Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

[Spymaster]

Death penalty didn't work for Him, either, did it now, did it?

The resurrection is proof of the need for extreme measures to combat recidivism.

 

[chilango]

. If the question was more nuanced, such as "should CP be restored for terrorists and child torturers who are undoubtedly guilty?" the result would likely be resoundingly in favour.

It would still be an unequivocal "no" from me. Execution should never be on the table as part of a system of justice.

Imho of course.

 

[Spymaster]

It was me that asked about the victim’s relatives.

Point being that that they have been through hell, then waited for a trial, have it all dragged up again there in explicit detail and so on. Once they get lifed off they can start to move on with their lives, whether they forgive or not. If sentenced to death there will have to be appeals, if the family are anti CP they will now be put in the perverse situation where they must root for the cunt, their trauma is not allowed to end, even when the fucker swings they have a lifetime of guilt of a death on their hands, feeling they could have pushed harder to stop it. Hardly justice for the family.

But this only speaks for relatives who oppose the DP in any circumstances. What about those who don't, and feel disgusted and let down that they haven't had justice; or worse, at the prospect that the perpetrator might some day be released?

 

[Spymaster]

I think you will find that there was a public enquiry that lasted about ten years that established that members of the British Army shot dead unarmed civilians who posed no threat to them on Bloody Sunday. So, yes, it is indeed true that those people were murdered by those soldiers.

You're answering a question I didn't ask.

I was responding to your assertion that nobody here was in favour of murderous soldiers being executed.

 

[Red Cat]

It was me that asked about the victim’s relatives.

Point being that that they have been through hell, then waited for a trial, have it all dragged up again there in explicit detail and so on. Once they get lifed off they can start to move on with their lives, whether they forgive or not. If sentenced to death there will have to be appeals, if the family are anti CP they will now be put in the perverse situation where they must root for the cunt, their trauma is not allowed to end, even when the fucker swings they have a lifetime of guilt of a death on their hands, feeling they could have pushed harder to stop it. Hardly justice for the family.

And it might be important for a family to feel 'better' than the person who has taken the life of their loved ones, that is part of their healing, if there is any healing after such tragedy.

 

[A380]

Death penalty didn't work for Him, either, did it now, did it?

Don’t be blasphemous. He gave up the long Easter weekend for our sins…

 

[Agrippa57]

Terminal violence is not a mark of a civilised society.

 

[A380]

You're answering a question I didn't ask.

I was responding to your assertion that nobody here was in favour of murderous soldiers being executed.

Although I’m on on the other side of the argument to you it’s obvious in his case ( and it will be a him) that he gets a little bit ‘excited’ at the thought of other people killing people he doesn’t like. Bit like the stereotype elderly Daily Mail reader but with his fantasy hangings being ‘cops n soldiers’ rather than young and black people.

 

[Spymaster]

And it might be important for a family to feel 'better' than the person who has taken the life of their loved ones, that is part of their healing, if there is any healing after such tragedy.

Again, this only applies to a certain section of relatives and ignores those to whom CP would deliver a sense of justice and closure.

If someone stabbed my child 200 times to death, I'd want to pull the lever myself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh please!

You pretend to have researched the subject (you haven't; you've just sought out confirmation bias) then come out with this schoolboy drivel.

Should do better!

No I didn't. I had a theory - that the DP brutalised society and its abolition helps to reduce violent crime. You had a theory - that the DP acts as a deterrent. So I went off to see what raw data I could find to see if there is any pattern across countries that have abolished the DP.

I found that neither of our theories is supported by the evidence. Abolition of the DP has no measurable effect either way.

Your response when I mention that is to deny that you ever had that theory. Which is poor form, isn't it?

Meanwhile, the post you quote here is a pretty pessimistic take, but a different kind of statement. It has to do with the impossibility of making restitution for taking a life.

 

[Red Cat]

Again, this only applies to a certain section of relatives and ignores those to whom CP would deliver a sense of justice and closure.

If someone stabbed my child 200 times to death, I'd want to pull the lever myself.

Luckily most people will never experience such complex grief, so we're not able to put that to the test.

 

[Spymaster]

Your response when I mention that is to deny that you ever had that theory.

No it wasn't.

I rejected your suggestion that I'd made the argument for deterrence here; despite my having responded to the poster you were quoting, that the abolition of CP had no effect on the homicide rate in the UK.

 

[cupid_stunt]

If someone stabbed my child 200 times to death, I'd want to pull the lever myself.

I wouldn't have guessed that from your posting history on this subject.

 

[PTK]

Although I’m on on the other side of the argument to you it’s obvious in his case ( and it will be a him) that he gets a little bit ‘excited’ at the thought of other people killing people he doesn’t like. Bit like the stereotype elderly Daily Mail reader but with his fantasy hangings being ‘cops n soldiers’ rather than young and black people.

I am not advocating the execution of soldiers and cops.

 

[PTK]

It is interesting that most of the advocates of execution in this country seem to think that hanging is the only possible method of execution.

"They should be shot!" is a not uncommon response to revelations of wrongdoing by the government or the gas company or any other organisation. It is never "they should be hanged."

I wonder if support for execution is affected by the method.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

If someone stabbed my child 200 times to death, I'd want to pull the lever myself.

Somebody else might want to torture them instead. But we're not talking about them, or you. We're talking about the state doing it.

 

[weltweit]

Hmm, a big question, one that I have now said my bit on, but still produces daily updates which are mainly repeats of what has been said before.

Basically just cluttering up my in tray, time to ignore.

