Do you agree with death penalty?

[AlterEgo]

On the other hand, the killers of Lee Rigby ...what is the point in keeping them alive at great expense to the public purse?

To stop them being martyrs.

A funeral is an excellent recruiting ground. Ask people from the Creggan in Derry about that.

 

[Antman]

To stop them being martyrs.

A funeral is an excellent recruiting ground. Ask people from the Creggan in Derry about that.

In some cases perhaps but I can't imagine much of a turn out for any funeral of the vile individuals that I mentioned.

 

[AlterEgo]

In some cases perhaps but I can't imagine much of a turn out for any funeral of the vile individuals that I mentioned.

I certainly could for the Rigby murderers. Unfortunately.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To stop them being martyrs.

A funeral is an excellent recruiting ground. Ask people from the Creggan in Derry about that.

Presumably though, the other side to that would be the possibility of someone attempting to arrange further crimes from their prison cell. And the risk of supporters being inspired to make attempts to free people who are in prison. Offhand I don't know of any cases in the UK where that has happened for people convicted of terrorism-related offences, but both have certainly happened in regard to career criminals, so it doesn't seem implausible that terrorists could seek to do the same.

I would suspect the martyr thing may be true in individual cases, but is not necessarily universally true - each case is likely to be different.

 

[Tetchytyke]

For
It reduces the cost over custodial sentences

Assuming we do things properly, and don't just have North Korean death trucks rumbling round town, it really wouldn't. In the US it is more expensive to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life, and even then 25% of deaths on Death Row are through natural causes.

A 2011 study showed that, in California, the average time a prisoner spent on Death Row was 25 years and that it cost the state US$300m per execution. This is at the far end of the scale, but similar studies have shown in Kansas that a death penalty murder case costs 70% more than a non-capital murder case, 300% more in Maryland and 48% more in Tennessee.

Most of this is the cost of the additional trial stages needed to decide to execute someone, rather than the cost of the appeal stage.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us not forget that the prime movers in some of the British criminal gangs have always believed in the death penalty for those who are seen not to adhere to their principles.

 

[Gutfright]

The poll results are looking pretty conclusive: RailUK should not introduce the death penalty for breaking forum rules.

 

[EM2]

On the other hand, the killers of Lee Rigby and creatures like Sutcliffe and Huntley. There would appear to be no doubt whatsoever of their guilt so what is the point in keeping them alive at great expense to the public purse?

Many killers would be quite happy to die rather than be incarcerated and hence why they kill themselves (e.g West, Shipman).
I'd rather we paid to keep them alive than to give them what they want.

 

[deltic1989]

I know that, hence why I said it was a coincidence. Do you know what method would have been employed, had he been sentenced for execution?

Possibly hanging, there was a working gallows in Wandsworth Prison until 1993, which was tested every 6 months. (For those with a curiosity over these matters, the trapdoors from the aforementioned gallows can be viewed at the Galleries of Justice in Nottingham)

 

[cjmillsnun]

But that does not explain why Michael Betteney was not executed in 1984, some 15 years prior to that abolition.

Because the judge who passed sentence decided not to impose it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On the other hand, the killers of Lee Rigby and creatures like Sutcliffe and Huntley. There would appear to be no doubt whatsoever of their guilt so what is the point in keeping them alive at great expense to the public purse?

Killing the killers of Lee Rigby would've created two Martyrs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because the judge who passed sentence decided not to impose it.

Had the judiciary always had the choice not to impose the sentence of death?

 

[Antman]

Many killers would be quite happy to die rather than be incarcerated and hence why they kill themselves (e.g West, Shipman).
I'd rather we paid to keep them alive than to give them what they want.

I know and that's one 'human right' I wouldn't begrudge them.

 

[Welly]

I'm in favour as long as the judge is executed if the condemned is proven innocent after the death sentence was carried out. I think that was part of the judicial system in Ancient China.

 

[Bevan Price]

I used to be in favour of it because it obviously removes the risk of reoffending, but you would need to be 100% sure that the person being executed is guilty.

That is the reason why I oppose the death penalty. Just read about Timothy Evans to see why

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

To those who still support the death penalty, I would ask them if they (themselves) would be prepared to hang a close relative, knowing that he/she might just be innocent ?


However, I also think that for most murderers, "life" in prison really should mean "life", with zero chance of release.

 

[Busaholic]

The main reason I have opposition to it is because you can't trust those in power - if you could I would have no problems with it whatsoever.

