| The death penalty 09:17 - Mar 10 with 19742 views | SitfcB |
Bring it back.
Especially for scum like Ian Huntley.
How much does looking after that c**t, and others like him, in prison cost the UK taxpayer? Waste of resources.
|  |
| |  |
| The death penalty on 11:06 - Jan 24 with 1571 views | OldFart71 |
The problem up until the death penalty was abandoned was that the reasons for issuing a death penalty verdict were quite often either false or very frail in the evidence given. If for instance the evidence was substantial and in no way could be challenged then I do believe the death penalty should be handed out. |  | | |
| The death penalty on 11:12 - Jan 24 with 1550 views | OldFart71 |
| The death penalty on 09:36 - Mar 10 by GeoffSentence |
It never ceases to amaze me how bloodthirsty people are. |
Perhaps if it was your Daughter, Son, brother etc who had been stabbed or shot by some maniac you might feel differently. Of course safeguards must be put in place in case of miscarriage of justice where only a person get's the death penalty if the evidence is beyond doubt. | | | |
| The death penalty on 12:24 - Jan 24 with 1496 views | Herbivore |
| The death penalty on 11:12 - Jan 24 by OldFart71 |
Perhaps if it was your Daughter, Son, brother etc who had been stabbed or shot by some maniac you might feel differently. Of course safeguards must be put in place in case of miscarriage of justice where only a person get's the death penalty if the evidence is beyond doubt. |
There's a reason why judges rather than family members get to decide punishments though. If someone kicked my cat I'd want to drown them in the river, that doesn't mean my favoured punishment is proportionate or just in a civilised society. I don't see any good reason to even consider reintroducing the death penalty. It doesn't serve as a deterrent, it doesn't save any money, it's pretty barbaric to sanction killing, and there will always be the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Beyond a desire for retribution in extreme cases, what's the argument in favour? |  |
| |
| The death penalty on 15:50 - Jan 24 with 1411 views | noggin |
| The death penalty on 11:12 - Jan 24 by OldFart71 |
Perhaps if it was your Daughter, Son, brother etc who had been stabbed or shot by some maniac you might feel differently. Of course safeguards must be put in place in case of miscarriage of justice where only a person get's the death penalty if the evidence is beyond doubt. |
The evidence should be beyond doubt for everyone convicted of any crime though. [Post edited 24 Jan 15:53]
|  |
| |
| The death penalty on 16:56 - Jan 24 with 1359 views | BloomBlue |
| The death penalty on 21:12 - Jan 23 by football |
You are aware how miscarriages of justice there have been on the death penalty. |
Those really occurred before DNA. DNA has eliminated miscarriages when it comes to murder. |  | | |
| The death penalty on 17:32 - Jan 24 with 1309 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The death penalty on 16:56 - Jan 24 by BloomBlue |
Those really occurred before DNA. DNA has eliminated miscarriages when it comes to murder. |
Not true.
Just a simple google: "DNA evidence has helped to exonerate people who were wrongly convicted, but it is not infallible and can still lead to miscarriages of justice." |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The death penalty on 18:18 - Jan 24 with 1268 views | Churchman |
| The death penalty on 12:24 - Jan 24 by Herbivore |
There's a reason why judges rather than family members get to decide punishments though. If someone kicked my cat I'd want to drown them in the river, that doesn't mean my favoured punishment is proportionate or just in a civilised society. I don't see any good reason to even consider reintroducing the death penalty. It doesn't serve as a deterrent, it doesn't save any money, it's pretty barbaric to sanction killing, and there will always be the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Beyond a desire for retribution in extreme cases, what's the argument in favour? |
Agreed. There’s a difference between personal and looking objectively. If I’d had a family member injured, damaged or murdered by this bit of dirt, there is a course of action(s) I’d take. But you cannot operate the law like that.
As for cost, the price for the taxpayer is over £2.2m for 52 years comfort with human rights, tv, heating, food, recreation, books, bed, no worries and the chance of being released. Is it not cheaper to execute him? Perhaps ditch the appeals process to save money in clear cut cases? But how can you be sure and is that a justice system? It’s a no for me. |  | | |
| The death penalty on 18:37 - Jan 24 with 1239 views | BloomBlue |
| The death penalty on 17:32 - Jan 24 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Not true.
Just a simple google: "DNA evidence has helped to exonerate people who were wrongly convicted, but it is not infallible and can still lead to miscarriages of justice." |
Your getting confused with early DNA.
But oh the irony of trusting a google search but not trusting DNA.
Honestly if the science around DNA was that fallible every lawyer / barrister would have DNA evidence kicked out of court. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The death penalty on 18:59 - Jan 24 with 1197 views | noggin |
| The death penalty on 18:37 - Jan 24 by BloomBlue |
Your getting confused with early DNA.
