Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

[Bahnhof Strasse]

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?

Relatives of victims are absolutely the last people who should have a say in sentencing

 

[Spymaster]

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.

A long post like that without a shred of understanding of what's been posted previously. We have been able to establish that the act was committed beyond any doubt by the fact that the perp was caught red-handed. My proposal was not what you say regarding juries. It was that if a defence of diminished responsibility is made, it is assessed by experts. If accepted, CP goes off the table.

That negates the rest of your post.

 

[Spymaster]

Those posts you quote aren't inconsistent Bahnhof Strasse

Relatives of victims should most certainly not have a say in the means of punishment of offenders.

That is not to say they shouldn't be afforded justice. In fact it's one of the primary duties of the penal system.

 

[smokedout]

A long post like that without a shred of understanding of what's been posted previously. We have been able to establish that the act was committed beyond any doubt by the fact that the perp was caught red-handed. My proposal was not what you say regarding juries. It was that if a defence of diminished responsibility is made, it is assessed by experts. If accepted, CP goes off the table.

That negates the rest of your post.

So instead of juries deciding whether diminished responsibility should apply, you want it assessed by an expert. That's your version of beyond doubt? Whether someone lives or dies is dependent on the opinion of an expert? An expert in what?

 

[Dystopiary]

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.

How did you come to that conclusion? They haven't said anything of the sort.

 

[JoeyBoy]

There needs to be a Maybe or It Depends option. I'm one of those that likes the idea of stringing people like Rudakubana up but can see the point of those who are worried it won't end there.

 

[Spymaster]

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

I don't think this is particularly worthy of consideration. Get volunteers for it and give them all the metal health support they need.

Lots of people kill others without undue ill affect on their well being.

There's no shortage of people willing to drop bombs or shoot guns at other people. I doubt there'd be a lack of people willing to put a bullet in Axel Ruducubana.

 

[smokedout]

A long post like that without a shred of understanding of what's been posted previously. We have been able to establish that the act was committed beyond any doubt by the fact that the perp was caught red-handed. My proposal was not what you say regarding juries. It was that if a defence of diminished responsibility is made, it is assessed by experts. If accepted, CP goes off the table.

That negates the rest of your post.

A woman is caught red handed frenziedly stabbing and mudering her husband, a popular local figure, a priest or something. She is traumatised by what she has done and thinks she deserves to die so says nothing about the years of horrific abuse which preceded the event. Perhaps after a couple of years in prison she might feel able to do that and even appeal her sentence. Except in your world she can't. Because she was guilty 'beyond doubt' and deserved to die.

 

[chilango]

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?

As a planned, conscious, legalised form of justice it's an absolute no in all circumstances from me.

Obviously, there are times when executions occur that are not a planned, conscious, legalised form of justice, it's still a no from me, but it is also different argument and one where less control over circumstances may be available.

 

[Dystopiary]

I don't think this is particularly worthy of consideration. Get volunteers for it and give them all the metal health support they need.

Lots of people kill others without undue ill affect on their well being.

There's no shortage of people willing to drop bombs or shoot guns at other people. I doubt there'd be a lack of people willing to put a bullet in Axel Ruducubana.

Given that he's 17 - if nothing else - they shouldn't be allowed. Right?

 

[chilango]

As a planned, conscious, legalised form of justice it's an absolute no in all circumstances from me.

Obviously, there are times when executions occur that are not a planned, conscious, legalised form of justice, it's still a no from me, but it is also different argument and one where less control over circumstances may be available.

...for example, killing as an act of immediate self-defence is a different situation.

 

[Spymaster]

So instead of juries deciding whether diminished responsibility should apply, you want it assessed by an expert. That's your version of beyond doubt? Whether someone lives or dies is dependent on the opinion of an expert? An expert in what?

Fucking hell

I'm going to type this slowly for you!

If a defence of DR is made the defendant is assessed by mental health people, psychiatrists etc. Their views are heard by a jury who can consider this. This is what happens now and I'm not proposing to change it.

I appreciate you moving away from your previous erroneous insistence that we haven't established beyond doubt.

 

[Spymaster]

Given that he's 17 - if nothing else - they shouldn't be allowed. Right?

See post #406.

 

[The39thStep]

You didn’t look very hard then.

Apologies , I'm on my phone and I did a brief search and lost connection in the cafe. . No offence pal. It's interesting that we spend more time debating about something that won't be happening such as the death penalty compared to what could happen like the effective provision of public protection from prevention , to intervention , rehabilitation or incarceration ( either health or criminal justice).

 

[smokedout]

Fucking hell

I'm going to type this slowly for you!

If a defence of DR is made the defendant is assessed by mental health people, psychiatrists etc. Their views are heard by a jury who can consider this. This is what happens now and I'm not proposing to change it.

I appreciate you moving away from your previous erroneous insistence that we haven't established beyond doubt.

Is the view of a jury always beyond doubt when it comes to assessing someone's mental state? You haven't established beyond doubt when it comes to mitigation or extenuating circumstances at all. You just don't think it really matters. Thankfully the legal system disagrees.

