Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

[littlebabyjesus]

Presumably in this dystopian sci-fi world, both guilt both in terms of having committed the action and having full responsiblity for your action are determined 'beyond doubt'. Breivik is a good example of someone about whom expert opinion varies on that second point.

But I have to come back to the naivety of the idea. You can't just dismiss the Birmingham Six etc and say 'oh that couldn't happen now'. We're in Rumsfeld territory here - known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns. We don't know what mistakes we will be found to have made in the future.

On a practical level, you would undermine the entire penal system if you introduced different grades of guilt.

Aside from that, the idea is sound.

 

[Jammy smears]

I've been thinking more about the executioner role, I'm sure most wouldn't have the character or stomach for it but someone would, like the old phrase "it's a dirty job but someone has to do it". You could analyse it to the nth degree as well around what would it take to do such a role, it would be a legal professional position with high pay? Is that justified enough in thinking it's not the same as someone planning to murder another person just because they're evil or is there no difference in principle?

Ask yourself if you'd want to be friends with someone who is quite happy to murder people for a pay packet Aaron.

 

[PTK]

Ken MacLeod's novel "The Execution Channel" imagines a television channel that broadcasts executions.
There is much to commend that book.

 

[newme]

Or look at the Nazi salute of David Bowie circa 1976.

Was that one on video and spread worldwide? As I cannot find any evidence of it on video. Whereas Musk already tried this with Swift waving from a picture. Which looks a lot like waving. Was nearly 10 years before I was born too. Musk one seems fairly cut and dried. He even did it twice with a very determined face and then never denied it.

Many people in the past have had extremely disturbing tendencies, I don't accept they were good ones. UK has done some awful things and the various leaders were celebrated at the time, same as many other countries and people I imagine. We are not in the past now however. Musk also had a Nazi grandfather and a slave owning father in apartheid South Africa who then had kids with his adopted daughter. I'd say this was not a common thing amongst people caught in a picture waving.

 

[PTK]

The jailing of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four did have the effect of deterring Irish people in Britain from getting involved in political opposition to repression in Ireland. If they had been executed, perhaps that would have driven people to engage in violence.

 

[Spymaster]

Presumably in this dystopian sci-fi world, both guilt both in terms of having committed the action and having full responsiblity for your action are determined 'beyond doubt'. Breivik is a good example of someone about whom expert opinion varies on that second point.

But I have to come back to the naivety of the idea. You can't just dismiss the Birmingham Six etc and say 'oh that couldn't happen now'. We're in Rumsfeld territory here - known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns. We don't know what mistakes we will be found to have made in the future.

So again with this dishonest wriggling.

You introduce supposed differing expert opinion on Brievik as far as his responsibility is concerned. That's not what we've been discussing. We've been considering his guilt, as in whether or not he committed the act, and there's no varying opinion about that.

Your characterisation of my point about the Birmingham 6 is also mendacious. I haven't said it couldn't happen now at all. I've said that if the standard of proof that I'm suggested were applied, it wouldn't have happened then.

On a practical level, you would undermine the entire penal system if you introduced different grades of guilt.

This is just fluff.

 

[Humberto]

I've been thinking more about the executioner role, I'm sure most wouldn't have the character or stomach for it but someone would, like the old phrase "it's a dirty job but someone has to do it". You could analyse it to the nth degree as well around what would it take to do such a role, it would be a legal professional position with high pay? Is that justified enough in thinking it's not the same as someone planning to murder another person just because they're evil or is there no difference in principle?

Hangman Albert Pierrepoint took pride in going through the process quickly and accurately. Measured up for the drop height, out the cell and through the trapdoor in a minute or two.

He executed hundreds that way, somewhat disillusioned I imagine, he said capital punishment was no deterrent at all.

 

[Dystopiary]

From Rotten to TikTok, the internet has always had a market for the grotesque. Maybe you're already right with your prediction.

Sorry, bleak I know. It's another reason not to support state-sanctioned death penalty imo.

 

[PTK]

Was that one on video and spread worldwide? As I cannot find any evidence of it on video. Whereas Musk already tried this with Swift waving from a picture. Which looks a lot like waving. Was nearly 10 years before I was born too. Musk one seems fairly cut and dried. He even did it twice with a very determined face and then never denied it.

Many people in the past have had extremely disturbing tendencies, I don't accept they were good ones. UK has done some awful things and the various leaders were celebrated at the time, same as many other countries and people I imagine. We are not in the past now however. Musk also had a Nazi grandfather and a slave owning father in apartheid South Africa who then had kids with his adopted daughter. I'd say this was not a common thing amongst people caught in a picture waving.

There was a photograph in the New Musical Express of Bowie apparently giving a Nazi salute at, if I recall, Victoria Station in London. (We didn't have much video in those days). Some say it was a wave, but Bowie had also made a couple of statements saying that there ought to be a fascist dictatorship. It was such events that led to the formation of Rock Against Racism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You introduce supposed differing expert opinion on Brievik as far as his responsibility is concerned. That's not what we've been discussing. We've been considering his guilt, as in whether or not he committed the act, and there's no varying opinion about that.

Your characterisation of my point about the Birmingham 6 is also mendacious. I haven't said it couldn't happen now at all. I've said that if the standard of proof that I'm suggested were applied, it wouldn't have happened then.

Fucking hell.