Bye

 

[Spymaster]

It is interesting that most of the advocates of execution in this country seem to think that hanging is the only possible method of execution.

"They should be shot!" is a not uncommon response to revelations of wrongdoing by the government or the gas company or any other organisation. It is never "they should be hanged."

I wonder if support for execution is affected by the method.

Whilst this tacit acceptance that an execution method of some form is required is noteworthy, this strand of the debate usually leads to our thanatophilic members, like Ax^ posting about masturbation.

Probably best avoided.

 

[Spymaster]

Somebody else might want to torture them instead. But we're not talking about them, or you. We're talking about the state doing it.

We're talking about the state doing it on my behalf.

Sometimes one has to compromise.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

We're talking about the state doing it on my behalf.

Sometimes one has to compromise.

So is it OK for the state to torture miscreants to death? On your behalf, naturally.

 

[LDC]

It would still be an unequivocal "no" from me. Execution should never be on the table as part of a system of justice.

Imho of course.

Out of interest does that extend to Nuremburg (to use a lazy example) or in revolutionary situations or armed resistance to far right regimes where, as an example, people are caught spying or informing for the repressive regime where their actions might have caused multiple deaths or setbacks? Especially when no formal system of imprisonment exists due to the situation at the time chilango or is it an absolute 'no' in all circumstances?

 

[Spymaster]

So is it OK for the state to torture miscreants to death?

I think this is one of the most insane posts on the thread, so I'm going to say yes for a laugh.

 

[smokedout]

It's difficult to gauge public support because the poll question is usually black or white, like the one in the OP. That results in a lot of knee-jerk "no", without any thoughtfulness, as we've seen from certain people on this thread. If the question was more nuanced, such as "should CP be restored for terrorists and child torturers who are undoubtedly guilty?" the result would likely be resoundingly in favour.

But you haven't been able to establish beyond doubt. Not even close. In fact your proposal was to abandon the jury and let an expert decide whether a plea of diminished responsibility should be permitted. That creates considerably more doubt than even the current system.

And diminished responibilty isn't even the only factor at play. What about coercion, blackmail, police fit ups, or simple insanity which can still be used as a defence to a crime. These things may not be very likely, but not very likely is not enough for beyond doubt. Your toytown understanding of the legal system, where only the event matters and not the circumstances leading to it, is a recipe for injustice. You also haven't explained who decides, and how, the parameters for beyond doubt are established. How fo you pick, beyond doubt, which cases justify a capital trial?

At least be honest and acknowledge that beyond doubt is impossible. That no matter what safeguards there will always be injustices. Innocent people will die. Information that might have become available in the future will be lost. Juries will be biased because there's really no way round the death qualification in jury selection. The power of the state will be massively increased. Witnesses may be less willing to testify if it means potentially a death on their conscience. Many families of victims will oppose it. Judges and prosecutors opposed to the death penalty might leave the legal system. Everyone involved in the process of execution from the jury to the executioner is likely to be tainted and in some way traumatised by the process. And for what? To satisfy some vague demand for vengeance shared some of the population or to satisfy your personal sense of morality because locking someone up in a cage for the rest of their life is not enough for you.

 

[Ax^]

Whilst this tacit acceptance that an execution method of some form is required is noteworthy, this strand of the debate usually leads to our thanatophilic members, like Ax^ posting about masturbation.

Probably best avoided.

we don't kink shame on here spy..

so you have a thing about giving people their just desert is your thing..

most right wing voters have a fetish about authoritarianism , something to do with th uniforms ce la vie

 

[Dystopiary]

It's difficult to gauge public support because the poll question is usually black or white, like the one in the OP. That results in a lot of knee-jerk "no", without any thoughtfulness, as we've seen from certain people on this thread. If the question was more nuanced, such as "should CP be restored for terrorists and child torturers who are undoubtedly guilty?" the result would likely be resoundingly in favour.



For sure. Beyond being a talking point and vehicle for poorly researched liberal bias, the poll is worthless.

Asking U75 for views on CP is akin to seeking knowledge on immigration from the BNP.

Disappointing. What of the previously raised question of who's to be charged with this task, and their mental wellbeing?

 

[The39thStep]

Although I’m on on the other side of the argument to you it’s obvious in his case ( and it will be a him) that he gets a little bit ‘excited’ at the thought of other people killing people he doesn’t like. Bit like the stereotype elderly Daily Mail reader but with his fantasy hangings being ‘cops n soldiers’ rather than young and black people.

I haven't seen you present your position on capital punishment . Why are you , in this case , on the other side of the arguement to Spymaster ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Years ago, Channel 4 ran a People's Parliament thing with a panel of a few hundred, where they had a vote at the start then they had to listen to submissions from both sides of the argument and have another vote at the end. IIRC they did the DP. Of course they did. There was a pretty solid pattern on the show - the vote at the end was invariably less reactionary than the vote at the start. After people have had to think it through, fewer people will favour the DP, not more.

In this instance, how many PP members are going to be swayed by the 'only the really guilty will be killed' argument following submissions detailing a catalogue of miscarriages of justice?

 

[MrsArcanum]

No it's not.

Just give all criminals the choice of execution.

So someone suffering from poor mental health, or other crippling illness should commit crime in order to get help to die.

 

[A380]

I am not advocating the execution of soldiers and cops.

No, you are just sharing your little daydreams of it.

 

[A380]

I haven't seen you present your position on capital punishment . Why are you , in this case , on the other side of the arguement to Spymaster ?

You didn’t look very hard 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.)