There are just some people who are and will always be a threat to anyone around them and it is not fair to the staff at institutions housing them to be at risk every day they are in contact with such people - plus there is the prospect that they may escape or even be released.
Now for some 'made up 'figures well not really but for the very very rare miscarriages of justice how many innocent victims have there been of 'mad dog' murderers who have been released to kill again ? It would be nice to see a comparison of people executed wrongly and people murdered by released psychopaths - every time anyone bleats about Timothy Evans or the 'what if' about the Guildford 4 can we have a little balance towards those who have lost their lives to people whoare vicious killers who were deemed okay to release after 10 or 15 years in prison.

The death penalty is NOT a deterrent, it SHOULDN'T be vengeance but it CAN protect the innocent from those who are a continual threat.

You seem to be arguing that no convicted murderer should ever be released, which is an argument worth having but not one I could agree with. It is an unfortunate fact that there are severe economic pressures to release prisoners of all sorts on parole or 'home leave' before their sentences have been fully served. There are also arguments about the ability to contain prisoners who have no hope of release: prison staff have to interact with them as, in some cases, do other prisoners. There are many more disturbances in prisons than you ever hear about in the media, including hostage taking.

 

[ainsworth74]

The poll results are looking pretty conclusive: RailUK should not introduce the death penalty for breaking forum rules.

Sadly the poll is only advisory and whilst we will certainly take the views of the Forum to heart whilst the Staff Team further debate the issue it is not, in fact, binding up us and we may yet decide to introduce the ultimate sanction for violating Forum Rules.

 

[Busaholic]

Sadly the poll is only advisory and whilst we will certainly take the views of the Forum to heart whilst the Staff Team further debate the issue it is not, in fact, binding up us and we may yet decide to introduce the ultimate sanction for violating Forum Rules.

A personal visit from Boris Johnson? Some of us might prefer the ultimate sanction.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You seem to be arguing that no convicted murderer should ever be released, which is an argument worth having but not one I could agree with. It is an unfortunate fact that there are severe economic pressures to release prisoners of all sorts on parole or 'home leave' before their sentences have been fully served. There are also arguments about the ability to contain prisoners who have no hope of release: prison staff have to interact with them as, in some cases, do other prisoners. There are many more disturbances in prisons than you ever hear about in the media, including hostage taking.

My contention would be that the most serious of offenders such as convicted murderers, which would be numerically small as a percentage of the total prison population, should not fall into that category of release.

You state that there are arguments about the ability to contain such prisoners, but having abolished the death penalty, this is a fact of life as an alternative that we all now have to live with.

 

[Antman]

I'm in favour as long as the judge is executed if the condemned is proven innocent after the death sentence was carried out. I think that was part of the judicial system in Ancient China.

Nobody is ever proven innocent.

There would have to be no doubt whatsoever about guilt (ie Lee Rigby killers) for the death penalty to be considered.

 

[me123]

I whole-heartedly disagree with capital punishment (CP), and I believe that it has no place in a modern civilised society.

Advocates of CP will talk about punishment rather than rehabilitation, which should be IMO the primary aim of the prison service. Rehabilitation is simply not possible when you aim to end the perpetrator's life. The statement "An eye for an eye...", often used to justify these actions, is taken from one of the most reprehensible parts of the bible, the book of Leviticus - in that same chapter a man was stoned to death for blasphemy in an almost pythonesque manner. It's interesting that Christians who use that quote rarely refer to Matthew 5:38-39

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

My problem with the idea of murder as a legally endorsed punishment is that it simply does not elevate us above the criminal we are murdering. Surely if murder is morally wrong, then we should not be participating in it ourselves; rather we should choose a more reasoned way in which to punish criminals.

Another common statement is that CP is a deterrent. It most certainly is not. There is no evidence to suggest that CP deters anyone. In fact, the opposite seems to be true, with murder rates being consistently higher in US states that allow the use of the death penalty than it is in those that do not (of course, there's individual variation amongst the states, but the trend is consistent). This is one of those areas where the common sense approach doesn't work.

Another one of these areas is the argument of cost. Proponents of CP assert that it is cheaper, however this is based on a flawed view that the condemned criminal is simply taken to the gallows and it's over and done with in a few days. Of course, the reality is far from the truth. In the US, it costs on average $1m more to execute a man than it does to incarcerate him for life. This figure relates to the additional costs of incarceration whilst awaiting the sentence to be carried out (this can take many years), the legal costs involved in such a case, and the further legal costs involved in the extensive appeals system. Some then go on to say that we could improve things by simply not having the appeals system in place and heading straight to execution.