 

[InArduisFouette]

I'd say only for people like the Southport murderer and also the person who murdered Sarah Everard. It's not the ethical or human answer I know but they way they committed their crimes and with indisputable evidence - why do they deserve to live?

wghy do they deserve to not have to reflect on their crimes for the rest of their natural lives ?

 

[LDC]

...for example, killing as an act of immediate self-defence is a different situation.

Yeah, I do wonder why that's so different when the end result is the same (especially if you start thinking about pre-emptive rather than immediate defence) and how much specific cultural, moral, historical, etc. stuff goes into seeing that difference as massively important.

FWIW I'm against the State doing, and having the monopoly on this stuff, but I'm not against it completely in other ways society might be organised (as well as rare specific circumstances in the here and now).

 

[PTK]

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

Not at all. I am trying to make a point about those who are pro-execution. I am sure that a large number of them would oppose a soldier being executed for murdering a civilian on Bloody Sunday, or a cop being executed for the murder of Blair Peach.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Tbf, you can probably remember Jesus being crucified.

 

[chilango]

Yeah, I do wonder why that's so different when the end result is the same (especially if you start thinking about pre-emptive defence rather than immediate) and how much specific cultural, moral, historical, etc. stuff goes into seeing that difference as massively important.

FWIW I'm against the State doing, and having the monopoly on this stuff, but I'm not against it completely in other ways society might be organised (as well as rare specific circumstances in the here and now).

I think a key part of the difference is time and choice. "Premeditation" I suppose. We recognise that as a difference in murder, I think that also applies in "justice".

 

[Spymaster]

You haven't established beyond doubt when it comes to mitigation or extenuating circumstances at all. You just don't think it really matters.

Not quite.

I believe that establishing guilt of committing the act beyond doubt is essential, and I think we're all now in agreement that it's possible.

I think that if we are to consider execution, the defendant's state of mind should be established to the best of our ability.

If a mistake is made and we end up executing someone who actually was mentally unstable at the time he stabbed 3 little girls to death 300 times, forgive me for not giving too many fucks.

 

[KarmaKorma]

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

The exeception that proves the rule

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I believe that establishing guilt of committing the act beyond doubt is essential, and I think we're all now in agreement that it's possible.

No. We're not. As I said to you earlier, you're asking the wrong questions. The correct question is this: Can a justice system devised and run by humans be created that will never make these kinds of mistakes? The answer to that question is 'no'.

 

[Spymaster]

No. We're not. As I said to you earlier, you're asking the wrong questions. The correct question is this: Can a justice system devised and run by humans be created that will never make these kinds of mistakes? The answer to that question is 'no'.

Nonsense.

Are we capable of answering the question; was this person caught in the act of mass-murder?

Of course we are.

 

[PTK]

I recall the massive outrage by the Daily Mail and those of that persuasion after Private Lee Clegg was jailed for the murder of an 18-year-old girl in a stolen car being driven by a "joy rider" in Belfast.

 

[A380]

I recall the massive outrage by the Daily Mail and those of that persuasion after Private Lee Clegg was jailed for the murder of an 18-year-old girl in a stolen car being driven by a "joy rider" in Belfast.

You mean the Lee Clegg whose conviction was later overturned? So you’d have had him hung even though he was later found not guilty of murder and then, in a separate judicial process, cleared of any offences.

You need to take a long hard look at your fetishisation for executing people you don’t like.

 

[smokedout]

Not quite.

I believe that establishing guilt of committing the act beyond doubt is essential, and I think we're all now in agreement that it's possible.

I think that if we are to consider execution, the defendant's state of mind should be established to the best of our ability.

If a mistake is made and we end up executing someone who actually was mentally unstable at the time he stabbed 3 little girls to death 300 times, forgive me for not giving too many fucks.

A defence or mitigating plea of insanity/diminished responsibility has been a factor in the UK legal system for centuries. Are you really content to remove that? And that is not the only form of mitigation or extenuating circumstance that might be present, such as the hypothetical example I posted upthread.

All you have established beyond doubt it that they carried out the event they are accused of. You have not established beyond doubt that they deserve to die - even on your terms. You appear to accept that diminished responsibillity or insanity could be pleaded, and that this should prevent the death penalty if successful, but if they get it wrong it doesn't matter. That's a bizarre position to take. You're flipping between whether someone should live or die like it's a coin toss. At least have the courage of your convictions and argue that you don't think mitigation should apply in some cases.

 

[PTK]

You mean the Lee Clegg whose conviction was later overturned? So you’d have had him hung even though he was later found not guilty of murder.

You need to take a long hard look at your fetishisation for executing people you don’t like.

No, of course I would not have had him hung. I am opposed to the death penalty.

 

[A380]

No, of course I would not have had him hung. I am opposed to the death penalty.

Well, we are agreed then.

 

[PTK]

Well, we are agreed then.

I am making a point about the "hang 'em!" brigade.