And that’s why they go to prison.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Death Penalty
- Thread starter Busaholic
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GrimsbyPacer
Established Member
And get released before the life expectancy of the victim expires, while getting a free tv license, hot food and never having to worry about bills. The family of the victim suffer far far more, don't kid your self into thinking time on the naughty step solves any problems in murder cases.
Early release is not guaranteed.
A very large proportion of homicides in the UK are so-called crimes of passion. Execution would be less than productive in those cases.
I would be in favour of re-introduction as long as it is not the mandatory sentence as before. The prosecution can then state what level of sentence they would be seeking. When there was a mandatory sentence in the case of Ruth Ellis where the evidence was overwhelming or John Amery, for treason when he pleaded guilty and offered no evidence, there were no grounds for an appeal.
I remember reading about a case where someone was accused of lighting a fire in Portsmouth. The importance of the site was played down as Arson did not carry a death sentence, but Arson in HM Dockyard did.
I don't think prison is a cushy life.
Prison is not the cushy life that the tabloids make it out to be.
I may agree that prison sentences may be too short in some cases. But I think this is a separate issue to bringing back the death penalty. Prison sentences should in many cases be made longer, but I strongly disagree with bringing back the death penalty, for the reasons I have described.
LondonExile
Member
The key case that (in my opinion) proves the death penalty wrong is not Derek Bently, Ruth Ellis or even Timothy Evans, but James Corbitt
Unlike Evans and Bently, Corbitt was guilty of the murder he was convicted for. Unlike Ellis, he had no mitigation that should have earned him a reprieve under the law and customs of the time. Whilst I personally don't see the "tradeoff" as valid - I can't see any way to bring down to zero the chance of a miscarriage of justice leading to a wrongful execution, so I have to presume those in favour of the death penalty see that as an acceptable price to pay for the deterrent effect they're seeking.
The reason I think his case is so critical is because it demonstrates that the death penalty doesn't necessarily have the deterent effect they're hoping for. Corbitt knew Albert Pierrepoint socially. He drank with the famed executioner, he sang songs round the piano with him, and yet he still met Albert Pierrepoint in the death cell at HMP Strangeways for what was of course to be their last meeting.
In his memoirs (Executioner: Pierrepoint), Pierrepoint wrote about his feelings when returning to the pub after Corbitt's execution: "I thought if any man had a deterrent to murder poised before him, it was this troubadour whom I called Tish. He was not only aware of the rope, he had the man who handled it beside him singing a duet. The deterrent did not work."
Unlike Evans and Bently, Corbitt was guilty of the murder he was convicted for. Unlike Ellis, he had no mitigation that should have earned him a reprieve under the law and customs of the time. Whilst I personally don't see the "tradeoff" as valid - I can't see any way to bring down to zero the chance of a miscarriage of justice leading to a wrongful execution, so I have to presume those in favour of the death penalty see that as an acceptable price to pay for the deterrent effect they're seeking.
The reason I think his case is so critical is because it demonstrates that the death penalty doesn't necessarily have the deterent effect they're hoping for. Corbitt knew Albert Pierrepoint socially. He drank with the famed executioner, he sang songs round the piano with him, and yet he still met Albert Pierrepoint in the death cell at HMP Strangeways for what was of course to be their last meeting.
In his memoirs (Executioner: Pierrepoint), Pierrepoint wrote about his feelings when returning to the pub after Corbitt's execution: "I thought if any man had a deterrent to murder poised before him, it was this troubadour whom I called Tish. He was not only aware of the rope, he had the man who handled it beside him singing a duet. The deterrent did not work."
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's interesting, but it's an individual example of *one* person not being deterred. All it shows is that any deterrent effect isn't 100% total, it doesn't show there's no deterrent effect. (In the same way, I'm sure someone could dig up an example of *one* person vaccinated against Covid subsequently catching Covid. That doesn't prove that vaccines don't (usually) work).
