The Death Penalty

[alex397]

Ah, the fallacy of, "I disagree with this country on X, therefore they are automatically wrong on Y as well" rears its unfortunate head again

The death penalty is quite an extreme punishment, and countries with the death penalty are also generally poor when it comes democracy, freedom and equality, and so on. It is often all related.

Is there any doubt in the killers of Lee Rigby, Manchester arena bombing, Westminster attack, Borough Market attack, MP attacks etc? What about Thomas Hamilton, Derrick Bird, Michael Ryan or Jake Davison. While they all died during said attacks, had they survived I think they would be unequivocal. What if Anders Behring committed his act over here, there is no doubt what he did.

But again, who is to decide it is ‘unequivocal’? There have been various cases where the evidence seemed pretty clear they were guilty, but evidence later came to light finding them innocent.

Even if the evidence really is unequivocal, the death penalty would be a relief to some of them. A life time imprisonment sounds like a much harsher punishment to me.

Martyrdom only applies to some and frankly I couldn't care less about it, we should concentrate on what's right for us.

Martyrdom encourages others to carry out similar acts. Surely what’s right for us is to aim to prevent that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would have thought that, if we were to have the death penalty, the solution to the miscarriage of justice problem is obvious: Don't allow the death penalty where a person has been convicted of just one single crime. But have it as an option if a person has repeatedly been convicted on multiple separate occasions of serious crimes that involve causing direct harm to others, and continues to commit crimes after release from prison (or organises further crimes while actually in prison). Then the risk of executing someone who is innocent drop to virtually zero: We know that innocent people sometimes get convicted once, but how likely is it that someone would be falsely convicted on - say - more than five, or more than ten separate and independent occasions? You could even as an additional safeguard have some rules in place that some of the crimes must have been investigated by different teams before capital punishment becomes an option.

As an added bonus, you would then also be using capital punishment in the way that would arguably have maximum deterrent effect: Someone who's been terrorizing their neighbourhood, repeatedly burgling houses or beating up others etc., is probably going to think twice if told that their next offence will likely lead to the death penalty. And if they aren't deterred then - well, then they won't be terrorizing other people for much longer...

 

[najaB]

We know that innocent people sometimes get convicted once, but how likely is it that someone would be falsely convicted on - say - more than five, or more than ten separate and independent occasions?

The fact that a person has been correctly convicted of four crimes doesn't make it impossible for them to be falsely convicted of a fifth.

 

[Busaholic]

I would have thought that, if we were to have the death penalty, the solution to the miscarriage of justice problem is obvious: Don't allow the death penalty where a person has been convicted of just one single crime. But have it as an option if a person has repeatedly been convicted on multiple separate occasions of serious crimes that involve causing direct harm to others, and continues to commit crimes after release from prison (or organises further crimes while actually in prison). Then the risk of executing someone who is innocent drop to virtually zero: We know that innocent people sometimes get convicted once, but how likely is it that someone would be falsely convicted on - say - more than five, or more than ten separate and independent occasions? You could even as an additional safeguard have some rules in place that some of the crimes must have been investigated by different teams before capital punishment becomes an option.

As an added bonus, you would then also be using capital punishment in the way that would arguably have maximum deterrent effect: Someone who's been terrorizing their neighbourhood, repeatedly burgling houses or beating up others etc., is probably going to think twice if told that their next offence will likely lead to the death penalty. And if they aren't deterred then - well, then they won't be terrorizing other people for much longer...

Two centuries ago there were 220 offences where death by capital punishment could be invoked, reduced to 5 in 1861, of which murder was the first to be revoked in 1969, followed quickly by the others over the next decade. I think that if the highly contentious decision to return to the death penalty happened, it might quickly lead to an increasing number of offences being included, such as terrorist related ones short of murder, violent rape and crimes against children, etc etc. Some might cry 'hooray' in favour of some of those categories, but I'd caution such fervour because, if for instance someone knew they were going to be hanged for a rape, then they might well reason 'I might as well kill them, then there's no chance they can ever give evidence against me.' A society has to take account of the minds of the truly criminal, who of course occupy positions in that society right up to the very top!

 

[najaB]

...if for instance someone knew they were going to be hanged for a rape, then they might well reason 'I might as well kill them, then there's no chance they can ever give evidence against me.'

As a data point, consider the effect of "three strike" laws enacted in several US states. Such laws were intended to deal with "hardened criminals" by imposing mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of a third felony, no matter what it was. There were numerous examples of people, who having been convicted of two felonies, found themselves in the situation where murder carried the same penalty as mugging - so if they're going away for life anyway...