But oh the irony of trusting a google search but not trusting DNA.
Honestly if the science around DNA was that fallible every lawyer / barrister would have DNA evidence kicked out of court. |
Who told you all this? | |
| |
| The death penalty on 19:47 - Jan 24 with 1156 views | Herbivore |
| The death penalty on 18:18 - Jan 24 by Churchman |
Agreed. There’s a difference between personal and looking objectively. If I’d had a family member injured, damaged or murdered by this bit of dirt, there is a course of action(s) I’d take. But you cannot operate the law like that.
As for cost, the price for the taxpayer is over £2.2m for 52 years comfort with human rights, tv, heating, food, recreation, books, bed, no worries and the chance of being released. Is it not cheaper to execute him? Perhaps ditch the appeals process to save money in clear cut cases? But how can you be sure and is that a justice system? It’s a no for me. |
We can look at places that have the death penalty to compare costs, places like the US for example. It generally costs more to have people on death row than to keep them in prison for life. | |
| |
| The death penalty on 19:53 - Jan 24 with 1142 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The death penalty on 18:37 - Jan 24 by BloomBlue |
Your getting confused with early DNA.
But oh the irony of trusting a google search but not trusting DNA.
Honestly if the science around DNA was that fallible every lawyer / barrister would have DNA evidence kicked out of court. |
Please explain how DNA proves that someone murdered someone else.
It is part of the evidence that can place a suspect at a scene, or show that they handled a weapon, or prove they were involved in a physical scuffle, etc, etc. It does not speak of motive, course of events, provocation, etc, etc.
How much DNA evidence convicted Lucy Letby, for example? |  |
| |
| The death penalty on 19:57 - Jan 24 with 1134 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The death penalty on 18:37 - Jan 24 by BloomBlue |
Your getting confused with early DNA.
But oh the irony of trusting a google search but not trusting DNA.
Honestly if the science around DNA was that fallible every lawyer / barrister would have DNA evidence kicked out of court. |
It's not me who's confused. I just said "quick google search" to show you can find the facts in no time at all. And what I quoted wasn't about early DNA, it's now.
DNA evidence supports convictions, they're not solely based on it.
The idea that DNA has eliminated miscarriages of justice is ridiculous. [Post edited 24 Jan 21:20]
| |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The death penalty on 20:02 - Jan 24 with 1120 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The death penalty on 19:57 - Jan 24 by The_Flashing_Smile |
It's not me who's confused. I just said "quick google search" to show you can find the facts in no time at all. And what I quoted wasn't about early DNA, it's now.
DNA evidence supports convictions, they're not solely based on it.
The idea that DNA has eliminated miscarriages of justice is ridiculous. [Post edited 24 Jan 21:20]
|
A poor choice of final word there, Flash, especially as there are those who believe it is the case. It is clearly wrong.
As another example, how would modern DNA evidence have helped to clarify the guilt or innocence of the last person to be hanged in this country? | |
| |
| The death penalty on 20:11 - Jan 24 with 1097 views | Churchman |
| The death penalty on 19:47 - Jan 24 by Herbivore |
We can look at places that have the death penalty to compare costs, places like the US for example. It generally costs more to have people on death row than to keep them in prison for life. |
Just cut all that out. You know, the old Stalin method. In you go. Hear the charge. Pronounced guilty. Out the back, bang! see you later. Costs? Minimal.
And that’s where it all goes wrong, of course. | | | |
| The death penalty on 20:15 - Jan 24 with 1094 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The death penalty on 20:11 - Jan 24 by Churchman |
Just cut all that out. You know, the old Stalin method. In you go. Hear the charge. Pronounced guilty. Out the back, bang! see you later. Costs? Minimal.
And that’s where it all goes wrong, of course. |
It is disturbing how easily people accept the steps that lead exactly there. | |
| |
| The death penalty on 20:22 - Jan 24 with 1078 views | Churchman |
| The death penalty on 20:15 - Jan 24 by Nthsuffolkblue |
It is disturbing how easily people accept the steps that lead exactly there. |
I think that’s my point. FFS don’t tell Donald Trump! | | | |
| The death penalty on 20:52 - Jan 24 with 1044 views | GlasgowBlue |
This is a very good and balanced article by Stephen Daisley in the Spectator. It's behind paywall so I'll copy and paste it.
Should the Southport killer swing? Lee Anderson thinks so. The Reform MP posted an image of a noose on X, with the words: ‘No apologies here. This is what is required!’ It’s not the first time Anderson has backed the return of the rope, and not the first time I’ve contended that he’s wrong, but there’s something I want to say before getting into the nitty gritty. Wanting Axel Rudakubana dead is a thoroughly mainstream and entirely understandable view. Among those who have children, I would go further and suggest that it is the natural response. On capital punishment, as on so much else, liberals think of ourselves as cool-headed rationalists, above the hot tempers and base bloodlust of the mob, but it is perfectly rational to believe that a child-killer should be executed, and, while we’re at it, what is so wrong about feeling angry and vengeful over the murder of children? These are normal instincts.
