You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
And the ? mark
You can’t sensibly compare the two seeing as the US have MILES MORE crimes anyway due to the fact the US population is almost 4 times that of the UK & LOTS of guns.
Can we stick to the original subject please, IE, UK/death penalty.
Nope, it's a perfect case study, it shows which of the states in the US has a higher murder rate, the evidence is the ones with the death penalty. It's a good bit of evidence that shows killing people you convict doesn't stop people committing crime.
Interesting fact is that the Golf R is involved in 3% of UK crimes.
If the death penalty can be extended to Audi drivers too then I'll vote for it.
Lol @ nick1962
It’s a good bit of evidence that shows killing people you convict doesn’t stop people committing crime.
I'm sure the loved ones of those in this article are reassured by that evidence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227
No worries Pandhand, Yes there are a fair few records of serial offenders turning themselves around & going back into prisons & doing their best to show the errors of their ways to others, but to limited effect. (again, I have no proof or evidence to hand, just front line experience)
Again though, your regular murderer/paedo rapist etc (who are candidates for the death penalty) doesn't go round HMP establishments saying how theyv'e seen the light, cos theyr's locked up & costing the taxpayer about 40K a year each.
Nope, it’s a perfect case study, it shows which of the states in the US has a higher murder rate, the evidence is the ones with the death penalty. It’s a good bit of evidence that shows killing people you convict doesn’t stop people committing crime.
I disagree. Different countries, this is the UK. Hey ho.
100% Yes.
As has been stated already, this country is far too soft on the ones intent on destroying it.
I’m sure the loved ones of those in this article are reassured by that evidence.
Mixing up 2 things there though, crime and punishment. How many people did not go on to commit more murders?
How many more murders were committed in places that have a death penalty?
Emotional pleas are great but are very good when the evidence does not support your idea
We still have the death penalty.
You do not need to commit murder to receive a death sentence. More prison suicides in 2017 than the whole of the hangings in the UK in the 1950`s
Rehabilitation, only the person can rehabilitate themselves, they can only do that once they accept they have done wrong.
Which is a bit rich coming from you mike when you brought up drugs offences and the rehabilitation of mainstream offenders. I'm guessing the OP wasn't thinking about the death penalty for people who didn't pick up dog poo or got caught smoking weed.
Which is a bit rich coming from you mike when you brought up drugs offences and the rehabilitation of mainstream offenders.
Sorry but what? Can you tell me what the article shows and what it proves? Can you say what the impact of a death penalty would have changed? Is there evidence that the death penalty reduces the murder rate?
Firm no from me, though i might make an exception for treason, which I’d broaden to include gross and wilful lying in order to subvert public opinion. Farage, Dacre, etc I’m coming for you 😂
But to return to a more serious note, on rehabilitation surely the standard you walk past is the one you accept. Yes, effective rehabilitation costs an awful lot, but countries such as Norway seem to achieve it to some degree. Here imo we are far to focused on retribution and revenge when it comes to dealing with criminals, rather than prevention, resolution and rehabilitation.
Perhaps if we legalised and taxed drugs we could afford to pay for it too.
Rehabilitation, only the person can rehabilitate themselves, they can only do that once they accept they have done wrong.
This. Almost completely, only some people cant just rehabilitate even after theyv'e admitted theyv'e done wrong. I've seen it many, many times.
Is there evidence that the death penalty reduces the murder rate?
Probably. Because if you execute a murderer....they aint gonna do it again are they?
Probably. Because if you execute a murderer….they aint gonna do it again are they?
OK what is the re offending rate for murder? We had stats that show in situations today where we can compare policies that it doesn't work you won't look at it as it's the US.
I thought that Apart from a few shipmans most murders are crimes of passion/arguments/unplanned so these are not impacted by the type of punishments.
Shoplifting is an example of a crime where there is a notional risk benefit analysis by the perp. Not taking into account people who have become desperate due to drugs of poverty.
The US is often used as a comparison as it is most similar to the UK compared to places like Saudi and China who have the death penalty
Rehabilitation, only the person can rehabilitate themselves, they can only do that once they accept they have done wrong.
This. Almost completely, only some people cant just rehabilitate even after theyv’e admitted theyv’e done wrong. I’ve seen it many, many times.
Is there evidence that the death penalty reduces the murder rate?
Probably. Because if you execute a murderer….they aint gonna do it again are they?
WOW! The fact that a (past/present) prison officer could write this is an absolute disgrace.
It's, 2018, not 1820.
