Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?
- Thread starter planetgeli
- Start date
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
All of the discussion about levels of guilt and methods of execution are a bit of a red herring.
The question will always boil down to a philosophical choice which gets pretty close to first principles. Can it be right to kill another person who you believe poses no threat? That’s a question the same for an individual or a society.
Only the most committed pacifist* would argue against stopping someone killing them, or another, and quite often that will mean either deliberately killing the person or using tactics which are likely to result in the death of the subject.
It gets a bit harder after that. Killing in war, even of people not actively involved in conflict is widely justified. Again a continuum of killing an enemy soldier who is not involved in combat at that very moment, to sinking enemy shipping , to the killing of civilians from the air in order to damage the state they are living in, to terrorist/insurgents/freedom fighters planting bombs that will kill civilians.
Then assassination of people who pose no immediate or even distant physical threat to you but who’s killing will further your aims.
Everyone will have their own place on this spectrum, and in reality many will have different places for those they agree and disagree with ( for example some might feel the area bombing of German cities was not acceptable, but the IRA mainland campaigns in the last stages of the troubles was).
Mine is that if you control a person and can stop them being a threat. As we can with people convicted of murder ( and further offending by them is down to failings in our system) then it is wrong to kill them.
The second issue is deterrence. Relatively recently the British state tried to execute their way out of a crime wave in the early industrial towns and cities with the black acts. These brought the death penalty in for almost any crime. They spectacularly failed as there was such a low chance of being caught and sentenced with the lack of anything like a modern investigative regime, and the lack of public and so jury support after a few years) showed how ineffective this was. Many, some arguments would say most, people don’t need a deterrent to stop them committing crimes. The most effective deterrent for those that do need to be deterred is a high risk of getting captured . Despite the massive cuts to criminal justice in the UK in recent years the conviction rate for murder remains at a very high level compared to historical levels.
My answer remains:
The death penalty is wrong when we can control people convicted of murder. It also doesn’t work as a deterrent.
(*Some people do hold this belief, I respect them for it. But I don’t share it.)
The question will always boil down to a philosophical choice which gets pretty close to first principles. Can it be right to kill another person who you believe poses no threat? That’s a question the same for an individual or a society.
Only the most committed pacifist* would argue against stopping someone killing them, or another, and quite often that will mean either deliberately killing the person or using tactics which are likely to result in the death of the subject.
It gets a bit harder after that. Killing in war, even of people not actively involved in conflict is widely justified. Again a continuum of killing an enemy soldier who is not involved in combat at that very moment, to sinking enemy shipping , to the killing of civilians from the air in order to damage the state they are living in, to terrorist/insurgents/freedom fighters planting bombs that will kill civilians.
Then assassination of people who pose no immediate or even distant physical threat to you but who’s killing will further your aims.
Everyone will have their own place on this spectrum, and in reality many will have different places for those they agree and disagree with ( for example some might feel the area bombing of German cities was not acceptable, but the IRA mainland campaigns in the last stages of the troubles was).
Mine is that if you control a person and can stop them being a threat. As we can with people convicted of murder ( and further offending by them is down to failings in our system) then it is wrong to kill them.
The second issue is deterrence. Relatively recently the British state tried to execute their way out of a crime wave in the early industrial towns and cities with the black acts. These brought the death penalty in for almost any crime. They spectacularly failed as there was such a low chance of being caught and sentenced with the lack of anything like a modern investigative regime, and the lack of public and so jury support after a few years) showed how ineffective this was. Many, some arguments would say most, people don’t need a deterrent to stop them committing crimes. The most effective deterrent for those that do need to be deterred is a high risk of getting captured . Despite the massive cuts to criminal justice in the UK in recent years the conviction rate for murder remains at a very high level compared to historical levels.
My answer remains:
The death penalty is wrong when we can control people convicted of murder. It also doesn’t work as a deterrent.
(*Some people do hold this belief, I respect them for it. But I don’t share it.)
Last edited:
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
Indeed. As stated early on. No matter how many angels you can organise to perform an Orcadian reel on a pinhead.
And there goes beyond doubt.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Still have that policy, as does every other UK police force and I’m fairly sure all EU ones. As an aside, I’m not sure how else you’d stop someone with a self activated body or vehicle borne IED who is on their way to an attack.
Not that even that tactic would work if the bomb maker had used a deadman’s switch. Or indeed if the shooter managed to hit the head but missed the brain stem. Fortunately, for reasons I’ve never understood, deadman switches haven’t seen that much use anywhere ‘suicide bombers’ are a significant tactic.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
For sure. I also had to consider ice-is-forming ’s idea to allow lifers to choose death, given that I don’t believe criminals should have any say whatsoever in how they are punished.
However, in these cases I’ve decided that we need to be flexible on the issue.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Nice try, but nonsense. I’ve made it abundantly clear that my concern for beyond doubt is wrt the commission of the act, and not the state of mind, given that they are judged of sound mind at the time.
So are you arguing diminished responsibility should no longer be a defence in certain murder cases? Who decides which ones?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No. Read the last part of the post you just quoted again.