Which brings me onto the biggest issue of them all - miscarriages of justice. They have happened in the UK before, including in capital punishment cases. To incarcerate a person for a few years incorrectly is unforgivable. The psychological impact on the falsely accused is massive, and their life has been unfairly interrupted, with significant issues for their social and economic status when they do get released. The word "sorry" simply isn't good enough in these circumstances, but at least the opportunity for a corrective measure is in place - you can at least return them to society and allow them to live what's left of their life in freedom. Had that person been incorrectly executed, there is simply nothing that can be done to make things right.

An argument I've heard to counter the above is that we should only execute those where we are 100% sure that they're guilty - this would be one of the most dangerous things that we could introduce into the legal system. All convictions in the UK require that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If a jury convicts a man of murder and the death penalty is not imposed, this would create a gaping legal loophole in that the accused could say that there is significant doubt about his conviction which would then be very easily overturned. It would make a mockery out of justice.

I do not think that CP has any place in our society, and we should absolutely not reintroduce it.

 

[Antman]

I whole-heartedly disagree with capital punishment (CP), and I believe that it has no place in a modern civilised society.

Advocates of CP will talk about punishment rather than rehabilitation, which should be IMO the primary aim of the prison service. Rehabilitation is simply not possible when you aim to end the perpetrator's life. The statement "An eye for an eye...", often used to justify these actions, is taken from one of the most reprehensible parts of the bible, the book of Leviticus - in that same chapter a man was stoned to death for blasphemy in an almost pythonesque manner. It's interesting that Christians who use that quote rarely refer to Matthew 5:38-39

My problem with the idea of murder as a legally endorsed punishment is that it simply does not elevate us above the criminal we are murdering. Surely if murder is morally wrong, then we should not be participating in it ourselves; rather we should choose a more reasoned way in which to punish criminals.

Another common statement is that CP is a deterrent. It most certainly is not. There is no evidence to suggest that CP deters anyone. In fact, the opposite seems to be true, with murder rates being consistently higher in US states that allow the use of the death penalty than it is in those that do not (of course, there's individual variation amongst the states, but the trend is consistent). This is one of those areas where the common sense approach doesn't work.

Another one of these areas is the argument of cost. Proponents of CP assert that it is cheaper, however this is based on a flawed view that the condemned criminal is simply taken to the gallows and it's over and done with in a few days. Of course, the reality is far from the truth. In the US, it costs on average $1m more to execute a man than it does to incarcerate him for life. This figure relates to the additional costs of incarceration whilst awaiting the sentence to be carried out (this can take many years), the legal costs involved in such a case, and the further legal costs involved in the extensive appeals system. Some then go on to say that we could improve things by simply not having the appeals system in place and heading straight to execution.

Which brings me onto the biggest issue of them all - miscarriages of justice. They have happened in the UK before, including in capital punishment cases. To incarcerate a person for a few years incorrectly is unforgivable. The psychological impact on the falsely accused is massive, and their life has been unfairly interrupted, with significant issues for their social and economic status when they do get released. The word "sorry" simply isn't good enough in these circumstances, but at least the opportunity for a corrective measure is in place - you can at least return them to society and allow them to live what's left of their life in freedom. Had that person been incorrectly executed, there is simply nothing that can be done to make things right.

An argument I've heard to counter the above is that we should only execute those where we are 100% sure that they're guilty - this would be one of the most dangerous things that we could introduce into the legal system. All convictions in the UK require that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If a jury convicts a man of murder and the death penalty is not imposed, this would create a gaping legal loophole in that the accused could say that there is significant doubt about his conviction which would then be very easily overturned. It would make a mockery out of justice.

I do not think that CP has any place in our society, and we should absolutely not reintroduce it.

Apart from the obvious point about miscarriages of justice I don't think you've given any reasoned case against capital punishment.

I'm not particularly in favour of it other than in certain cases but perhaps those who want to keep Lee Rigby's killers alive will be happy to foot the bill for the rest of their natural lives because quite clearly they are never going to be released.

 

[me123]

Apart from the obvious point about miscarriages of justice I don't think you've given any reasoned case against capital punishment.

Other than:
It's immoral
It's more costly than life imprisonment
It doesn't act as a deterrent
:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not particularly in favour of it other than in certain cases but perhaps those who want to keep Lee Rigby's killers alive will be happy to foot the bill for the rest of their natural lives because quite clearly they are never going to be released.

The experience in the US is that it's more costly than life imprisonment (see the post above that you so quickly dismissed), so I expect that people will be relatively much more happy to pay for that.

