The Death Penalty

[yorksrob]

We're lucky.

Look at that bloke who massacacared loads of people in Norway. They'll have to let him out at some stage, which isn't justice as far as I'm concerned.

Fortunately, in this country, he'd die in prison.

 

[Sorcerer]

Nuremberg happened in the context of denazification and the deaths of key Nazis was an important part of this. Killing the worst ones ensured Nazism died as a mainstream political ideology as well.

Is there any reason to believe that this couldn't have happened without executions? Also, I don't think this necessarily proves that killing the biggest proponents of an ideology means it will die as a mainstream ideology, otherwise killing Osama bin Laden would've meant the end of Al-Qaeda and the end of anti-western Islamic terrorism, yet neither of these things disappeared after his death.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't see what we could've gained from killing those sorts of people during peacetime after the fall of their tyrannical regime and the death of their diabolical dictator aside from a feeling of avengement for the 12-16 million lives they had taken. That will unfortunately not bring those people back though, and as despicable as the Nazis were, they were still humans with a right to life, and them violating those rights of millions other does not undo that. I despise Nazis and all they stand for, but it is not mine nor anyone else's place to decide whether someone gets to live or die. The Nazis thought they had that right, but they did not, and never will. Spending the rest of their days in prison powerless and unable to harm anyone again is a just sentence.

In the case of the Nazis executed after the Nuremberg trials, what we gained by killing them was the fact that they could no longer do any harm. That would not have been the case if we'd simply sent them to prison for the rest of their lives - since it would be virtually guaranteed that at least some - and perhaps many of them - committed to their obscene cause as they were, would have done everything they could to use their prison cells to continue to communicate Nazism, to threaten those of their victims who were still alive, to try to organise supporters, etc.

 

[Sorcerer]

Look at that bloke who massacacared loads of people in Norway. They'll have to let him out at some stage, which isn't justice as far as I'm concerned.

To be fair, Norway focuses more on rehabilitation then we do, and so they will initially operate within this framework where possible. This is part of why I am against capital punishment because while it robs potentially innocent people of their lives, it also robs guilty people of the chance to reform.

In the case of the Nazis executed after the Nuremberg trials, what we gained by killing them was the fact that they could no longer do any harm. That would not have been the case if we'd simply sent them to prison for the rest of their lives - since it would be virtually guaranteed that at least some - and perhaps many of them - committed to their obscene cause as they were, would have done everything they could to use their prison cells to continue to communicate Nazism, to threaten those of their victims who were still alive, to try to organise supporters, etc.

Yet Nazi ideologies such as white supremacy, antisemitism, eugenics and intolerance still exist to this day, with some people proudly sporting Swastika tattoos. Nazism has not died as an ideology, therefore I don't think one can argue that executing the Nazis meant we ensured they could no longer spew their bile. Even if there was evidence that it helped lessen the impact that would be an exception rather than a rule, because there is no evidence to support capital punishment being an effective sentence as a whole.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair, Norway focuses more on rehabilitation then we do, and so they will initially operate within this framework where possible. This is part of why I am against capital punishment because while it robs potentially innocent people of their lives, it also robs guilty people of the chance to reform.


Yet Nazi ideologies such as white supremacy, antisemitism, eugenics and intolerance still exist to this day, with some people proudly sporting Swastika tattoos. Nazism has not died as an ideology, therefore I don't think one can argue that executing the Nazis meant we ensured they could no longer spew their bile. Even if there was evidence that it helped lessen the impact that would be an exception rather than a rule, because there is no evidence to support capital punishment being an effective sentence as a whole.

I think that rehabilitation is fine to a point. But there comes a point where punishment is required.

 

[Sorcerer]

I think that rehabilitation is fine to a point. But there comes a point where punishment is required.

I agree with you there, and I imagine many others would. The disagreement here is whether or not death should be among those punishments. Life imprisonment I feel is just for the most extreme crimes.