Normal, but difficult to turn into norms. I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, a position that emerges from Catholic teaching on ‘the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life’ and the principle that ‘not even a murderer loses his personal dignity’. But you can think there is a place for capital punishment on our statute books and still appreciate that Southport is the sort of case that makes for bad legislation. Those who would see Rudakubana hang point to the fact there is no doubt about his guilt: he admitted to the murders and even gloated about them in custody. Yet this is the very reason why it would be unwise to legislate a death penalty off the back of his crimes. The Southport murders were unlike most murders and a law drawn up with them in mind would extend to very different circumstances.
The campaign to abolish capital punishment was aided immeasurably by headline-grabbing causes celebre, such as Derek Bentley (hanged on the basis of joint enterprise) and Ruth Ellis (hanged for a crime of passion), but even a narrowly drawn death penalty statute could result in irreparable miscarriages of justice, rendering it vulnerable to public opinion and changing parliamentary arithmetic. A death penalty for child murder might satisfy justice in cases like Southport or the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, but it would also have seen Donna Anthony, Angela Cannings, and Sally Clark go to the gallows following wrongful conviction for murdering children who had in fact died from sudden infant death syndrome.
A more limited capital murder statute might restrict the death sentence to cases where the accused is convicted based on forensic evidence. Then again, Judith Ward was convicted of murder based on forensic evidence and spent 18 years inside until the Court of Appeal found the forensic evidence to have been hopelessly wrong. Yes, you might say, but forensic science has improved immeasurably since Ward’s conviction in 1974. It has, and yet between 1978 and 2024, 62 death row inmates in the United States have been exonerated on the grounds of ‘false or misleading forensic evidence’. Nor are forensics the only branch of evidence prone to human error. Consider the case of William Mills, sentenced to nine years for the armed robbery of a bank in Glasgow’s West End, on the strength of two police officers testifying that they had identified him from CCTV. The robber on the footage had his mouth covered by a scarf and his eyes by sunglasses. Mills was freed after a fresh investigation discovered evidence linking a convicted bank robber to the crime.
A narrower law still might require a confession to make a murderer eligible for a rendezvous with the modern Mr Pierrepoint. Such a law would have still meant execution for Stefan Kiszko, who spent 16 years in prison after confessing to the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. Kiszko’s conviction was later quashed and the real murderer eventually caught. The Kiszko case was particularly egregious: he had a mental age of seven, was allowed no solicitor, was falsely accused of exposing himself by four teenage girls who admitted they made it up ‘for a laugh’, and couldn’t have produced the DNA evidence left at the murder scene because he was impotent. Policing and criminal trials procedure have come a long way since then, but if we again look across the pond, we find 32 instances of death row inmates released on the basis of ‘false confession’.
Of course, you might be a ruthless utilitarian and reckon that stringing up a poor innocent b*gger every now and then a price worth paying to exact retribution on the likes of Rudakubana. Still, you would have to contend with a British public that does not think in those terms. There is a reason miscarriage of justice stories have always shifted papers and made ratings hits of TV docudramas. Something deep in the British soul is horrified by the thought of the lone individual, falsely accused, at the mercy of the state, condemned to suffer a punishment they do not deserve. As long as this aspect of the British character remains, it wouldn’t matter if a thousand kid killers took a trip through the trapdoor: just one wrongfully hanged sod and the death sentence would soon be off to meet its Maker.
There are plenty of other considerations. Britain is no longer the same country it was when the last hangings were carried out in 1964. We are a multicultural society, one latterly steeped in American identity politics. It would not be long before the racial and ethnic composition of our condemned cells was pored over by solicitors and activists to level charges of racial bias. Barristers would urge juries to consider racial and other social justice factors to save their clients from the noose. And how many police officers would volunteer for armed duties knowing their lawful killing of a black or ethnic minority suspect could see them not only in the dock for murder but on trial for their life while rabble-rousing MPs, journalists and community leaders agitate for ‘justice’? I might be a hand-wringing liberal, but after the conduct of government and officialdom over the past decade, I think it foolhardy that anyone should want to give the state the power to kill its citizens and truly baffling that those clamouring the loudest for it are the very right-wingers most suspicious of the state’s intentions.