Jammy smears
Pickle your knees in cheese
I must admit I have never given that any thought before. I know If I was a juror I couldn't give a guilty verdict if I knew they were likely to be given a death sentence. I don't want blood on my hands, I doubt many would when it came down to it, even those who want the death penalty reinstated may balk at actually being a part of it.
But whether they are judged of sound mind or not can never be beyond doubt. The court can get that wrong, assuming it's the jury that makes that decision and not just the judge or some random doctor.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The objective evidence that the justice system is far from foolproof completely undermines your argument.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Once again, if the person who just stabbed a load of little girls over 300 times, is judged to be of sound mind by experts at the time of sentencing, I’m happy with that. The possibility that they may have got that wrong doesn’t concern me. We’re not talking about a car thief here.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
A case of the old correlation does not necessarily indicate causation canard.
Spymaster appears to have given up on this line of argument. He'll no doubt give up on his foolproof guilty as in really guilty scheme eventually as well. But a while ago, he was arguing for deterrence based on the UK's crime figures in the 20th century.
Teasing out whether correlation does indicate causation can be tricky. Luckily for us, in this case we don't have to rely on just the UK as a data point. There are hundreds of potential data points to look at as the DP has been abolished across the world hundreds of times.
I did a deep dive on this in a previous frustrating argument with Spymaster when he also took this ludicrous line that the people pointing out the obvious flaws in his argument were being stupid. I had been hoping to find some evidence to support the idea that abolition of the DP is associated with a drop in violent crime, forming part of a process in which we become less brutal and life is valued more highly. This will be searchable on here as I posted the findings. To summarise, there was no evidence to support my idea. But there was also no evidence to support the idea of deterrence. The evidence strongly indicated that the existence or not of the DP as punishment for certain crimes makes no difference whatever to crime rates, including rates of formerly capital crimes.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No it doesn’t.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Surely arguments in favour of the legitimacy of state justice rest upon the social contract that, for compliance, the reciprocal is protection from danger? An effective system of justice does not need to be, indeed should not be, based upon notions of sub-contracted vengeance. Where do you get your strange ideas from?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Oh, you’re back, and chucking about ad hominems as usual!
All I’ll say to this is that Spymaster hasn’t given up on that line of argument because it’s not one he’s made. Indeed, I agreed with Vic .
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The alternative facts gambit makes you sound like a fool.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well that's just not true.
And cut out this passive-aggressive crap. It makes you sound like a fucking tool.
Would you be equally happy if they were judged by experts not to be of sound mind and so a plea of diminished responsibility could be entered? You've just given these experts the power of life or death.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
And of course this is the case, because nobody commits a crime expecting to get caught. This has been the thing all "punishment must be a deterrence" merchants throughout history have refused to acknowledge.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Don't call me a liar, please. You've change your mind since then? Great. Just say so.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Has there been any research into likelihood of being caught and convicted? The increase in cameras and better investigation methods will have at least created the impression you are more likely to get caught now which might have a deterrence affect?
PTK
Paul Kegan
I consider argument that we should execute people because it saves money to be a disgusting argument. If you start out killing people on the basis that keeping them in prison is too expensive, then where does it stop? The NHS needs the money, say callers to Any Questions on Radio 4. There are hundreds of murders every year, so the savings obtained by executing them murderers would be far less than the cost of giving operations to old people who are going to die soon anyway.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Pot-kettle much?
You’re one of the most intelligent chaps I’ve ever had the pleasure of drinking with, but you can’t debate for toffee on here, and you just get stroppy and vituperative when things don’t go your way.
As soon as I see you post, I know there’s a tone-change coming!
Last edited:
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Anyway, let's get down to business in Retribution Island.
What method of execution is sufficiently retributive enough or should there be graded methods of execution depending on the level of retribution to be extracted rather than some half-hearted one size fits all?
Should the executioners be in house or subcontracted out to countries that have some expertise in these matters and added to the skilled worker criteria?
Should the executions be streamed with or without adverts, or just in front of a select audience, should relatives of the victims be invited?
Should the prisoner be able to choose a last meal and if so would that be in house or home delivered or subject to healthy eating criteria?
Does the person being executed get to know the date in advance or is it better to just randomly turn up at the cell door giving an element of surprise so to speak.
What method of execution is sufficiently retributive enough or should there be graded methods of execution depending on the level of retribution to be extracted rather than some half-hearted one size fits all?
Should the executioners be in house or subcontracted out to countries that have some expertise in these matters and added to the skilled worker criteria?
Should the executions be streamed with or without adverts, or just in front of a select audience, should relatives of the victims be invited?
Should the prisoner be able to choose a last meal and if so would that be in house or home delivered or subject to healthy eating criteria?
Does the person being executed get to know the date in advance or is it better to just randomly turn up at the cell door giving an element of surprise so to speak.
Last edited:
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
I expect those aligning with the intellectual heft of Priti Patel would likely favour some sort of Caravana de la Muerte
Similar threads