 

[Busaholic]

As a data point, consider the effect of "three strike" laws enacted in several US states. Such laws were intended to deal with "hardened criminals" by imposing mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of a third felony, no matter what it was. There were numerous examples of people, who having been convicted of two felonies, found themselves in the situation where murder carried the same penalty as mugging - so if they're going away for life anyway...

I know, it's a chilling thought. Seems like a million years ago now, but when Willie Whitelaw was Thatcher's Home Secretary I was among Probation Service staff who were allowed to question him (even heckle him!) about a proposed new policy on young offenders, during which it became clear that his heart wasn't behind the rubbish he was spouting!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The fact that a person has been correctly convicted of four crimes doesn't make it impossible for them to be falsely convicted of a fifth.

So you set a high-ish number of convictions before the death penalty becomes an option. Making the numbers a bit higher - say a person has been convicted on multiple separate occasions of 8 serious-ish crimes that all cause immense harm to their victims. Even if - say - two of those were actually mistaken convictions, the person still has committed 6 serious crimes, and they have therefore amply proven themselves to be a person who has no regard for others and is prepared to continually wreck other people's lives. You would not be executing an innocent law-abiding person unless almost all those eight convictions were actually mistaken - an extremely unlikely event.

 

[najaB]

So you set a high-ish number of convictions before the death penalty becomes an option. Making the numbers a bit higher - say a person has been convicted on multiple separate occasions of 8 serious-ish crimes that all cause immense harm to their victims. Even if - say - two of those were actually mistaken convictions, the person still has committed 6 serious crimes, and they have therefore amply proven themselves to be a person who has no regard for others and is prepared to continually wreck other people's lives. You would not be executing an innocent law-abiding person unless almost all those eight convictions were actually mistaken - an extremely unlikely event.

So basically you're saying that (a) it's impossible for someone who has lived a life of crime to go straight; and (b) even if it isn't possible to reform it's okay to execute them for a given crime, not because they are guilty of that crime but because they're a "wrong-un".

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So basically you're saying that (a) it's impossible for someone who has lived a life of crime to go straight; and (b) even if it isn't possible to reform it's okay to execute them for a given crime, not because they are guilty of that crime but because they're a "wrong-un".

I'm not saying anything like that. That seems like a total misinterpretation of my post.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I find it odd that it is okay in self-defence situations to kill someone who could attack you or someone else, but that it is considered unthinkable to kill someone after they have actually committed a serious crime such as murder.
Is the actual crime not worse than the threat of the crime?

Needless to say, whether you are against or for the death penalty, the sentences for many of the worst criminals is often very lenient in this country, something that brings distress to victims.

 

[Trackman]

The death penalty is quite an extreme punishment, and countries with the death penalty are also generally poor when it comes democracy, freedom and equality, and so on. It is often all related.

So why then the USA?
Not having a pop at your post or anything, but it totally baffles me why some US states still have capital punishment.
They know it's not a deterrent and used for an act of revenge rather than a punishment in my thinking.
ergo, one person kills another so execute the perpetrator as well, has it achieved anything?

 

[najaB]

I'm not saying anything like that. That seems like a total misinterpretation of my post.

This:

it's okay to execute them for a given crime, not because they are guilty of that crime but because they're a "wrong-un".

Seems like a pretty succinct paraphrasing of this:

Even if - say - two of those were actually mistaken convictions, the person still has committed 6 serious crimes, and they have therefore amply proven themselves to be a person who has no regard for others and is prepared to continually wreck other people's lives.

---

Not having a pop at your post or anything, but it totally baffles me why some US states still have capital punishment.

Because the USA is a pretty poor country where democracy, freedom and equality are concerned.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

So why then the USA?
Not having a pop at your post or anything, but it totally baffles me why some US states still have capital punishment.
They know it's not a deterrent and used for an act of revenge rather than a punishment in my thinking.
ergo, one person kills another so execute the perpetrator as well, has it achieved anything?

When a perpetrator is killed, it means the victim's family can rest that the criminal will never do it again. Violent criminals are a small minority, but many are repeat offenders who are violent again and again, hurting people all the time with fear.

Look at the world around you right now, there are so many dangerous people around that women and kids can't even go out on their own at night, it's not acceptable.
Criminals being released back into society is akin to releasing a fox back into a chicken coop after it attacked them, it causes fear and takes away the freedoms of innocent people.

 

[najaB]

When a perpetrator is killed, it means the victim's family can rest that the criminal will never do it again.

True. And when an innocent person is executed?

Look at the world around you right now, there are so many dangerous people around that women and kids can't even go out on their own at night, it's not acceptable.