 

[najaB]

Killing the worst ones ensured Nazism died as a mainstream political ideology as well.

I think the military defeat of the Nazi regime might have played a minor role as well.

Why would you want them to go insane? This seems like something prison isn't actually designed to do.

It's not a feature, it's a benefit.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with you there, and I imagine many others would. The disagreement here is whether or not death should be among those punishments. Life imprisonment I feel is just for the most extreme crimes.

Indeed. This is where our whole life tariff comes into its own.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yet Nazi ideologies such as white supremacy, antisemitism, eugenics and intolerance still exist to this day, with some people proudly sporting Swastika tattoos. Nazism has not died as an ideology,

Sure, but that's because other people continued to spread those ideas. The point is that the Nazi leaders whom we had executed could not use their influence to contribute to spreading those ideas even more widely (and also could not use their influence and connections to try to organise more crimes being committed in the name of Nazism). Since their influence was likely to be considerable amongst their supporters due to their previous leadership roles, that's likely to have been significant.

That's an easy one - putting on the uniform of the nation represents a commitment to kill or be killed in the effort to fulfil orders given by their senior officers.

But remember the point I was responding to was this:

It is also my opinion that no matter what crimes one commits, we as humans have no right to decide who deserves life and death, and if anyone believes otherwise I would challenge them to tell me what gives us that right.

I was giving an example of a situation (the war in Ukraine) in which clearly basic pragmatism determines that it is better to kill certain people (in this case, Russian soldiers). That demonstrates that sometimes, unpleasant though it may be, you do have to make a judgement call about who should be killed. That would appear to invalidate any objection to the death penalty based on some argument that in principle we have no right to decide who deserves life and death.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not a feature, it's a benefit.

It’s a benefit that people will develop a severe mental illness in solitary confinement? That sounds like the sort of vengeance you’ve spoken against in this thread, no?

What if they’re innocent? Will the state be able to give them restitution? I don’t think so.

 

[Butts]

It's possible you quoted my post before I edited it, but the quick and painful death would be preferable assuming I was guilty and there was no realistic chance of getting away with it by exploiting a loophole.

However, if I was wrongly convicted I would obviously prefer the life sentence since there is no possiblity of proving my innocence after I've been executed.

How do you know it's painful (depending on the method) as not many people live to tell the tale ?

Nuremberg happened in the context of denazification and the deaths of key Nazis was an important part of this. Killing the worst ones ensured Nazism died as a mainstream political ideology as well.

That may be true but most of the actual perpetrators lower down the pecking order completely escaped justice

 

[Yew]

That argument might hold some water if there had been the same amount of technological improvement in the justice system as there has been in nuclear safety technologies.

However, the vast majority of cases where people are convicted of murders that they didn't commit are due to procedural errors on the part of investigators and prosecutors.

Police are trying to solve the crime by arresting someone, and prosecutors are trying to convict the suspect handed to them by the police. Neither group is trying to prove the defendant innocent. So it's in their advantage to discount and not follow up on possibly exculpatory evidence.

Indeec, eyewitness testimony has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable, especially given the sheer amount of coaching and pre-trial interviews that are common in serious legal cases.

 

[nw1]

wMost people weren't against it - I was ambivalent at the time. It is difficult to find anyone who will admit to have supported it. But, as a society, we were quite comfortable with that.

Assuming we're talking about the 2003 war, I was under the impression that a significant majority was against it. There was certainly a massive protest (which I would have attended, had I not had an unavoidable commitment that day). Certainly it seemed to be what turned people against Tony Blair, who had previously been pretty popular.

We're lucky.

Look at that bloke who massacacared loads of people in Norway. They'll have to let him out at some stage, which isn't justice as far as I'm concerned.

Fortunately, in this country, he'd die in prison.

Is there actually any point in keeping people, who committed a crime when they were young, in prison when they are in their 70s or 80s?

