Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

[PTK]

Look, I'm going to make this really clear because it seems people aren't getting it and it's really simple.

I would only support the consideration of execution of people whose guilt is beyond any doubt whatsoever.

These would necessarily be those who are caught red-handed perpetrating the most heinous crimes.

We're talking about the likes of Breivik, Ruducubana (had he been an adult) terrorist scum who go on rampages .... etc.

What about the perpetrators of war crimes, like Bloody Sunday or the My Lai massacre?

 

[andysays]

Whilst on the evidence of this thread, both executions may seem superficially attractive, I don't believe that crimes against comprehension and critical thinking should be punishable by death.

Especially when it's so easy for even an expert in comprehension and critical thinking such as yourself to make a mistake in basic identification.

One thing which does kind of interest me is your statement that you wouldn't have argued for the execution of the Birmingham 6. Why not?

I would have thought that being found guilty of two terrorist attacks which resulted in killing 21 people dead and 182 injured would make someone a prime candidate for execution.

So why would your fool proof system not have had them executed?

 

[cupid_stunt]

That's certainly an unsavoury club I don't want the UK to belong TBH.

SOURCE

 

[Serge Forward]

No, it doesn't. I've explained how we could avoid executing innocent people. It's foolproof.

Titanic, etc.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Whilst on the evidence of this thread, both executions may seem superficially attractive, I don't believe that crimes against comprehension and critical thinking should be punishable by death.

That's your get-out clause sorted then.

 

[Spymaster]

Especially when it's so easy for even an expert in comprehension and critical thinking such as yourself to make a mistake in basic identification.

One thing which does kind of interest me is your statement that you wouldn't have argued for the execution of the Birmingham 6. Why not?

I would have thought that being found guilty of two terrorist attacks which resulted in killing 21 people dead and 182 injured would make someone a prime candidate for execution.

So why would your fool proof system not have had them executed?

Post #264

 

[cupid_stunt]

I recall that statistics for the USA showed that there was not much difference between murder rates in states that had the death penalty, and those that did not.

See THIS POST - The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

 

[PTK]

See THIS POST - The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

Yes, thanks, I saw your post after I had posted.

 

[isvicthere?]

There are many views for and against deterrence. As you say, CP isn't going to deter people who don't think they'll be caught, and it won't deter people who act impulsively without considering consequences. After abolition in the UK, nothing much happened to the homicide rate but the rate of violent crime skyrocketed. There are potentially other reasons for that, but it's also argued that criminals became emboldened to use extreme violence in the knowledge that they wouldn't hang if they killed someone. If that's the case, CP acted as a deterrent to other crimes. But, whether or not it's any form of deterrent is not the only element, and if it is, it simply bolsters an idea that stands on other merits anyway.

It's true that violent crime in Britain (and, indeed, across most affluent countries) rose sharply at the time you say, but it was already on a steep upward arc from the end of WW2, until it started to go down dramatically sometime around 1990. I'm not sure the abolition of the death penalty has anything to with this. Indeed, social analysts are still at a loss to describe how the seemingly unstoppable increase of violence in western societies fell into a fairly spectacular decline in this period. Commentators in the USA have cited the "Wade vs Roe" case, which delivered abortion rights, as a cause. Others note that the rise and fall in violence are in a very close correlation with when western countries used, and then banned, lead in petrol; however, despite the close correlation, cause has yet to be definitively established. A further possible cause, more local to Britain, is the rise of ecsatasy and the dance culture, which certailnly contributed to the decline of football hooliganism.

 

[LakieLady]

It's dead simple. If we had the death penalty the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four would probably all have been hung. This would have helped make the Troubles even more troubling and worked wonders for community cohesion. Just two simple examples. There are loads more.

BIB: I once counted up the number of wrongful murder convictions I could recall without looking anything up, and I think the number was in the low 40s.

While financial compensation will never really make up for years lost to wrongful imprisonment, at least those people had the chance to clear their names.

 

[Spymaster]

It's true that violent crime in Britain (and, indeed, across most affluent countries) rose sharply at the time you say, but it was already on a steep upward arc from the end of WW2, until it started to go down dramatically sometime around 1990. I'm not sure the abolition of the death penalty has anything to with this. Indeed, social analysts are still at a loss to describe how the seemingly unstoppable increase of violence in western societies fell into a fairly spectacular decline in this period. Commentators in the USA have cited the "Wade vs Roe" case, which delivered abortion rights, as a cause. Others note that the rise and fall in violence are in a very close correlation with when western countries used, and then banned, lead in petrol; however, despite the close correlation, cause has yet to be definitively established. A further possible cause, more local to Britain, is the rise of ecsatasy and the dance culture, which certailnly contributed to the decline of football hooliganism.

Yes. All sorts of possible reasons for the massive spike in violence after abolition. Also, you get all the interest groups getting involved with their own theories. Far right commentators, for example, argue that it corresponded with the huge increase in immigration in the 60s. For me though, the idea that criminals were more likely to resort to extreme violence than previously when they risked being hanged, is entirely plausible.

 

[smokedout]

I'm intrigued by this idea of sentencing juries. For this to work you would have to exclude anyone who didn't agree with the death penalty, a sizeable portion of the population, if not the majority. So you've already distorted the independence of the jury by defining who can be a member, giving a greater weight to those who like the idea of capital punishment anyway. Some of whom could well be armchair psychopaths in their own right.

This is already a well known problem is cases where the death penalty could be imposed and creates racial bias in jury selection due to the “death qualification”, which leads to jurors being rejected if they do not support the death penalty. It also leads to juries which are biased in favour of conviction.