To be fair the they won’t do it again comment is what you might hear down the pub and I imagine it is tongue in cheek or perhaps I just read it that way
but they won’t be doing anything again....
some odd reading and trends especially the we are better at catching people and not letting the ones who we think are a danger to the public back out once they have served their punishment time..
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/12/2/13803158/serial-killers-victims-data
“Ill the take the bait. If there is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt then yes”
So we’d have a 3rd category of returned verdict,
not guilty,
guilty,
and really really guilty? 🙄
Resolute No for me, to answer the OP. No place in a civilised society, costs a fortune (legal appeals) and isn’t an effective deterrent
Yep. Don't care if it the threat doesn't prevent crime. It would prevent that particular from reoffending though.
For a lot of the sort of serious crimes for which it may be considered to be fitting it is unlikely to be much of deterrent; crimes of passion, drug related, terrorism, etc. I did read an interesting article that suggested it may work for motoring offences! They result in many deaths every year but still millions break the law. Up the punishment from a small fine to the death penalty and you'll see a change in attitude. Iirc they predicted that in the early days of the scheme you'd have to execute quite a few to have an impact but then you would see rates drop to well below the current driving related death rate. Obviously it was a bit tongue in cheek and no one would ever consider it for real but an interesting thought experiment
A No from me.
If it was put to the people it would be very close though and I would be surprised if it didn't have a majority (maybe 52%)
The same would happen if there was a referendum on making homosexuality illegal
The same would happen if there was a referendum on removing all Muslims.
It has been well proven that they is a majority of ignorant people in this country who are unable to think anything through or see past their hate and prejudices. If anything should be taken from Brexit it is don't ask the people any direct questions.
Yep. Don’t care if it the threat doesn’t prevent crime. It would prevent that particular from reoffending though.
And if you were wrongly convicted, what then?
Perhaps we should bring it in for self-evident tank stupidity. I’d support that.
Yep that's right, Huntley, west etc all inoccent weren't they. Nice to see the minority band of stw lefty handwringers out in force though.
Birmingham 6
Guildford 4
Maguire 7
etc etc etc
How many innocent people do the supporters of capital punishment reckon to be collateral damage and worth sacrificing? What if one of them was their family?
Yep that’s right, Huntley, west etc all inoccent weren’t they.
So after conviction, did they reoffend? Do you honestly think the threat of the death penalty would have prevented them offending prior to their conviction?
No hand-wringing about it, just a slight amount of intelligent thought. You should try it sometime.
“I did read an interesting article that suggested it may work for motoring offences” (how do you quote on this forum?)
I gather that the main deterrent is generally the risk of getting caught, rather than the sentence. People continue to commit motoring offences because the risk of getting caught is so low.
Only because it isn't enforced. If you wanted to catch some committing a motor offence you can pretty much stand on any road, any time of day and not have to wait too long. Its probably a combination of the lack of enforcement and the low fines. Currently you can break law and there is tiny chance of getting caught and if you do get caught the punishment will be small. I reckon you could keep the enforcement levels the same and a significant increase in punishment would have an impact.People continue to commit motoring offences because the risk of getting caught is so low.
it's a NO from me.
How any civilised country can support or instigate revenge based murder on its own citizens is beyond me. Attitudes are hard to change though and I do see a case for a much less comfortable incarceration for those that can not or will not be rehabilitated.
and really really guilty? 🙄
you could give that option to the Jury on the condition if it's a wrong verdict they would be executed for condemning an innocent party.
As soon as you introduce capital punishment then you increase the risk that some murderers will escape justice as a number of the jury aren't "sure enough" to convict and sentence to death.
The same would happen if there was a referendum on making homosexuality illegal
The same would happen if there was a referendum on removing all Muslims.
That would depend on the order of the polls.
I think the people who would be likely to vote yes to capital punishment are people who believe the judicial system is letting them down. Sentences appear to be lenient and the phrase " crime doesn't pay " seems to be a false one. Maybe if there was something more realistic for the public to see such as the local drug dealers BMW ( other makes are available ) being crushed.
I'd vote no (but at £~80k/year* to incarcerate a maximum security prisoner, it could be argued it makes a compelling business case... Surprised the Tory right aren't looking at it as a way of offsetting B****T)
*Google may lie
<div class="bbp-reply-author">oldtalent</div>
<div></div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Yep that’s right, Huntley, west etc all inoccent weren’t they.
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
D'you know, I've now read this thread 87 times and I still can't see where that claim was made.
</div>
WOW! The fact that a (past/present) prison officer could write this is an absolute disgrace.
