Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

[Bahnhof Strasse]

that's quite rude...or have I misinterpreted those initials?

Kinky Cunt - he puts a Theresa May mask on his jar of warm livers.

 

[brogdale]

King's counsel, a suffix for senior barristers

ah.....

 

[Spymaster]

Apologies, I interpreted what you said in a different way, but you are saying that under this system Rudakabana gets to live.

Yes. I've been using AR and Breivik as examples of crimes where guilt, insofar as committing the act, is beyond doubt, but I'm not advocating executing under 18s.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yes. I've been using AR and Breivik as examples of crimes where guilt, insofar as committing the act, is beyond doubt, but I'm not advocating executing under 18s.

OK, I got this bit wrong:

You say Rudacubana was a child when he committed the act and ask if I'd be ok with executing him. Personally, I'd be fine with it. I see no reason to treat him differently to an adult, simply because he tore those little girls to pieces a couple of days before his 18th birthday.

But see now you include him in your line, so all good.

You should be more clear in what you say, so should've Derek Bentley.

 

[Boo Radley75]

Out of interest, did anyone remember who was around then or experience the last hanging in the UK in 1964 or the Abolition of Death Penalty Act 1965?

Was reading up on it and it mentioned been brought about by the 'changing attitudes' towards the use of the death penalty.

Be fascinating to hear anyone who has recollections of this first hand.

Many years ago I used to work with some old guy who had been a class mate of James Hanratty. He said he was a brutal, creepy and unlikeable kid and he wasn't at all surprised when he got arrested for the Clophill murder.

 

[Ax^]

has anyone suggested hanging Boris Johnson yet

not really anything to do with the topic

but hanging him would be fun

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Christopher Craig always maintained that Bentley never said 'let him have it', and I'm inclined to believe him. Craig was too young to hang, and the coppers wanted to hang someone, so they invented this line to get Bentley.

The film about this was far too sympathetic to the police. The real world is actually a worse place than the world the film portrays.

 

[xenon]

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.

Are you reading different posts to me? PTK hasn't expressed any such sentiment. He's against the death penalty as far as I can tell and is asking if supporters of it would apply it to soldiers adjudged to have unlawfully killed. Not the weird stuff you're accusing him of.

 

[smokedout]

Ffs, I understand the law perfectly well.

If the plea of diminished responsibility is successful they wouldn't be executed!

But you also say you don't care if that decision is wrong. If it turned out on appeal they were guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and the jury got it wrong and sentenced them to death for murder you 'don't particularly care'. In fact that appeal would be impossible because they'd be dead.

Which means you do not really care whether a guilty verdict of murder has been established beyond doubt before supporting executing someone.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But you also say you don't care if that decision is wrong. If it turned out on appeal they were guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and the jury got it wrong and sentenced them to death for murder you 'don't particularly care'. In fact that appeal would be impossible because they'd be dead.

Which means you do not really care whether a guilty verdict of murder has been established beyond doubt before supporting executing someone.

This point is an important one. When discussing the likes of Bentley or Evans, we're only considering those miscarriages of justice that we know about. There will be others that we will never know about.

 

[Spymaster]

But you also say you don't care if that decision is wrong. If it turned out on appeal they were guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and the jury got it wrong and sentenced them to death for murder you 'don't particularly care'. In fact that appeal would be impossible because they'd be dead.

Which means you do not really care whether a guilty verdict of murder has been established beyond doubt before supporting executing someone.

As long as the fact that they committed a mass killing was established beyond doubt, and they were considered to be of sound mind at the time of sentencing, I would not be overly concerned that someone may later have considered them to have been diminished.

I'm not sure how to make that much clearer for you.

 

[smokedout]

As long as the fact that they committed a mass killing was established beyond doubt, and they were considered to be of sound mind at the time of sentencing, I would not be overly concerned that someone may later have considered them to have been diminished.

I'm not sure how to make that much clearer for you.

It's very clear. You are happy to execute someone for murder even if it might later be found that they were not guilty of murder. Your appeals to beyond doubt are a sham.

 

[brogdale]

It's very clear. You are happy to execute someone for murder even if it might later be found that they were not guilty of murder. Your appeals to beyond doubt are a sham.

Exactly; despite repeated invitations to do so, Spymaster has not been able to stand up the ludicrous claim that the justice system could be infallible.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Exactly; despite repeated invitations to do so, Spymaster has not been able to stand up the ludicrous claim that the justice system could be infallible.

The entire system is based on an assumption of something that no human society has ever managed to achieve. It's childish.

 

[Spymaster]

It's very clear. You are happy to execute someone for murder even if it might later be found that they were not guilty of murder.

I am happy to execute a mass torturer/killer even if they were later to be considered not guilty of murder due to DR.