The present research examines whether and how the biasing effects of the death qualification process—the unique procedure by which prospective jurors are screened for eligibility on the basis of their death penalty attitudes—have been affected by the changing landscape of opinions about capital punishment. In-depth telephone surveys were conducted with statewide representative samples of persons eligible for jury service in three distinctly different states—California, New Hampshire, and Florida. Despite differences in geographical location, demographic make-up, and death penalty history and politics, very similar patterns of death qualification bias were observed. Persons whose death penalty attitudes “qualified” them to serve on a capital jury were more punitive overall, less well-informed about the system of death sentencing, more willing to use aggravating factors to impose death and less willing to use mitigating factors to impose life in prison without the possibility of parole, and less racially diverse than persons who would be “excluded” by death qualification.

Access & Login - APA PsycNET

Login to your APA Style CENTRAL account to access and manage resources for learning, teaching, and applying APA Style.

psycnet.apa.org

 

[MrsArcanum]

One other thing that may be missed, is that Juries were less likely to convict when the Death Penalty was in place.

 

[Spymaster]

What about the perpetrators of war crimes, like Bloody Sunday or the My Lai massacre?

In principle I'd have no objection to the execution of soldiers who murder civilians 'for fun' but I'm not sure that there'd be many cases that reach the beyond all doubt threshold.

 

[PTK]

In principle I'd have no objection to the execution of soldiers who murder civilians 'for fun' but I'm not sure that there'd be many cases that reach the beyond all doubt threshold.

What about soldiers who murder civilians not for fun?

 

[Spymaster]

What about soldiers who murder civilians not for fun?

You'd need to give more context.

 

[smokedout]

Look, I'm going to make this really clear because it seems people aren't getting it and it's really simple.

I would only support the consideration of execution of people whose guilt is beyond any doubt whatsoever.

These would necessarily be those who are caught red-handed perpetrating the most heinous crimes.

We're talking about the likes of Breivik, Ruducubana (had he been an adult) terrorist scum who go on rampages and are detained in the act .... etc.

How can you know beyond doubt that Ruducubana wouldn't have been found to have diminished responsibility if he had pleaded it (which he almost certainly would have done if he was facing execution)? What if he appeals his sentence on those grounds in a few years time and tries to get transferred to a secure hospital? Can you know, beyond doubt, that he would be unsuccessful? How can you know that?

 

[planetgeli]

In principle I'd have no objection to the execution of soldiers who murder civilians 'for fun' but I'm not sure that there'd be many cases that reach the beyond all doubt threshold.

Do you think there's a swathe of murderers who get caught red-handed? Your 'beyond all doubt' fantasy is dealing with the tiniest of tiny numbers too. Yet that hasn't stopped you arguing for your point.

Or are you just arguing for hanging for stupidity (getting caught red-handed)? Or for, you know, in the case of some terrorists, those who welcome martyrdom?

 

[PTK]

You'd need to give more context.

Bloody Sunday, Derry, Ireland, 30 January 1972. Soldiers murdered unarmed civilians who posed no threat to them.

 

[Spymaster]

How can you know beyond doubt that Ruducubana wouldn't have been found to have diminished responsibility if he had pleaded it (which he almost certainly would have done if he was facing execution)? What if he appeals his sentence on those grounds in a few years time and tries to get transferred to a secure hospital? Can you know, beyond doubt, that he would be unsuccessful? How can you know that?

Well, that's another question but I'd be comfortable enough with an initial finding of sound mind. We're not talking about people who've nicked a few cars here. These are people who've mass murdered children in the most disgusting circumstances. If we can be absolutely certain that they carried out the deed, and experts say they were criminally responsible, I'd be somewhat less concerned that someone might come along later and say they were bonkers at the time.

(Now let's wait for someone to come along and say I advocate killing people with mental illness!)

 

[Spymaster]

Do you think there's a swathe of murderers who get caught red-handed? Your 'beyond all doubt' fantasy is dealing with the tiniest of tiny numbers too.

They certainly exist, as I've demonstrated with examples. Are you suggesting that my position is flawed because it won't kill enough people?

Or are you just arguing for hanging for stupidity (getting caught red-handed)? Or for, you know, in the case of some terrorists, those who welcome martyrdom?

The stupidity point is clearly absurd.

As far as terrorists who murder civilians welcoming martyrdom is concerned, I think we should oblige them with extreme fervour.

 

[cupid_stunt]

As far as terrorists who murder civilians welcoming martyrdom is concerned, I think we should oblige them with extreme fervour.

And, thus foster more extremists.

 

[planetgeli]

Are you suggesting that my position is flawed because it won't kill enough people?

I think that's called a strawman isn't it?

 

[Ax^]

do they give edging awards

he is really dragging this one out

 

[danny la rouge]

I think that's called a strawman isn't it?

Mate, it’s a seven nation straw army!

 

[planetgeli]

As far as terrorists who murder civilians welcoming martyrdom is concerned, I think we should oblige them with extreme fervour.

I thought you were against giving criminals stuff? Especially stuff they want. Plus what cupid_stunt said.

 

[Ax^]

think spy should just be honest with himself ..

its more if a few innocent people die well you cannie make an omelette without breaking a few eggs

 

[The39thStep]

Definitely. As a society, we sometimes need to be satisfied that a particularly heinous perpetrator has got what they deserve.

Which society is that ?

 

[Spymaster]

I think that's called a strawman isn't it?

Yep. I’ve been waiting to play it for ages!

 

[Rob Ray]

Only for people who sign up for it, and people with a net worth of say, £5 million+. Who can commute the sentence by giving the rest of their money away to randomly selected charities.