HaHa!, Maybe I did say it tongue in cheek but if you spent a few years on a VP wing in any one of our high security jails & read through some case files then you might have a slightly different outlook.
Some things I've seen, heard & read just on domestic violence convictions made me shudder, never mind the torture, rape & murder of children.
I'm still on the 'yes' side.
I’m still on the ‘yes’ side.
So - how many of the wrongly-convicted would you be prepared to sacrifice?
So – how many of the wrongly-convicted would you be prepared to sacrifice?
None, only the rightly convicted ones.
Huntley
Brady
Nilsen
Neilson
Adebolajo
Sutcliffe
Etc
Etc
Etc
And who determines those that are "rightly convicted"? Isn't that the job of a jury?
Doesn't surprise me that a screw and hangman would say yes, they have an extreme and extremely limited perspective on things.
As for the cash saved, how much tax is avoided by the rich like Cameron? (And no doubt many on the left) and Amazon etc?...and negotiated away by Vodafone etc al?
A firm no from me for these and many other reasons.
Love the "Huntley was innocent...hand wringers" point...do you write for the Mail?
EGF how do you decide who was "rightly convicted"?
A fair number of the "rightly convicted" end up being cleared after other evidence or police malfeasance comes to light. It depends on how many of these innocent people being killed you're prepared to accept and sadly I think the answer would be "quite a few".
Anyway, the way to prevent murder is by turning our attention to pre-crime. If we went out there and executed those we thought were getting a "bit murdery" we could end this scourge on society.
So how long do you think it would take to reintegrate Lee rigby's killers. Two or three sessions with a shrink. Four absolute tops then find them a nice job at an army recruitment office.
Love the “Huntley was innocent…hand wringers” point…do you write for the Mail?
I'd guess "to" rather than "for"...
I'd also hazard a guess at "in crayon"...
I would further guess, for the hat trick, "while closely resembling a slab of pickled pig meat"*
*Or "while closely mimicking the density of a bucket of pig sh!t"...
No.
I would say that the examples given in this thread by the execute happy posters are the exact people that would not have been deterred by a death penalty. So what is the point of the death penalty again?
If it is not to stop any crimes taking place then it is just revenge for what the person has done isn't it?
Of course a death penalty for speeding offences would stop people speeding but those people are largely law abiding and need a harsh reminder to obey the speeding law, they are not the same as people who murder.
After watching a number of television prison dramas in my time I believe everyone in prison is innocent so a no from me.
was this question not settled in 1965? no.
If it is not to stop any crimes taking place then it is just revenge for what the person has done isn’t it?
That and aggressive cost reduction strategy, of course it doesn't prevent any crime or deter anybody.
I wonder if conviction rates would fall if the death penalty was an option? Would juries become reluctant to return a guilty verdict?
The right to life is a fundamental human right and the state should be upholding rights not removing them.
Human rights are for everyone, including murderers and other criminals.
State administered justice cannot include revenge. If it does, it isn't justice at all.
It is often quite odd that many of the people very pro the death penalty are often very anti Islam and sharia law which depending on local variations advocates similar punishments.
mind you when I was in the states the most ardent supporters also often said that only god has the right to kill (pro life) but were also very pro death penalty. Very few ever saw the irony.
it prevents nothing so it can only be justified s a cost saving method or revenge. Neither of which should exist in a civilised society. The line at which a crime is bad enough is never set and moves with public opinion which really is not a good thing.
once someone is dead they and their crimes are just a number in a book. While they are alive in prison for the Huntleys and the Sutcliffs they serve as a reminder to force us to remember the bad things people can do and that we as a society are better than them because we did not sink to their level
Definitely a no from me. Other than cost cutting and revenge what does it bring to the table? I’d make prisoners work though. Make them do something productive that benefits society as a whole.
If our justice system was better I would vote YES.
its not revenge, it’s removing the monster that is a threat to other members of society. If they cannot be redeemed or are just plain evil then the state shouldn’t have to pay for their upkeep till they die of old age.
However as every justice system seems to be riddled with incompetence, corruption and luck then it has be NO.
How disturbing that some on this thread would consider execution on the grounds of cost saving.
Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.
There are costs involved in living in a civilized country and I'm happy that we pay them as the alternative is barbaric.
How about the death penalty only for those who advocate for it. That way if you like it, the state can murder you and you get your wish
Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.
Wait a minute. Will there be a tax cut?
However as every justice system seems to be riddled with incompetence, corruption
I think funding and approach may be related to success in rehabilitation also .
@Ming the Merciless. You never learn do you? Last time you tried to execute someone he came back and kicked your ass.