I actually think that's just a little bit cruel, however bad the crime they did was.

I have to admit I look up to places like Norway. I believe they are amongst the most civilised in the world on these matters.

In fact if someone showed genuine remorse, I'd let them out no matter what they did.

 

[JamesT]

Assuming we're talking about the 2003 war, I was under the impression that a significant majority was against it. There was certainly a massive protest (which I would have attended, had I not had an unavoidable commitment that day). Certainly it seemed to be what turned people against Tony Blair, who had hitherto been pretty popular.

There may have been a noisy minority against the Iraq war from the start, but at the time most people were in favour. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq

Though it has been controversial for over a decade, the invasion was actually popular at the time. In 2003, YouGov conducted 21 polls from March to December asking British people whether they thought the decision by the US and the UK to go to war was right or wrong, and on average 54% said it was right.

There does appear to be a degree of people seeing how badly it went and claiming they were against it all along.

 

[nw1]

There are some that argue a whole life tariff is more of a punishment than the death penalty... For me it's more of a matter of, why do we spend millions of pounds maintaining the existence of someone in jail for the rest of their life, who's existence only made the world worse in the first place. I don't think we owe the most evil anything beyond a fair trial. That cell might be better used by someone else, who still has something to offer society back.

Personally I find the "saving money" argument for the death penalty over long prison sentences to be in really, really bad taste - irrespective of the other arguments for or against.

"We've just discovered that John Smith did not carry out that terrorist atrocity. However, we cannot let him out, because we killed him to save money!"

There may have been a noisy minority against the Iraq war from the start, but at the time most people were in favour. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq

I am amazed, as certainly the people I associated with were against. I do find it profoundly disturbing, in that case, that a majority appeared to be impervious to the bombing of Baghdad for really, no reason at all other than to please Bush and Cheney. Granted Saddam was a thoroughly nasty piece of work but there are plenty of those around the world, so there is no reason to single him out.

Pinochet was at least as bad as Saddam but we didn't go bombing Chile in the 80s. (And I'm glad we didn't, for avoidance of doubt).

So what? Not that it's not an interesting case, but I find the professed concern about the Birmingham Six and other cases to be chillingly at odds with the grim reality of regular civilian deaths - some unlawful, but some not - in the pursuit of justice, safety and security in Northern Ireland. "Just collateral". There's something which wasn't even a war but everyone was quite accepting of for a long time.

I agree that the other deaths are bad too, but it should not be used as an argument against highlighting cases like the Birmingham Six as a very good example of why the death penalty should not be introduced.

Another important point, in my view, is the timing of when the death penalty was dropped. It was the late 60s, and it seems to be generally the case that the late 60s and early 70s was a time of great progress towards modern values, compared to what had gone before. The legalisation of homosexuality is another such example.

Should we be rejecting and reversing things introduced in what was generally regarded as a progressive time? There seems to be something of a disturbing trend towards old-fashioned conservatism in the 2020s, and a desire perhaps, by some, to wind the clock back and "cancel" some of the progress of the past 50 to 60 years. (There are other examples of that, but I won't mention them here as they will only lead to very off-topic discussions!)

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree that the other deaths are bad too, but it should not be used as an argument against highlighting cases like the Birmingham Six.

No sorry, the point is not that they are or aren't bad, but it's hypocritical for society to care very little about them as collateral (or worse) yet apply different principles to the formal justice system.

Assuming we're talking about the 2003 war, I was under the impression that a significant majority was against it.

The invasion of Iraq was popular when it happened and the fact that it was has been conveniently memory-holed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq

Another important point, in my view, is the timing of when the death penalty was dropped. It was the late 60s, and it seems to be generally the case that the late 60s and early 70s was a time of great progress towards modern values, compared to what had gone before. The legalisation of homosexuality is another such example.