Ok. One last go. Presumably you want to kill people who are responsible for their acts. For example, you wouldn't be seeking to kill a child who murdered people or to kill someone who had killed while suffering from severe psychosis. Therefore the responsibility aspect is relevant. And you're the one who brought up Breivik. So I used him as my example. I'm guessing you disagree with the experts who argued for diminished responsibility. And that's exactly the point. Who makes you, or anyone else, god in this situation?

As for your second point, we're back in fantasy-land again in which you've magically created a fool-proof human system of justice.

 

[ice-is-forming]

I've been thinking more about the executioner role, I'm sure most wouldn't have the character or stomach for it but someone would, like the old phrase "it's a dirty job but someone has to do it". You could analyse it to the nth degree as well around what would it take to do such a role, it would be a legal professional position with high pay? Is that justified enough in thinking it's not the same as someone planning to murder another person just because they're evil or is there no difference in principle?

In my thought experiment - maybe they would have to execute themselves. Just a thought.

 

[Spymaster]

Fucking hell.

Ok. One last go. Presumably you want to kill people who are responsible for their acts. For example, you wouldn't be seeking to kill a child who murdered people or to kill someone who had killed while suffering from severe psychosis. Therefore the responsibility aspect is relevant. And you're the one who brought up Breivik. So I used him as my example. I'm guessing you disagree with the experts who argued for diminished responsibility. And that's exactly the point. Who makes you, or anyone else, god in this situation?

As for your second point, we're back in fantasy-land again in which you've magically created a fool-proof human system of justice.

Here we go again.

You said, it's impossible to determine with certainty that someone definitely committed a crime. I said that's bollocks, and gave you two examples of such certainties, Breivik being one.

Now you want a second bite at the cherry and backpedal to; 'well yes he definitely committed the crime but someone might think he was mentally irresponsible'.

That's something else.

 

[skyscraper101]

No.

And furthermore, no.

 

[smokedout]

There can't be beyond all doubt in a murder case whilst a defence of diminished responsibility exists. So you would have to argue that diminished responsibility should not be a defence or accepted as mitigation when it comes to capital crimes and that beyond all doubt merely means they did it without any wider analysis of why they did it and what extenuating circumstances there might be. That would be a very big change to the legal system, and if you support that then why only apply it to capital crimes, when it really fucking matters. Why not just remove mitigation as a concept completely?

 

[Aaronf]

Ask yourself if you'd want to be friends with someone who is quite happy to murder people for a pay packet Aaron.

I'm not advocating what they do at all but it wouldn't be classed as murder officially? Even if we see it as murder, if it's legal then it isn't classed as?

I think it's fairer to say - ask yourself if you'd want to be friends with someone who executes people for a living. 'Quite happy to' is debatable as well as you wouldn't know whether they were happy or not doing it.

Ultimately I don't think I would but then I could go off on many tangents/that opens up many more lines of thought as there's probably lots of types of people I wouldn't want to be friends with.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not advocating what they do at all but it wouldn't be classed as murder officially?

No. Murder by definition has to be unlawful.

Judicial execution by definition is lawful.

 

[Humberto]

No. Murder by definition has to be unlawful.

Judicial execution by definition is lawful.

Do you think it would benefit the victims' families in cases like Radakubana? Surely that's the priority.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There can't be beyond all doubt in a murder case whilst a defence of diminished responsibility exists. So you would have to argue that diminished responsibility should not be a defence or accepted as mitigation when it comes to capital crimes and that beyond all doubt merely means they did it without any wider analysis of why they did it and what extenuating circumstances there might be. That would be a very big change to the legal system, and if you support that then why only apply it to capital crimes, when it really fucking matters. Why not just remove mitigation as a concept completely?

Yep. It's an incoherent idea. Among other problems.

 

[Spymaster]

Do you think it would benefit the victims' families in cases like Radakubana? Surely that's the priority.

Beyond having the knowledge that the killer has been caught and punished, probably not. But I don’t think that is a particular priority.

 

[Humberto]

Beyond having the knowledge that the killer has been caught and punished, probably not. But I don’t think that is a particular priority.

That seems crooked to me. Should be one of the main priorities after protecting the public from a murderer.

 

[newme]

In my thought experiment - maybe they would have to execute themselves. Just a thought.

Wouldn't they just not do it?

 

[Humberto]

Pierrepoint was a line of generations of executioners. Back In the day the dungeon, torture dungeon was a family business. The rack would dislocate your joints and rip your tendons and muscles.

 

[ice-is-forming]

Wouldn't they just not do it?

No, they'd be applying to do it.

It's like an 'opt in for capital punishment' option

So, everyone who gets life ( means life) in jail, also has the opportunity to apply for capital punishment - maybe part of that is that they also need to be active in their own demise.

I dunno how - I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of capital punishment methods, but I'd suggest self administered medication.

I'm just thinking out loud here

 

[Humberto]

If you want to know about hell, it's Newgate.

I've seen it all.

 

[ice-is-forming]

*

 

[ice-is-forming]

If you want to know about hell, it's Newgate.

I've seen it all.

 

[Humberto]

You suit yourself. I know what I saw. I won't tell you no more except there are gradations.

 

[Aaronf]

If you want to know about hell, it's Newgate.

I've seen it all.

Sorry to hear this and whatever you witnessed. How long were you there for? Apologies if that's too personal.

 

[Humberto]

Sorry to hear this and whatever you witnessed. How long were you there for? Apologies if that's too personal.

Oh I'm just being a bit poetical. I'm fine. Newgate is long gone.

 

[Aaronf]

Oh I'm just being a bit poetical. I'm fine. Newgate is long gone.

Oh, okay. I don't follow but it's all good