Its moral and ethical dimensions aside, the death penalty is too prone to error, too open to miscarriages of justice, and too vulnerable to sudden lurches in politics and public opinion to be a workable response to crimes like Southport. If the right wants to move the dial on penal policy, it should focus on how best to combine earlier intervention with an expansion in the use of custody and other forms of detention, with a particular emphasis on serious habitual offenders and those severally mentally ill people who demonstrate violent and aggressive tendencies. To achieve such a criminal justice revolution, and to insulate it from legal or policy challenge, the right would have to leave behind its basic boomer attitudes to incarceration, and all the various sadisms some reactionaries yearn to see visited upon offenders. To be a credible solution to violence and attended pathologies, an expanded prison estate would have to provide a safe, clean, healthy and productive environment for inmates. It wouldn’t be cheap. Lord knows it wouldn’t be popular. But it is a more viable answer than the death penalty. |  |
| |
| The death penalty on 21:47 - Jan 24 with 979 views | Bigalhunter |
| The death penalty on 19:47 - Jan 24 by Herbivore |
We can look at places that have the death penalty to compare costs, places like the US for example. It generally costs more to have people on death row than to keep them in prison for life. |
Good to see that an interesting, broadly intelligent and considered debate has now broken out, regarding the wider issue of the death penalty.
As always with shocking events like this, we start with the impotent posturing and torture fetishising from a handful of posters egging each other on in their desperation to be seen as frothing with the most impotent rage.
We started with posts discussing the ideal size of rocks for a public stoning and the disturbing compulsion to discuss removal of various body parts as punishment.
As always, these threads are either rescued, once the briefly enraged turn their attentions elsewhere, or get pulled when they check back to round on anyone with experience and knowledge regarding the wider implications of their suggestions, who has had the audacity to challenge their view of things.
This is why I love it here. |  |
| |
| The death penalty on 04:21 - Jan 25 with 845 views | Benters |
| The death penalty on 12:24 - Jan 24 by Herbivore |
There's a reason why judges rather than family members get to decide punishments though. If someone kicked my cat I'd want to drown them in the river, that doesn't mean my favoured punishment is proportionate or just in a civilised society. I don't see any good reason to even consider reintroducing the death penalty. It doesn't serve as a deterrent, it doesn't save any money, it's pretty barbaric to sanction killing, and there will always be the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Beyond a desire for retribution in extreme cases, what's the argument in favour? |
It doesn’t serve as a deterrent hmm I’m not sure if that’s true,it doesn’t save money of course it does! |  |
| |
| The death penalty on 07:14 - Jan 25 with 793 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The death penalty on 04:21 - Jan 25 by Benters |
It doesn’t serve as a deterrent hmm I’m not sure if that’s true,it doesn’t save money of course it does! |
Again, you're going what you think must be right rather than consulting the facts.
It's been proven not to be a deterrent. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The death penalty on 07:18 - Jan 25 with 791 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The death penalty on 11:12 - Jan 24 by OldFart71 |
Perhaps if it was your Daughter, Son, brother etc who had been stabbed or shot by some maniac you might feel differently. Of course safeguards must be put in place in case of miscarriage of justice where only a person get's the death penalty if the evidence is beyond doubt. |
I’m with Geoff. I couldn’t kill or torture anyone, irrespective of who they were or what they’ve done. And by extension I wouldn’t want anyone else to on my behalf. So I don’t find the baying mob tasteful either. But I’m not going to be overly critical, as this guy is pure evil and emotions are understandably running high. |  |
| |
| The death penalty on 08:10 - Jan 25 with 739 views | Herbivore |
| The death penalty on 04:21 - Jan 25 by Benters |
It doesn’t serve as a deterrent hmm I’m not sure if that’s true,it doesn’t save money of course it does! |
Can you post some evidence to support those claims please?
This article includes links to evidence that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent and is more expensive than life imprisonment: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-does-not-support-the-use-of-
There are multiple other sources of evidence that show the death penalty is not a deterrent and is more expensive than life imprisonment. I look forward to seeing your counter evidence. | |
| |
| The death penalty on 08:40 - Jan 25 with 698 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The death penalty on 08:10 - Jan 25 by Herbivore |
Can you post some evidence to support those claims please?
This article includes links to evidence that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent and is more expensive than life imprisonment: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-does-not-support-the-use-of-
There are multiple other sources of evidence that show the death penalty is not a deterrent and is more expensive than life imprisonment. I look forward to seeing your counter evidence. |
Benters has lots of things that are true because he thinks them.
You'll be lucky if he returns to this thread let alone returns with evidence.
Anyway, good to see you back Herbs! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The death penalty on 09:11 - Jan 25 with 661 views | RadioOrwell |
| The death penalty on 17:21 - Jan 22 by flykickingbybgunn |
Do we need a referendum on this ?
There are many questions on both sides.
Surely a vote will bring about a sufficient discussion for ordinary people to make an informed decision. |
"Surely a vote will bring about a sufficient discussion for ordinary people to make an informed decision."
Now that is genuinely funny. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