The thing is, there have been numerous studies that show that harsh penalties - especially the death penalty - don't have a strong, long-lasting deterrent effect. A significant proportion of homicides are so-called "crimes of passion" so the harshness of the penalty doesn't really enter into it.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Not necessarily true. Maybe some death-penalty supporters are motivated by vengeance (and to be fair some posts in this thread in support of the death penalty seem to hint at that). Doubtless some people who like long prison sentences also care about vengeance too. Personally, I don't care remotely for vengeance: Deliberately making someone suffer purely the sake of making them suffer goes totally against my moral principles: My motivation for being somewhat sympathetic towards capital punishment (I say sympathetic - I'm not fully decided) is motivated by considerations of deterring crime, protecting future potential victims of crime, and generally seeking to do the most net good in a world in which there are no perfect solutions.
I'd be careful about generalising the motives of all those who are arguing on 'the other side' from you about something!
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
I find it staggering if the car driver was even arrested on suspicion of murder in the circumstances. I have to admit I would consider doing the same (as reported) in similar circumstances.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Sure. But I would argue the problem with those studies is that they reflect how the death penalty is used: In most cases, it seems to be a penalty for a single crime that's judged particularly heinous (such as murder) but which may well be a one-off thing. And I can see the logic behind why, in those cases, there may not be much deterrent effect. But that doesn't prove it wouldn't have a deterrent effect in other very different scenarios (such as the case I've argued for, of using it if a person is repeatedly convicted of serious crimes and shows no intent to reform their behaviour).
And of course, it's not just the upfront deterrent effect - it's the fact that it is the only way to guarantee that a criminal won't continue to commit further crimes (bearing in mind that some people find ways to continue to organise crimes, or do things like harass their previous victims even from prison cells)
They're a wrong-un so it's okay to kill them.
That is an argument for fixing the prison system, not for state-sanctioned homicide.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
They're a wrong-un so it's okay to kill them.
Wow, you're really determined to mis-represent what I'm saying aren't you
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's an observation some people deliberately choose to commit further crimes while serving their sentences, combined with a value judgement that it would be very good to prevent that from happening. How you prevent that from happening is a then a matter for further debate. Given that - from everything I've heard - the prison system is already very tough, I'm not sure what reforms you imagine might prevent those kinds of crimes, but I'm always open to suggestions. Having the death penalty as an option for people who commit more crimes while in prison would almost certainly solve the problem in at least some cases - and may well have quite a big deterrent effect - since the people you're trying to deter are people who have already directly experienced that committing crimes lead to them getting caught!
Last edited:
Killing the murderer would not bring back the actual victim of their crime which realistically is the only thing that would actually stop the victims family suffering .
I think that could be fraught with issues as well though , its cases of a very different nature but consider the issues in part caused by middle class prosecutors refusing to believe the allegations made by young disadvantaged women in rochdale , in rotherham etc .
Besides I think such a policy of allowing a prosecutor to decide would be subject to so much discretion . I mean if I was a prosecutor because of my firm beliefs on the topic I would never seek the death penalty . Youd have to have some prescribed methodology for fairness but then that just replaces the system of having it as a mandatory sentence .
Again all this fails to consider that criminals especially career ones do not commit their crimes on the basis that they will get caught . The deterrent argument only works if you consider that criminals are actually hoping or expecting to get caught .
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
True. But if (a) the family have reason to believe that the murderer has some kind of vendetta against them and is likely to seek to further harm them then killing the murderer would at least spare the family the additional worry thereby caused. There's a similar (although weaker) argument if the murderer is simply unrepetentant and making a point of gloating over the murder.
Well seeing as on this particular point I was talking about people who are actually already in prison, I think we can surmise that these are people who have some prior personal experience that indicates that getting caught is a strong possibility! Besides, a deterrent argument doesn't require that everyone gets deterred. Clearly there will always be some criminals who won't be deterred, but as long as some are deterred and therefore some potential victims are spared, then the deterrent has had a positive effect.
