Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?
- Thread starter planetgeli
- Start date
Boo Radley75
I have a lovely missus
I am reminded of Albert Pierrepoint's autobiography. A very interesting read about one of the UKs most prolific executioners, who should know more than most about capital punishment. His conclusion? -
"It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder."
"It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder."
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Definitely. As a society, we sometimes need to be satisfied that a particularly heinous perpetrator has got what they deserve.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Totally. It's a major consideration in the weight of sentencing.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I said this last time this was brought up, but while I agree with his conclusion I don't think he has an special insight, by definition he would only see those the death penalty didn't deter not those it did, if any.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Pierrepoint was all over the place on deterrence in his later years. He also said he thought it was a deterrent in some interviews.
Regardless of what he thought, as emanymton says above, there's no reason to afford AP's views on deterrence any particular relevance. His expertise was in long-drop execution, not the psychology of justice.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
You explicitly suggested the former in #119:
Not only is CP no deterrent, there is also no moral argument for its "societal self-defence" when detention offers a more moral alternative.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No I didn't. Read that post again. It was a response to LBJ regarding the burden of proof and certainty of guilt, not a statement on the infallibility of jurries.
Well we've done the deterrence thing.
As far as suffering life in prison being a more moral punishment than a swift death is concerned, there are many people who disagree with you. Even some on this thread.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I stand corrected. Kevbad, not LBJ.
As you can see from that, the commission/jury would simply be an additional safeguard (perhaps even redundant) to a situation where guilt is already beyond any doubt.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
See above.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The word "additional" presupposes an existing safeguard, and the litany of miscarriages of justice prove that to be a false assumption and pulls the rug from under your desire for retribution dressed up as justice.
Yep. That's basically my position.
Firstly, there is no such thing as a perfect system, full proof safeguards. We can of course point to individual cases where there is no question of guilt and where the level of heinousness is such, any existing death penalty being applied is an easy argument. However, once you have that option in law, you have no control over how it's scope of application may be widened in future or how rigorusly the criteria for it's use may be adhered to.
IN the case of worrying about how it might be used by any future notional totalitarian regime, you can argue they would just bring back capital punishment for whatever they want, regardless of it's current status, However, it's always easier to gradually alter and expand an existing measure. See VAT for a good example. As Yossarian puts it, I'd rather keep that door closed.
Secondly and I'll admit this is a bit fuzzy. I feel having capital punishment on the books, the legally enshrined right for a state to take it's own citizens / subjects, lives according to criteria set down by politicians, fundementally changes the relationship between citizen and state, - not in a good way.
I'll accept we already do this to an extent given we have armed services, armed Police. As I'm not a pacifist this is not something I object to on general principle.
TLDR
It's still a no for me.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No, it doesn't. I've explained how we could avoid executing innocent people. It's foolproof.
And you seem to think a desire for retribution is a bad thing, separate from justice. I contend that it's a necessary element of justice.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Birmingham Six were found guilty and subsequently appealed against their convictions. Their guilt was confirmed. That means that 'the system' believed there was no doubt. 'The system' often works that way, denying the truth as long as it can. If the death penalty intervenes first the truth will only come out far too late. Surely you can see that? It's mindbendingly obvious.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
No fucking way. Derek Bentley?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I tell you that the B6 wouldn't have been executed under any system of CP that I'd support, and you consistently use them as an example of flaws in my argument for what I would support.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Yep I'm still waiting for how Spy thinks he can overcome things like forced confessions and the withholding of evidence. If evidence is withheld, how do we even know about that in time to stop a hanging?
Not to mention the ignoring of a state that sometimes cannot countenance any other verdict because to do so would damage the system.
"If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
- Lord Denning on the Birmingham 6 civil action.
That's the same Lord Denning, representative of the establishment, who said,
‘hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul’. ‘It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,’
He wanted them hanged.
Not to mention the ignoring of a state that sometimes cannot countenance any other verdict because to do so would damage the system.
"If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
- Lord Denning on the Birmingham 6 civil action.
That's the same Lord Denning, representative of the establishment, who said,
‘hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul’. ‘It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,’
He wanted them hanged.
cupid_stunt
Where's the bloody sun?
First off, to re-introduce the death penalty would involve the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, leaving us the only country outside of ECHR, apart from Belarus which is the only European country where the death penalty exists, and Russia where it 'officially' doesn't exist, does anyone here seriously want to do that?.
Membership of the ECHR underpins the Good Friday Agreement, and no one can forecast what reaction there could be on the island of Ireland, does anyone seriously want to test that out?