 

[Antman]

Other than:
It's immoral
It's more costly than life imprisonment
It doesn't act as a deterrent
:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The experience in the US is that it's more costly than life imprisonment (see the post above that you so quickly dismissed), so I expect that people will be relatively much more happy to pay for that.

So isn't locking somebody up for life immoral as well? How far do you take your moral crusade?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apart from the obvious point about miscarriages of justice I don't think you've given any reasoned case against capital punishment.

I'm not particularly in favour of it other than in certain cases but perhaps those who want to keep Lee Rigby's killers alive will be happy to foot the bill for the rest of their natural lives because quite clearly they are never going to be released.

When it comes to ideologically motivated crimes such as the murder of Lee Rigby, by killing his attackers (who, IIRC, both have mental health issues) all you'd be doing is creating martyrs to their misguided cause. Besides, what separates "us" from "them"? The fact that whilst we in the "decadent West" respect the rule of law and human life even when it comes to the most heinous of individuals. They (by which i mean Da'esh, admittedly Rigby's killers weren't part of that group I understand) on the other hand have no restraint in dispensing with those who have "sinned" in their eyes.

EDIT. Meant to add something about "us" (i.e not members of the caliphate) being better than that!

 

[me123]

So isn't locking somebody up for life immoral as well? How far do you take your moral crusade?

You are joking, right? :roll: No, wait, you're the person who condones public assaults on children. I imagine that any attempt at reasoned debate has gone out of the window.

It is immoral to take someone's life because it is an irreversible act. It is in excess to what is needed. The justice system exists to rehabilitate offenders and protect the public. The death penalty does not do that. It serves no purpose in rehabilitation, and the public can be equally protected by life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is the appropriate option for those offenders who cannot be returned to society for whatever reason. It deprives the offender of their liberty without taking that extra step of depriving them of their life. It is necessary, but not excessive. The death penalty is not necessary and is excessive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My problem with the idea of murder as a legally endorsed punishment is that it simply does not elevate us above the criminal we are murdering. Surely if murder is morally wrong, then we should not be participating in it ourselves; rather we should choose a more reasoned way in which to punish criminals.

I'm dubious of that logic. It's based on saying that if you do X to someone as a punishment, that makes you no better than a criminal who does X. But by that logic, issuing fines as a punishment would make you no better than a thief, and imprisoning people as a punishment would make you no better than a kidnapper - which is clearly silly. I think you need to accept that, in order to keep order and deter/prevent crime, the state needs to be able to do things that would be considered wrong if an individual did those things (such as locking people up). I don't offhand see any compelling reason why capital punishment should be an exception to that principle.

Besides, there's a good argument for thinking that the morals are based as much on the motivation as on the action. If you're killing someone as an act of vengeance, then I'd agree with you that that is clearly wrong. If you're killing someone because doing so is the only reasonable way to stop that person from doing a lot of harm to other people, then I would say the morals are much less clear cut.

Another common statement is that CP is a deterrent. It most certainly is not. There is no evidence to suggest that CP deters anyone. In fact, the opposite seems to be true, with murder rates being consistently higher in US states that allow the use of the death penalty than it is in those that do not (of course, there's individual variation amongst the states, but the trend is consistent). This is one of those areas where the common sense approach doesn't work.

I'm not familiar with the research in this area. However I can see very obvious flaws in simply comparing states with/without capital punishment - most obviously, the possibility that higher murder rates might arise in some states due to other factors (deprivation, racial conflict, etc.), and that would lead to more public concern about crime, leading to a political climate in which those states being more likely to impose the death penalty. (It's the usual statistical thing that correlation doesn't imply causation ) I don't know what the balance of evidence is on CP/deterrence, but I'm very certain you'd need a far more sophisticated analysis than simply correlating crime with places that allow for CP.

Another one of these areas is the argument of cost. Proponents of CP assert that it is cheaper, however this is based on a flawed view that the condemned criminal is simply taken to the gallows and it's over and done with in a few days. Of course, the reality is far from the truth. In the US, it costs on average $1m more to execute a man than it does to incarcerate him for life. This figure relates to the additional costs of incarceration whilst awaiting the sentence to be carried out (this can take many years), the legal costs involved in such a case, and the further legal costs involved in the extensive appeals system. Some then go on to say that we could improve things by simply not having the appeals system in place and heading straight to execution.

Several people have made this argument, but no one has addressed the issue of whether that is a consequence of the US legal system rather than of an inherent problem with capital punishment. I rather suspect it's - to a large extent - the former.