I believe they would struggle to secure release on parole at the end of their minimum term of imprisonment if they were unrepentant and/or were a threat to the family of the victim.
The taking off life is wrong. The only justification for taking life is self-defence, or defending someone in imminent danger. The state has no need to defend itself, since the murderer is already in prison. The death penalty is pure vengeance & bloodlust. It will also lead to guilty people walking free. Were I to be on a jury, there are no circumstances in which I would find someone guilty if I knew the punishment was execution. I doubt I'm alone.
It's not an issue of deterrence or otherwise, it's just wrong.
It's not an issue of deterrence or otherwise, it's just wrong.
HST274
Member
I know it was used in the case of James Bulger who was murdered by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, though they only served eight years. I did a bit of research into that case and there were certainly some people who called for the death penalty there I believe.
On the subject of deterrence, no murderer, no matter the punishment, plans on getting caught except in a very few exceptional cases. Therefore if they do not think about what comes afterwards potential murderers are hardly going to be deterred when they are so sure they will get away with it.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
So just to be clear, if you were on a jury at Wayne Couzens' trial and the death penalty was in force for the crimes he was charged with, and you were satisfied that he was guilty [1], you'd nevertheless choose to falsely declare him 'not guilty' and let him go free (and potentially kidnap/rape more women), right?
[1] Obviously hypothetically - in the actual trial he pleaded guilty so the question of a jury determining his guilt wouldn't have arisen.
Last year the former female CEO of the Howard League for Penal Reform said she acquitted rapists on juries twice partly because she didn't agree with the potential sentence of imprisonment. A morally bankrupt and self-centred view of one's civic duty and something she only had the limited moral courage to admit to after her retirement.
Here is a link quoting her tweet.
https://twitter.com/oflynnsocial/status/1458779603548491787
The juries acquited, not one person. The charges involved are not stated.
I believe my first civic duty lies in preventing judicial murder to compound matters.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I'm not a legal expert but, after some reading around, I'm fairly sure your civic duty as a juror is to determine whether, based on the evidence available, the person did or did not commit the crime that they are charged with. If you start going down the road of, they're guilty but I refuse to find them guilty because I don't agree with the penalty, then you're basically undermining the whole jury system (as well as, of course, knowingly setting someone who you believe has committed a serious crime free to commit more crimes)
In a capital case in the UK the Judge would direct jury not to take this into consideration and they could always recommend mercy- for all what good it did.
If it was after the 1957 Homicide act before the abolishment as in this case it wouldn't have been a capital crime anyway.
The 1957 act was a major factor in abolishment. For example if you murdered and raped numerous people or even children you would be saved, but if you stole a shilling from someone and murdered them you would hang.
Reading https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/juror-misconduct-offences to me it sounds like (or at least could be interpreted as)
I think if that was someone’s honestly held belief then it should be declared at the outset and would presumably disqualify the person from jury service. If it came up during the trial it would at least result in the juror being discharged and potentially collapsing the trial. (Possibly resulting in a retrial)
Then don't serve on a jury if that became the case.
None of us have the moral right to abrogate or deliberately pervert justice for our own moral preferences.
Butts
Veteran Member
Japan still has Capital Punishment perhaps surprisingly ?
The worst aspect of their system for those on "Death Row" is that they are informed when they are to be hanged on the day it is actually to take place and not beforehand.
That must be pretty nerve wracking.
The worst aspect of their system for those on "Death Row" is that they are informed when they are to be hanged on the day it is actually to take place and not beforehand.
That must be pretty nerve wracking.
None of us have the legal right, true. Morally, it might be a different story.
For example, morally, some jurors would feel very bad, I suspect, about sentencing a woman who had been violently raped, and had later killed their attacker, to prison for murder. Legally, they'd have to do it, but morally, it's a much greyer area.
I guess if called for jury service on this kind of case, you would have the right to refuse based on the fact that your moral standpoint on these issues might prejudice your judgment?
Last edited:
- Status