Violent crime in England and Wales is at an almost all-time low.

Crime in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Crime against households and adults using data from police recorded crime and the new Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales.

www.ons.gov.uk

Criminals being released back into society is akin to releasing a fox back into a chicken coop after it attacked them, it causes fear and takes away the freedoms of innocent people.

Yes. Criminals being released back into society is a problem, but it says that the prison system isn't working. State sanctioned homicide isn't going fix that. A prison system that works releases ex-offenders back into society and keeps criminals inside.

 

[nw1]

When a perpetrator is killed, it means the victim's family can rest that the criminal will never do it again. Violent criminals are a small minority, but many are repeat offenders who are violent again and again, hurting people all the time with fear.

Look at the world around you right now, there are so many dangerous people around that women and kids can't even go out on their own at night, it's not acceptable.
Criminals being released back into society is akin to releasing a fox back into a chicken coop after it attacked them, it causes fear and takes away the freedoms of innocent people.

Except criminals are a bit more self-aware than foxes. Foxes have to eat other animals to survive. Criminals do not, in most cases, have to commit crime to survive and, being human beings, are sufficiently self-aware to realise the errors of their ways.

Let it be done on a case-by-case basis. If a criminal still doesn't acknowledge they've done wrong, keep them in prison. If they are genuinely sorry, then they should receive parole. This is actually the current system, more or less; personally I think our approach to justice in the past 50 years or so is something we've done right.

 

[Typhoon]

Except criminals are a bit more self-aware than foxes. Foxes have to eat other animals to survive. Criminals do not, in most cases, have to commit crime to survive and, being human beings, are sufficiently self-aware to realise the errors of their ways.

And can be assisted to do so. I am always encouraged by the work that John Timpson has done (over 10% of the work force ex-offenders).

That is a good analogy you give - the fox will kill, say, a pigeon today to eat then a rabbit in a couple of days time, because it is hungry. A criminal who kills today may never feel the need to kill again because the situation they were in never arises again (as an example, someone who they think has swindled them out of money).

 

[Gostav]

Violent crime in England and Wales is at an almost all-time low.

A very interesting point is that in almost all Western countries people are insecure due to "high crime rates" especially for their children and the figures and datas were released by the government or "NGOs" always show that the crime rate is decreasing.

This is even more pronounced in the US, where people are buying guns frenzy due to "lack of security" while also there are figures show the crime rate is "historically low". Seems like someone lied.

 

[najaB]

A very interesting point is that in almost all Western countries people are insecure due to "high crime rates" especially for their children and the figures and datas were released by the government or "NGOs" always show that the crime rate is decreasing.

Crime is decreasing at about the same rate that fear of crime increases. It's almost as if powerful people use fear as a method to establish and maintain control over the general population.

Nah, couldn't be that.

 

[REVUpminster]

If you see a woman being stabbed; don't use your car to try and stop it or you will be charged with murder if you kill the perpetrator.

 

[nw1]

If you see a woman being stabbed; don't use your car to try and stop it or you will be charged with murder if you kill the perpetrator.

You might of course kill the victim too.

 

[ainsworth74]

If you see a woman being stabbed; don't use your car to try and stop it or you will be charged with murder if you kill the perpetrator.

Charged? He's been arrested as far as I know which seems perfectly proportionate whilst the police try and work out what the hell happened that left two people dead.

 

[muz379]

I find it odd that it is okay in self-defence situations to kill someone who could attack you or someone else, but that it is considered unthinkable to kill someone after they have actually committed a serious crime such as murder.
Is the actual crime not worse than the threat of the crime?

Needless to say, whether you are against or for the death penalty, the sentences for many of the worst criminals is often very lenient in this country, something that brings distress to victims.

Self defence is one of necessity though , and the use of lethal force in self defence whilst not impossible to justify is also not a given absolute . There are tests to establish if force was necessary and if the force used was proportionate in relation to a direct threat to yours or others safety .

So why then the USA?
Not having a pop at your post or anything, but it totally baffles me why some US states still have capital punishment.
They know it's not a deterrent and used for an act of revenge rather than a punishment in my thinking.
ergo, one person kills another so execute the perpetrator as well, has it achieved anything?

To be fair even in the USA the number of states that still have it available and the number that are actively carrying out executions has been in decline for some time now .

Charged? He's been arrested as far as I know which seems perfectly proportionate whilst the police try and work out what the hell happened that left two people dead.

Absoloutely , there has been a lot in the press about this today and some hysteria on social media . But two people died , and one person reportedly drove a car at them , its important that the police secure evidence and some of that evidence will be the testimony of that driver .

