. Then someone, perhaps the dead girls dad or brother, threw a rock. The police weren't there to stop rocks, so more people threw rocks, all through the night.

In the morning the two were unchained and dragged off to be shot. They were tied to chairs, as they couldn't stand. There were rumours that one of them had survived the night, but apparently it was hard to tell. Either way, they were shot, and it was done.

It left a nasty taste in the mouth. The judge who passed the sentence was apparently appalled, and the Emir, the late, great Sheikh Zayed, decreed that it should never be done again.

Logically, I know that if we did it in the UK it would be different, but it still leaves me feeling that there's something animal about it. However much someone deserves it, killing them in a cold, premeditated way would still leave me feeling as though we were the criminals.

I would still like to see it, with the appropriate safeguards up the wazoo, but I think I would be disappointed in myself for approving.

[Saracen]

surely If we were to implement the Death penalty in this country then the entire justice system would need a complete overhaul. Too many mistakes are made.

....

After 7 years in prison he has now been fully acquitted. If we had the death penalty then he would be dead by now.

The second para would depend entirely on the circumstances under which the DP was imposed. There are a very wide range of types of "murder", ranging from someone that succumbs to some psychological pressure and murders their spouse, to a planned campaign of stranger murders, and child stranger murders such as, for instance, the Moors Murderers.

So, there's two questions that are largely separate :-

1) Do we have the option of a DP ever?
2) Under what circumstances is it an available sentence?

You could, for example, implement a system where it only ever applied when someone was convicted of a second murder in a completely separate incident. It could be implemented only when there were special circumstances, like sexual abuse or torture. Or only for terrorist killings with numerous victims. It could also be that an especially stringent set of criteria had to be met, above and beyond those necessary for a murder conviction, for the DP to be an option, and that could be a separate sentencing hearing by a panel of judges, perhaps Supreme Court judges, independent from the trial judges.

All the above would significantly reduce and possibility of the kind of event you refer to. Do we have any doubt that the Moors Murderers were guilty? Ian Huntley? Thomas Hamilton? Dr Harold Shipman?

There are certainly ways to be sure someone is guilty, the most obvious being when they are caught and not only confess, but are able to lead police to the remains of victims unknown to anyone else.


In the first para, yes, in my view, if the DP were ever to be brought back, the system would need an overhaul, but then does it not anyway? If someone can spend years in jail after being incorrectly convicted, it begs the question of whether the system works adequately now.

One point, though. On Sion Jenkins, we still don't know whether he actually did it or not. What we do know is that we have to presume his innocence, since it's not been possible to convince a jury to the required majority of his guilt. But nor have they returned a not guilty verdict.

So yes, sure, he's legally innocent because of that presumption, and because of the highly technical nature of the blood spatter evidence.

Is this a DP case? In my opinion, it wouldn't be, no. But none of the specifics of that case affect the argument in principle about whether we should have a DP or not.

And for the record, in my view, it's academic anyway, since unless the UK either leaves the EU and then decides to bring back the DP, which is unlikely in the extreme, or the EU decides to allow the DP, which I expect to happen shortly after the Sun starts rising in the West and gravity reverses direction, it ain't gonna happen.

So we can argue about it all we like, but it doesn't much matter anyway.