Which brings me onto the biggest issue of them all - miscarriages of justice. They have happened in the UK before, including in capital punishment cases. To incarcerate a person for a few years incorrectly is unforgivable. The psychological impact on the falsely accused is massive, and their life has been unfairly interrupted, with significant issues for their social and economic status when they do get released. The word "sorry" simply isn't good enough in these circumstances, but at least the opportunity for a corrective measure is in place - you can at least return them to society and allow them to live what's left of their life in freedom. Had that person been incorrectly executed, there is simply nothing that can be done to make things right.

I think there you do have the strongest argument against capital punishment (and the only argument I've seen that seems to stand up to analysis).

 

[me123]

I'm dubious of that logic. It's based on saying that if you do X to someone as a punishment, that makes you no better than a criminal who does X. But by that logic, issuing fines as a punishment would make you no better than a thief, and imprisoning people as a punishment would make you no better than a kidnapper - which is clearly silly. I think you need to accept that, in order to keep order and deter/prevent crime, the state needs to be able to do things that would be considered wrong if an individual did those things (such as locking people up). I don't offhand see any compelling reason why capital punishment should be an exception to that principle.

A fine can be repaid, an imprisoned man released. A murdered man cannot be brought back to life. The death penalty is final and irreversible.

It's also true that lesser forms of punishment are necessary in society, however capital punishment is not necessary. It does not achieve the aims that its supporters advocate. As I've said above, life imprisonment is a much more appropriate punishment in that it achieves what it needs to achieve.

I'm not familiar with the research in this area. However I can see very obvious flaws in simply comparing states with/without capital punishment - most obviously, the possibility that higher murder rates might arise in some states due to other factors (deprivation, racial conflict, etc.), and that would lead to more public concern about crime, leading to a political climate in which those states being more likely to impose the death penalty. (It's the usual statistical thing that correlation doesn't imply causation ) I don't know what the balance of evidence is on CP/deterrence, but I'm very certain you'd need a far more sophisticated analysis than simply correlating crime with places that allow for CP.

Correct. I briefly alluded to this, but will happily go into more detail. If you look at the individual states in the US, you will see states utilising capital punishment have on a whole a higher homicide rate than those which do not. However, if you look at the breakdown, you'll see that it's much more complicated than that.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/MurderRateBarGraph.png

It's worth pointing out that the state with the apparent lowest murder rate, NH, does have the death penalty as an option, but has not used it since 1939.

However, the argument is more complicated than that. If the death penalty really did act as a deterrent, you'd expect to see a significant change over time, in that states with the death penalty may well start out with higher murder rates, but that they should drop faster than they did in the states that do not practice CP. This is not true.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/murderratesdpvsnodp.png
As this graph shows, the overall murder rate has decreased, but it has decreased across the board. Murder rates in states which practice the death penalty have consistently been higher than in states that do not. If the death penalty acted as a deterrent, you'd expect that to have changed.

To look at the data in another way, this graph shows the difference between states as a percentage, where a +ve percentage demonstrates more murders in death penalty states than in non-death penalty states. If CP had a deterrent effect, you would expect the numbers to trend towards the negative. However, it has not.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/murderratedifferencegraph.png

(All data taken from DPIC)

Several people have made this argument, but no one has addressed the issue of whether that is a consequence of the US legal system rather than of an inherent problem with capital punishment. I rather suspect it's - to a large extent - the former.

The cost comes with the legal system, but it would be foolish to think that a similar system of checks and measures would not be required here. As CP is a final and irreversible sentence, you do need the lengthy process of appeals. And I'm not convinced that we would do it any cheaper, although the exact process would of course be very different to the US system.

 

[Antman]

You are joking, right? :roll: No, wait, you're the person who condones public assaults on children. I imagine that any attempt at reasoned debate has gone out of the window.

It is immoral to take someone's life because it is an irreversible act. It is in excess to what is needed. The justice system exists to rehabilitate offenders and protect the public. The death penalty does not do that. It serves no purpose in rehabilitation, and the public can be equally protected by life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is the appropriate option for those offenders who cannot be returned to society for whatever reason. It deprives the offender of their liberty without taking that extra step of depriving them of their life. It is necessary, but not excessive. The death penalty is not necessary and is excessive.

More of your usual hyperbole, the only rational argument against capital punishment is a possible miscarriage of justice hence my suggestion it would only be available to somebody who was guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever.

 

[me123]

Which is everyone who is convicted of murder. Otherwise, there is doubt and the conviction can be easily overturned. Is I've said already (if you'd bothered to read it), it's a very dangerous precedent for the legal system.

I'm not entirely sure what aspects of that post were "hyperbole".

 

[SS4]

No, It doesn't belong in the modern age. Enough said