Should we be rejecting and reversing things introduced in what was generally regarded as a progressive time? There seems to be something of a disturbing trend towards old-fashioned conservatism in the 2020s, and a desire perhaps, by some, to wind the clock back and "cancel" some of the progress of the past 50-odd years. (There are other examples of that, but I won't mention them here as they will only lead to very off-topic discussions!)

I'm afraid you can't suggest that because a measure was "progressive" and occurred within the context of other changes that it was, and remains, a good idea. I'm sure you wouldn't keep all of the changes that happened in the 1960s, would you? You'd have to examine each one on its merits. What next? Because the Conservative government legalised gay marriage, this means that austerity, the bedroom tax, the hostile environment towards immigrants, are all in the same boat too? No.

Argue the case on its merits.

 

[edwin_m]

The invasion of Iraq was popular when it happened and the fact that it was has been conveniently memory-holed. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq

All the more reason not to trust public opinion, especially when something irreversible like killing people is at stake.

 

[AlterEgo]

All the more reason not to trust public opinion, especially when something irreversible like killing people is at stake.

I don't necessarily disagree but public opinion is the foundation of our constitution - we're quite happy to elect leaders to fight our wars, even expeditionary and speculative ones.

 

[yorksrob]

Is there actually any point in keeping people, who committed a crime when they were young, in prison when they are in their 70s or 80s?

I actually think that's just a little bit cruel, however bad the crime they did was.

I have to admit I look up to places like Norway. I believe they are amongst the most civilised in the world on these matters.

In fact if someone showed genuine remorse, I'd let them out no matter what they did.

I've no doubt that the traditional life sentence (with parole) is the correct default option for murder in most cases.

A whole life tariff should only ever be reserved for the most heinous, aggravated cases. Nevertheless the option needs to be there.

 

[birchesgreen]

Always amused by people saying they'd rather be executed than spend life in prison, sorry you have no idea what you would want if you were in that situation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I am amazed, as certainly the people I associated with were against. I do find it profoundly disturbing, in that case, that a majority appeared to be impervious to the bombing of Baghdad for really, no reason at all other than to please Bush and Cheney.

I don't think your logic follows. Firstly, what bombing of Baghdad? I'm not aware of any bombing by the UK/US at the time that was particularly objectionable/was only done to please Bush/Cheney, and a quick Google doesn't reveal anything, so I'm not sure what incident you're referring to? And secondly, support for the war at the time does not mean, being impervious to some particular action. It's perfectly possible to support the war in principle while objecting to certain aspects of how the war is being conducted (Same as is true of support for anything else). You can't deduce that just because someone was in favour of the war on Iraq, that means they fully supported everything about that war.

Pinochet was at least as bad as Saddam but we didn't go bombing Chile in the 80s.

Really? Did Pinochet use chemical weapons to commit genocide? Did Pinochet invade two neighbouring countries, causing over half a million deaths?

 

[nw1]

I don't think your logic follows. Firstly, what bombing of Baghdad? I'm not aware of any bombing by the UK/US at the time that was particularly objectionable/was only done to please Bush/Cheney, and a quick Google doesn't reveal anything, so I'm not sure what incident you're referring to? And secondly, support for the war at the time does not mean, being impervious to some particular action. It's perfectly possible to support the war in principle while objecting to certain aspects of how the war is being conducted (Same as is true of support for anything else). You can't deduce that just because someone was in favour of the war on Iraq, that means they fully supported everything about that war.

I distinctly remember a news story from 2003 showing US/UK forces bombing Baghdad (not the centre), and some of the bombs hitting blocks of flats. I'm fairly sure my memory is correct on this - possible it was not Baghdad admittedly, but it was certainly a large Iraqi city.

However I accept your argument about supporting the war but not supporting all aspects of it.

Really? Did Pinochet use chemical weapons to commit genocide? Did Pinochet invade two neighbouring countries, causing over half a million deaths?