Sure being arrested isn't the nicest thing in the world , but I dont suspect witnessing a murder is either .

I think people advocating for the death penalty for multiple offenders only also need to be careful what they wish for , consider that an often cited statistic is that around half of those in UK prisons were expelled from school ,we have high recidivism rates , and the statistics on soci economic background of those expelled from school displays similar patterns of domestic abuse at home, broken homes etc you would just end up with a system that routinely executes people from one class background through failings that are largely not their own . Being expelled from school would literally be a death sentence in many cases .

 

[najaB]

I find it odd that it is okay in self-defence situations to kill someone who could attack you or someone else

It is not.

"I thought that they could attack me" isn't a valid defence. Under UK law a claim of self-defence says that

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Nothing in that says that you have a valid defence because you thought the person could possibly commit an offence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think people advocating for the death penalty for multiple offenders only also need to be careful what they wish for, consider that an often cited statistic is that around half of those in UK prisons were expelled from school

This sounds like you're trying to frame the debate in terms of, if someone commits a crime it's purely because they're socially disadvantaged in some way. But that ignores that most of us have a sense of responsibility to others and a sense of what is right and wrong. Plenty of people start out with severe disadvantages yet somehow manage not to go around murdering or beating up other people for kicks. I myself was brought up in a one-parent family mostly struggling to get by on benefits and at times moving between short-term lodgings. Yet strangely, I never felt that that upbringing meant I had to become a criminal.

There are very obvious reasons why we'd want to tackle social disadvantage, but please lets not start using it as an excuse to justify crime.

Being expelled from school would literally be a death sentence in many cases .

No-one to my knowledge is proposing that you get the death penalty for being expelled from school. Some people are suggesting that the death penalty might be appropriate, either for exceptionally heinous crimes or for repeated serious crimes.

 

[najaB]

This sounds like you're trying to frame the debate in terms of, if someone commits a crime it's purely because they're socially disadvantaged in some way.

You got that bass ackward. People who are socially disadvantaged are more likely to have to be forced to resort to crime.

 

[JamesT]

"I thought that they could attack me" isn't a valid defence. Under UK law a claim of self-defence says that

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Nothing in that says that you have a valid defence because you thought the person could possibly commit an offence.

Er, yes it does. You're preventing the crime of being assaulted (or worse) by striking out in self-defence. Then it becomes a question of whether that was a reasonable belief to have, then whether the force used was proportionate.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime has plenty of detail on this. One especially pertinent part is:

Pre-emptive strikes
There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).

 

[muz379]

This sounds like you're trying to frame the debate in terms of, if someone commits a crime it's purely because they're socially disadvantaged in some way. But that ignores that most of us have a sense of responsibility to others and a sense of what is right and wrong. Plenty of people start out with severe disadvantages yet somehow manage not to go around murdering or beating up other people for kicks. I myself was brought up in a one-parent family mostly struggling to get by on benefits and at times moving between short-term lodgings. Yet strangely, I never felt that that upbringing meant I had to become a criminal.

There are very obvious reasons why we'd want to tackle social disadvantage, but please lets not start using it as an excuse to justify crime.



No-one to my knowledge is proposing that you get the death penalty for being expelled from school. Some people are suggesting that the death penalty might be appropriate, either for exceptionally heinous crimes or for repeated serious crimes.

I wasn't trying to frame the debate in a particular way . I was merely pointing out that prison is full of people from similar socioeconomic backgrounds . Recidivism rates are very high so you'd inevitably create a system that executed largely the same class of people .

Your example of exceptionalism doesn't change the statistics . Nor was me providing the statistics an attempt to justify crime .

But for me without significant work to change the statistics on recidivism and the routes of those expelled from school I think bringing back the death penalty would look like social cleansing .

 

[najaB]

Er, yes it does.

"I though they would attack me" is a defence. "I thought they could attack me" is not.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

The victims are always forgotten in this country.
What's best for them, letting a murderer out because he's sorry, or settling the issue with a death penalty, or the psychological and physical torture that is a prison cell, or forced community service?
All four above cases will be the best logical course for at least some crimes, and it really ought to be considered in serious cases with clear evidence and victim pain.
Too often courts leave the victims of crime in constant anguish, pain and terror, all for nothing, and so many violent offenders are released and re-offend within a year.

Murderers should not be allowed to take freedoms from others without having equal freedoms removed from themselves.

 

[najaB]

Murderers should not be allowed to take freedoms from others without having equal freedoms removed from themselves.

Which a whole-life tariff sufficiently does. Execution is about vengeance, not punishment.