Hard death sentence or soft death sentence?
Hard death sentence or soft death sentence?
Depends on on if it was a good crime (money laundering, white collar fraud) or a bad crime (drugs, robbery)
the definition of what is deserving or undeserving of such penalties will depend on the time, public opinion, media reaction not just the actions of the individual.
Might as well just set up a WhatsApp justice mob
Cost savings seems to be a motivator, but because of the rigorous appeals and the high security a death sentence in the USA is more expensive than a life sentence.
Or should we go all China and do it quick and cheap (plus invoice the family).
Maybe we should do a facebook vote for every conviction?
Can we just compromise and execute Piers Morgan, even as a staunch anti death penalty advocate, I would be willing to sacrifice him to pacify the more blood thirsty among us.
Or should we go all China and do it quick and cheap (plus invoice the family).
They harvest organs to order too don’t they? Profitable rather than cheap.
No.
Have you actually stopped to think about what that means? Killing someone to save money.
There are quite a few funding cuts that mean exactly this, but hit non 'offenders'.
Let's hang them publicly. Sell tickets, tv coverage and film rights. We'll make it self financing, 'tis the modern way.
Raffle the hangman's position, sell each inch off rope like they used to.
Combine it with the lottery. A Saturday night treat for the family.
With thanks to Alan B'Stard for the idea. Be careful what you wish for Al.
If you can absolutely guarantee that it'll never be done wrongly, then sure. But that's impossible. Yes of course there are some very few cases where it's essentially indisputable but there's always a line to be drawn somewhere and as soon as any judgement or room to wiggle comes in, it all goes wrong.
I've nothing against the concept frankly but it's impossible to do perfectly and can't be any less than perfect.
As for deterrant, nah. Deterrant effects don't depend on severity of sentencing, except for low grade crimes and career criminals. If you're not deterred by life you're not deterred by death- you're doing it either because you're crazy, you expect to be caught and welcome it, or you don't expect to be caught.
Libya would probably pay to take them off our hands.
I doubt they would want our scrotes. Why would they?
It’s yet another extremely nuanced argument that has been simplified into a binary discussion, TBH I can’t see any merit whatsoever in having a death penalty, the very notion of which depends upon a strict set of rules and tests to be of any use in a civilised society, to the point that it becomes a contradiction - and an expensive one at that, given that the state must bear a burden of both absolute proof and of significant culpability in event of a miscarriage of justice that the cost alone is a burden to bear.
If one is found to be guilty of a capital offence which is subsequently ruled to be an unsafe conviction, then at the very least the state must bear significant responsibility to restore your reputation, pursue the genuine culprit and bring them to justice and also to ensure that your dependents are compensated for a lifetime.
I doubt they would want our scrotes. Why would they?
To sell in their slave markets.
God yes I'd vote for it....it will never go to a referendum as MPs know full well the majority would go for it too.
For me it's not about it being a deterrent, evidence from countries with the death penalty shows it doesn't work like that.
For me it's about getting rid of scum.
Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.
Cheaper and revenge feels great.
I see the "let's hit reverse… hard" brigade are out in force in this thread… plus a few suprises from otherwise reasonable people who want us to turn back on one of the very real advances we made as a society in the 20th Century.
It's a NO from me.
"For me it’s about getting rid of scum."
What's your acceptable scum-to-innocent-person ratio?
Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.
Is this in your version of utopia where you could just crack on with it without any extra legal issues surrounding the state killing people? You do know it costs more to feed and house a bunch of lawyers than a bloke in a cell don't you? Have a quick google of the difference in cost between a death penalty and non death penalty sentence in the States for some merry reading. It's not the thrifty choice.
it will never go to a referendum as MPs know full well the majority would go for it too.
It would be interesting to see if anyone has ever done a correlation between IQ and capital punishment advocacy. Yes, there's a reason why MPs don't fancy the general public getting a referendum but it's the same reason a good number of members of the public aren't trusted with anything more complicated than a checkout till.
What’s your acceptable scum-to-innocent-person ratio?
4 to 1.
“For me it’s about getting rid of scum.”
I would imagine many people have a different view on what might constitute scum... do you expand the system to cull generational benefit claiming families you know the ones the tabloids call scum...
Rather than feeding and housing killers for 25 years (at great expense) they could instead just be shot.
It must be more expensive to house a killer for 25 years on death row. I imagine the lawyers fees for appeals on death row cases are expensive.
I can completely understand families of victims advocating the death penalty, however thankfully the justice system counteracts this.
A decision to bring in the death penalty in the UK would be utterly despicable IMO.