He did some pretty appalling things to his own citizens if they disagreed with him. To my mind, in the sense that both were dictators who committed acts of violence, they are in the same kind of category. Neither are anything like as bad as Putin, for example, but both are very much worse than the worst examples of democracies.

 

[Typhoon]

I don't think your logic follows. Firstly, what bombing of Baghdad? I'm not aware of any bombing by the UK/US at the time that was particularly objectionable/was only done to please Bush/Cheney, and a quick Google doesn't reveal anything, so I'm not sure what incident you're referring to? v

US aircraft hit a Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad, the city's trade fair, and other civilian buildings today, killing several people and wounding at least 25, hospital sources and a Reuters witness said.

The attacks occurred at 9.30am (0630 BST) and caught motorists by surprise as they ventured out during a lull in the bombing. At least five cars were crushed and their drivers burned to death inside, Reuters correspondent Samia Nakhoul said.

Patients and at least three doctors and nurses working at the hospital were among those wounded.

First search:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/02/iraq.simonjeffery

Trade fair - perhaps understandable, civil buildings vague, maternity hospital not.

 

[Busaholic]

I wonder if Anderson has anything useful to say about the Birmingham Six. Someone should certainly quiz him about them.

Having read his 'interview' in the i newspaper yesterday, I honestly don't think he has anything useful or logical to say about anything. He should be an American politician, of the MAGA type obviously. Everything is black and white to him, as so often with 'converts' be they religious or political. Has there ever been a political convert in this country of any note bar Churchill, and even there almost all his greatness applied solely to the Second World War?
Lee Anderson is an extremely angry, negative man, and I can only wait for the electorate of his constituency to have formed that view too.

 

[najaB]

I was giving an example of a situation (the war in Ukraine) in which clearly basic pragmatism determines that it is better to kill certain people (in this case, Russian soldiers). That demonstrates that sometimes, unpleasant though it may be, you do have to make a judgement call about who should be killed. That would appear to invalidate any objection to the death penalty based on some argument that in principle we have no right to decide who deserves life and death.

It's a false equivalence to compare a member of the armed forces of one state killing a member of the armed forces of an opposing state in the course of an armed conflict between those states (in what are quite often kill or be killed situations) to a state making the purposeful and willful choice to kill one of their own in times of peace.

How do you know it's painful (depending on the method) as not many people live to tell the tale ?

That was a typo - it should have read "quick and painless".

 

[Sorcerer]

I was giving an example of a situation (the war in Ukraine) in which clearly basic pragmatism determines that it is better to kill certain people (in this case, Russian soldiers). That demonstrates that sometimes, unpleasant though it may be, you do have to make a judgement call about who should be killed. That would appear to invalidate any objection to the death penalty based on some argument that in principle we have no right to decide who deserves life and death.

But as I said earlier, the only time one can justify taking a life is when it is a proportionate action to the situation, including where your own life is at stake and there is no other effective way to deal with the situation. Warfare is one of those situations where soldiers have to make the judgement because it is a kill-or-be-killed situation. It is not exercising a belief that said soldiers have the right to decide who deserves life and death, it is a situation where not making those very judgements could mean life and death. It is a far cry from killing someone who is locked up and no longer a threat to society.

 

[ainsworth74]

That was a typo - it should have read "quick and painless".

Though I'm still not sure it's accurate! Lethal injection is increasingly coming under scrutiny as there are a worrying number of incredibly botched executions going on in the US (that assumes that you can get the right drugs to carry it out, some states are having to consider bringing back older protocols because pharmaceutical companies are increasingly unwilling to supply the drugs). Wikipedia has a handy list of some of most egregious ones in recent years:

• Dennis McGuire (2014) – Lethal injection. Executed using a new, untried and untested lethal drug combination and took over 25 minutes to die.
• Clayton Lockett (2014) – Lethal injection. Was observed convulsing and attempting to speak for 43 minutes after the drugs were administered. Ultimately died of a heart attack.
• Joseph Wood (2014) – Lethal injection. Instead of the usual ten minutes with one dose being sufficient to kill him, he underwent a two-hour injection procedure in which he was injected with the drug cocktail 15 times.
• Alva Campbell (2017) – Lethal injection. Executioners were unable to find a suitable vein. A second attempt was scheduled for 2019, but he died in prison from natural causes in 2018.
• Doyle Lee Hamm (2018) – Lethal injection. Was stabbed with needles for more than two and a half hours as the execution team tried to locate a suitable vein. The execution failed. The State of Alabama later agreed not to attempt to execute him again as part of a confidential settlement, thus de facto reducing his sentence to life imprisonment without parole. He died of cancer (which had contributed to the botched execution) in prison in 2021.
• John Marion Grant (2021) – Lethal injection. Most witnesses observed Grant convulsing, straining against his restraints, struggling to breathe, and vomiting. He took 21 minutes to die. His autopsy showed that the execution drugs caused him to suffer a flash pulmonary edema.
• Joe Nathan James Jr. (2022) – Lethal injection. He took three hours to die.

List of botched executions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Short drop hanging has always been barbaric and long drop has gone wrong at various times either decapitating the victim or not breaking the neck and letting them suffocate as in a short drop. The electric chair should speak for itself in its awfulness and on several occasions failed to kill the victim outright requiring multiple administrations of electricity. Gas chamber has had similar foul ups in the past. Firing squad probably worked fairly well overall but even that had some botched executions.

Unless we're proposing to use bullet to the head from close range I'm not sure any existing method is guaranteed to be "quick and painless".

 

[najaB]

Though I'm still not sure it's accurate!

Oh, I don't doubt that executions are botched, but those who support the death penalty usually justify it on the basis that it's painless.

After all, if it's not then the only difference between imposing the death sentence and torture is that the victim dies.

 

[Busaholic]

In the case of the Nazis executed after the Nuremberg trials, what we gained by killing them was the fact that they could no longer do any harm. That would not have been the case if we'd simply sent them to prison for the rest of their lives - since it would be virtually guaranteed that at least some - and perhaps many of them - committed to their obscene cause as they were, would have done everything they could to use their prison cells to continue to communicate Nazism, to threaten those of their victims who were still alive, to try to organise supporters, etc.

I support the death sentence for those most responsible for the commission of war crimes, regardless of whether they ever personally slaughtered anyone, both for the reason you've given and in the fervent belief that it might just cause the next potential Putin to reflect on the potential harm to them of their actions and stay them .I also support it for certain acts of treason, for instance William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) in the last war.

 

[Gloster]

I support the death sentence for those most responsible for the commission of war crimes, regardless of whether they ever personally slaughtered anyone, both for the reason you've given and in the fervent belief that it might just cause the next potential Putin to reflect on the potential harm to them of their actions and stay them .I also support it for certain acts of treason, for instance William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) in the last war.

Lord Haw-haw nearly got away with it because he wasn’t entitled to hold a British passport and so he claimed that, as he wasn’t a British national, he couldn’t have committed treason. They got round that by deciding that as he had obtained a British passport, even he if wasn’t entitled to it, he owed a duty of allegiance to Britain as long as the passport remained valid. As his earliest broadcasts were believed to have been made just before the passport ran out, they got him bang to rights. It is undoubtedly a case of fiddling the rules to get the desired result, but as he was universally loathed to an extent that I suspect modern generations would not believe, there was universal re-Joyce-ing.

It is also possible that the name Lord Haw-haw was originally given to Baillie-Stewart, who was an even earlier broadcaster than Joyce. He was, considering the conviction of Joyce, lucky to be sentenced to five years in prison.

Personally, I consider that the death penalty is only justifiable in time of war for acts of espionage, sabotage and treason. If a soldier can legitimately risk being killed once they put on a uniform, why should someone carrying out similar acts be protected because they aren‘t wearing a uniform?