Our European neighbours would take a dim view of the UK leaving the ECHR and re-introducing the death penalty, it would sour our relationship more than Brexit already has, and no one can forecast what damage that would do to our reputation and economy, does anyone seriously want to test that out?
Ditto with other countries that the UK has close relationships, beyond Europe.
There's only 65 people serving full-life terms, how many of those have been convicted beyond all doubt, whatever that means, but even if was all of them, the damage to our relationships, reputation and economy, are likely to cost a lot more than keeping them locked up.
Membership of the ECHR underpins the Good Friday Agreement, and no one can forecast what reaction there could be on the island of Ireland, does anyone seriously want to test that out?
Our European neighbours would take a dim view of the UK leaving the ECHR and re-introducing the death penalty, it would sour our relationship more than Brexit already has, and no one can forecast what damage that would do to our reputation and economy, does anyone seriously want to test that out?
Ditto with other countries that the UK has close relationships, beyond Europe.
There's only 65 people serving full-life terms, how many of those have been convicted beyond all doubt, whatever that means, but even if was all of them, the damage to our relationships, reputation and economy, are likely to cost a lot more than keeping them locked up.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
I use the Birmingham Six as an example because you consistently fail to explain how your system would save them. Other than just by saying it would. Which makes me think you don't really have an answer.I tell you that the B6 wouldn't have been executed under any system of CP that I'd support, and you consistently use them as an example of flaws in my argument for what I would support.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
OK, if we bring it back, but only for those who are guilty as hell, such as this Southport person, I have questions:
Would the Southport person be subject to it, seeing as he was a child when he committed his crimes?
For whoever it is thought is guilty beyond doubt and no worthy of life - what benefit to society will come from their death as opposed to life without parole?
Until this thread I'd not thought about that cunt Wayne Couzens in an age, but there he'll be again, front and centre, back in the public consciousness, having some more days in court as the appeals process rumbles on. What if Sarah Everard's family are opposed, do you still go through with it then?
Would the Southport person be subject to it, seeing as he was a child when he committed his crimes?
For whoever it is thought is guilty beyond doubt and no worthy of life - what benefit to society will come from their death as opposed to life without parole?
Until this thread I'd not thought about that cunt Wayne Couzens in an age, but there he'll be again, front and centre, back in the public consciousness, having some more days in court as the appeals process rumbles on. What if Sarah Everard's family are opposed, do you still go through with it then?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Look, I'm going to make this really clear because it seems people aren't getting it and it's really simple.
I would only support the consideration of execution of people whose guilt is beyond any doubt whatsoever.
These would necessarily be those who are caught red-handed perpetrating the most heinous crimes.
We're talking about the likes of Breivik, Ruducubana (had he been an adult) terrorist scum who go on rampages and are detained in the act .... etc.
Last edited:
andysays
Love and solidarity
Sorry, we've already executed littlebabyjesus because you mistakenly found them guilty.
We can't undo that, although we could still execute Kevbad the Bad if you're really sure this time...
PTK
Paul Kegan
I don't think that you could execute one of those people.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Whilst on the evidence of this thread, both executions may seem superficially attractive, I don't believe that crimes against comprehension and critical thinking should be punishable by death.
cupid_stunt
Where's the bloody sun?
Secondly regarding the death penalty being a deterrent, where is the evidence?
Looking at the US, the only 'western country' with the death penalty, the murder rate is 5.763 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to just 1.148 in the UK, so it doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent there. SOURCE
Then look at the stats for the murder rate in US states that maintain the death penalty, compared to those that don't -
So, it doesn't seem to be working much as a deterrent even within the US.
Looking at the US, the only 'western country' with the death penalty, the murder rate is 5.763 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to just 1.148 in the UK, so it doesn't seem to be working as a deterrent there. SOURCE
Then look at the stats for the murder rate in US states that maintain the death penalty, compared to those that don't -
So, it doesn't seem to be working much as a deterrent even within the US.
PTK
Paul Kegan
That is faulty reasoning. Of course the death penalty had not deterred the people being executed. It goes without saying.
The question is, are there people who would have committed murder, but were deterred? How would we know? One piece of evidence would be to compare murder rates over time or over space. We could look at the murder rate in a society before and after the abolition of capital punishhment, and we could compare murder rates in two judicial regimes now. I recall that statistics for the USA showed that there was not much difference between murder rates in states that had the death penalty, and those that did not.
Similar threads