The fact that they committed the killing is beyond all doubt and they were considered of sound mind at the time of sentencing.

Am I overly concerned that we might very occasionally execute the odd mass killer who acted with diminished responsibility? No.

 

[Spymaster]

The entire system is based on an assumption of something that no human society has ever managed to achieve. It's childish.

Don't be ridiculous.

The only childishness going on here is yours and Broggers continuous disregarding of perfectly lucid responses!

 

[The39thStep]

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.

I'm glad we've moved on to the method of execution .

Whilst I appreciate your attempts to cut staffing costs , my experience of volunteers is that after all the selection , safeguarding checks and training is that the drop out rate is high unless they are actually involved on a regular basis in what they set out to volunteer for. I don't think your current criteria for capital punishment would give sufficient numbers to prevent retention issues. I know you allowed some of the boundaries for capital punishment to be a bit fuzzy ie offence commited as a child but finding of guilt at adult age when you first raised the issue of volunteers and that might alleviate some of the issues of increasing a level of throughput to retain the volunteers. There might be something to learn from Iran in that as they normally delay the execution of those that were minors at the time of the offence to when they become adults, sometimes for five or six years . In fact for some offences they don't execute offenders untill they've served a sentence and that might be something for you to consider in reaching out to those posters on here who are undecided , a sort of best of both worlds solution of incarceration and execution.

If you want to look at other options , the Japanese pay bonuses around but the staff are prison officers however this would require negotiations with the POA.You might need to consider bringing in specialists from other countries on a case by case basis . Wage rates in a number of countries who are world leading on this form of retributive criminal justice service delivery ie China, Iran and Egypt are often lower than UK rates and don't suffer from the 'spanish practises' that UK unionised labour often have.

Cost reductions could be found however elsewhere . This would mean dispensing with shooting and using hanging .Again Iran has an innovative and financially attractive system where they often use a crane and a stool for hangings .Obviously the stools would be a capital cost but the cranes could be leased on a needs basis hence giving some leg room on staffing costs. However this could considered in the value for money solution you are seeking to find .

 

[LakieLady]

Out of interest, did anyone remember who was around then or experience the last hanging in the UK in 1964 or the Abolition of Death Penalty Act 1965?

Was reading up on it and it mentioned been brought about by the 'changing attitudes' towards the use of the death penalty.

Be fascinating to hear anyone who has recollections of this first hand.

I was 9 in 1964. I remember the abolition but not the last execution.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Again Iran has an innovative and financially attractive system where they often use a crane and a stool for hangings .Obviously the stools would be a capital cost but the cranes could be leased on a needs basis hence giving some leg room on staffing costs. However this could considered in the value for money solution you are seeking to find .

You could borrow the stool from the local pub.

Not in Iran, cos they don't have pubs, but my local's got 8 with red velvet cushioning on the top, would make for a stylish tableau.

 

[Pickman's model]

You could borrow the stool from the local pub.

Not in Iran, cos they don't have pubs, but my local's got 8 with red velvet cushioning on the top, would make for a stylish tableau.

Yeh. How'd they look after having hundreds of grubby shoes on them? Rather less stylish I suspect

 

[PTK]

I have just discovered that the Homicide Act 1957 introduced a distinction between "capital" and "non-capital" murder. Not all murders resulted in a death sentence.

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course capital punishment could be made more attractive if a member of the current parliamentary Labour Party took the drop along with any murderers or other crims sentenced to death.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm glad we've moved on to the method of execution .

Whilst I appreciate your attempts to cut staffing costs , my experience of volunteers is that after all the selection , safeguarding checks and training is that the drop out rate is high unless they are actually involved on a regular basis in what they set out to volunteer for. I don't think your current criteria for capital punishment would give sufficient numbers to prevent retention issues. I know you allowed some of the boundaries for capital punishment to be a bit fuzzy ie offence commited as a child but finding of guilt at adult age when you first raised the issue of volunteers and that might alleviate some of the issues of increasing a level of throughput to retain the volunteers. There might be something to learn from Iran in that as they normally delay the execution of those that were minors at the time of the offence to when they become adults, sometimes for five or six years . In fact for some offences they don't execute offenders untill they've served a sentence and that might be something for you to consider in reaching out to those posters on here who are undecided , a sort of best of both worlds solution of incarceration and execution.

If you want to look at other options , the Japanese pay bonuses around but the staff are prison officers however this would require negotiations with the POA.You might need to consider bringing in specialists from other countries on a case by case basis . Wage rates in a number of countries who are world leading on this form of retributive criminal justice service delivery ie China, Iran and Egypt are often lower than UK rates and don't suffer from the 'spanish practises' that UK unionised labour often have.

Cost reductions could be found however elsewhere . This would mean dispensing with shooting and using hanging .Again Iran has an innovative and financially attractive system where they often use a crane and a stool for hangings .Obviously the stools would be a capital cost but the cranes could be leased on a needs basis hence giving some leg room on staffing costs. However this could considered in the value for money solution you are seeking to find .

Setting aside the incorrect assertions of who I would and wouldn't execute, this was discussed recently on another thread.

One proposed solution was to get other condemned prisoners to do it. They would be offered a steak dinner or bottle of whisky and the opportunity would be raffled.

 

[The39thStep]

Setting aside the incorrect assertions of who I would and wouldn't execute, this was discussed recently on another thread.

One proposed solution was to get other condemned prisoners to do it. They would be offered a steak dinner or bottle of whisky and the opportunity would be raffled.

Not an inclusive offer tbh and if you don't mind me saying the fact that this offer excludes the vegetarian /vegan alcohol abstaining
condemned prisoner may well fall foul of our discrimination laws.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

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

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

It's not so long ago, just a few centuries, when torture was commonplace for some crimes. Long after that we still had things such as forced labour. Franco's Spain still garrotted people to death when I was a younger man. Islamic jurisdictions have been known to stone women to death for adultery. And that's ignoring the widespread use of torture, unofficially, around the world by a whole heap of state actors. So it's not an insane question. It's good to get certain things clear, just to know how far you would go, or have someone else go on your behalf.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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?

And which expert? There are always lots; perhaps we could ask for opinions under a competitive tender process.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[smokedout]

I am happy to execute a mass torturer/killer even if they were later to be considered not guilty of murder due to DR.

The fact that they committed the killing is beyond all doubt and they were considered of sound mind at the time of sentencing.

Am I overly concerned that we might very occasionally execute the odd mass killer who acted with diminished responsibility? No.

At least you are now honest that beyond doubt only works if you chop out a huge chunk of the legal procedure and established legal protections. But you've yet to be clear under what criteria this would apply. Mass killings only? Mass torturings? (I'm not sure how caught in the act works here, surely they could only be caught in the act for a single incident of torture). Terrorism of all forms? (how do you protect against coercion, including state coercion?). Just murder (what about self defence or reasonable provocation?).

Even if you decide diminished responsibility or insanity pleas aren't worthy of saving a life beyond all doubt there's still a huge mess to contend with. And how long do you think your particular principles would hold? Under your system everyone from Peter Sutcliffe to the Moors Murderers to Osama bin Laden would live. Realistically, if the death penalty were re-introduced, do you believe it would really remain stable at caught in the act only? Is there any other country that applies the death penalty only in cases of caught in the act?

Perhaps, given all the problems it would cause, and the fact the vast majority of even the most brutal murderers would live, it might be better to just not have the death penalty as opposed to only having it in exceedingly rare circumstances when very unlikely - and far from perfect as we've established - criteria are met?

 

[Ax^]

We should follow Swedens example

 

[PTK]

What would become of such people as "Stakeknife", head of internal security in the Provisional IRA, who was responsible for members of his organisation being killed on the false grounds that they were spies? He was working as an agent of the state, and so would that make it all right? I don't know if he actually pulled the trigger. Would those who did pull the trigger be guilty of murder, given that they were acting under the direction of a state agent?

 

[Spymaster]

At least you are now honest that beyond doubt only works if you chop out a huge chunk of the legal procedure and established legal protections.

This is just wrong.

But you've yet to be clear under what criteria this would apply. Mass killings only? Mass torturings? (I'm not sure how caught in the act works here, surely they could only be caught in the act for a single incident of torture).

Mass killings for sure. I'm not averse to executing torturers on principle but as you say, I'm not sure how many would be caught in the act.

Terrorism of all forms? (how do you protect against coercion, including state coercion?).

Terrorism resulting in mass murder.

Just murder (what about self defence or reasonable provocation?).

Self defence is not murder. I'm not sure how many people are provoked into mass murder.

Even if you decide diminished responsibility or insanity pleas aren't worthy of saving a life ...

Nobody has suggested this.

And how long do you think your particular principles would hold? Under your system everyone from Peter Sutcliffe to the Moors Murderers to Osama bin Laden would live. Realistically, if the death penalty were re-introduced, do you believe it would really remain stable at caught in the act only?

I believe it could be. Quite easily.

Is there any other country that applies the death penalty only in cases of caught in the act?

I don't know.

Perhaps, given all the problems it would cause, and the fact the vast majority of even the most brutal murderers would live, it might be better to just not have the death penalty as opposed to only having it in exceedingly rare circumstances when very unlikely - and far from perfect as we've established - criteria are met?

No.