MPs to debate death penalty?

[Nik_Endeavour]

True Scott but the definition of murder is very broad these days and as it has been said before there are circumstances that make the crime not just the man (or woman).

there is a difference to illustrate:

Case 1:

Husband (whom works 2 jobs) and loves his family very much so he works this long to provide for them all they need and want comes home to find the wife having some play time with the milkman. In a moment of rage he takes his shotgun and shoots her.
Wrong but he wouldn't have done it if the circumstances were right. Anger, tiredness, feeling of betrayal


Case 2:

20 Year old woman goes jogging in the morning. Man jumps from the bushes, proceed to rape and kill her by slicing her throat for his pleasure.


Are these two the same? For sake of argument they are both with no convictions and otherwise worthwhile members of the society.

Judges get a lot of stick but only the facts count in the courtroom.

 

[Scott_F]

True Scott but the definition of murder is very broad these days.

The definition of murder is the same as it's always been !

As you say, the circumstances are particular to each case and will be taken into account when handing down sentence. However, current figures show that people receiving a life sentence for murder in the UK will actually only spend an average of 14 years in prison.

 

[Alfie]

IMO a life for a life where there is no doubt (eg DNA etc)

 

[Stratman]

DNA leaves plenty of doubt. It may show that a person was in a particular place, but not when he was there. It may also have got there by means of secondary transfer, or even be deliberately placed there by a third party.

 

[corned]

This question crops up just about every other week, or that's how it seems.

Ignoring completely the rights and wrongs of the issue, it is still never going to happen. No administration is ever again going to have the kind of cojones required to re-introduce it - end of.

I still think it is handy to have on the Statute though. It would still serve as a deterrent, even if it were never actually brought to bear.

 

[jonm]

I've said no for 2 reasons:

1) Regardless of what I/we may think about the 'guilty', miscarriages of justice and executing 1 person who is, proven or otherwise, innocent is inexcusable. Some degree of recompense for locking up the wrong person is possible, its a bit tricky if they have been executed.
2) I dont think we will ever re-introduce...so not a lot of point talking about it.

 

[219]

BBC News - MPs 'cannot ignore debating death penalty e-petition'

In the light of our MPs possibly reconsidering the return of the death penalty - I was wondering were we stand on here?

Hang 'em , shoot 'em and flog ' em ; not necessarily in that order

 

[219]

Yes and if it happens (which I very much doubt) I would be up for a career change, Executioner would look good on a business card It would also be nice to see some of the murders, child molesters, rapists, etc.. scum swing for what they have done :bannana:

As long as the method of execution fits the crime .

Murderers executed by the same method that befell their victims , those who made their victims suffer would suffer proportionately .

Rapists/child molesters made to experience what their victims went through , before finally being put to death - if that means being shut in a room with fathers of victims , so be it .

Death by dangerous driving - how about we let them be crash test dummies ?

Once they are gone , use their bodies for dog food - Pedigree Scum , anyone ?

Ian , you can have the franchise for north England ; I'll 'look after' the ones up here

 

[219]

I'm in favour of the principal.

However, it must be absolutely water tight, no possibility of wrongful conviction etc. Any doubt whatsoever it automatically becomes a prison sentence.

It also must be for a very defined set of offences.

Don't we technically still have the death penalty for treason in this country?

I agree - there would have to be a period on 'death row' to allow for appeals as in the USA .

Perhaps 10 years is too long , though ?

 

[219]

On a more serious note....

I am in favour of capital punishment in certain circumstances - killing of policemen (or in fact any emergency service) in the line of duty, child killers, multiple murderers etc.

Playing devils advocate here, should people like Myra Hindley, Fred West, Ian Huntley (yes I know two of them are now deceased) be allowed to live after conviction?

Whilst I know (and accept) the argument that innocent people could go to the gallows, this possibility of this happening could (imho) be massively reduced by a change in the law.

As I understand it, in order to obtain a conviction in a criminal court, the case has to be proven 'beyond all reasonable doubt'

How about a new (additional) status of 'beyond all doubt' - e.g. when the person is captured at the scene, and seen by a number of witnesses.

I know that there is the argument that this may dilute the 'beyond allreasonable doubt, but I feel it could work.

In that case, Iwould be more than happy to be a jury member or even the executioner.

Ted (Rumpole) Mcc

For the death penalty , it should be beyond ALL doubt ; 'reasonable doubt' is fine for prison sentences , from which prisoners can still be released . If the higher burden of proof required for the death penalty cannot be met , then prison would still be the alternative .

The 'decent' prisoners also , I have little doubt , will not like sharing accomodation with rapists , child molesters etc and would probably approve of those evil people being put away for good .

Serial killers and other vile people can be prevented for good from any possibility of re offending .

It is arguably more important to protect the public and the vulnerable in society than to 'rehabilitate' some offenders .

 

[deltashad]

Human rights have gone too far.
We spend far too much money on prisons.
Maybe we should make the serious criminals (the ones who destroy innocent peoples lives and murder for personal gain or without reason) unbearable, then leave them in a room with various aids to end their miserable existence.

 

[219]

There is the danger,already we are extending the crimes that merit death. Despicable as his behaviour is,are you serious that he should be killed.

What next,burglars,jay walkers, but never car drivers who kill because they were driving too fast, no that's too near home, thats an accident even if someone has lost a child,a parent or a loved one.

Don't dare ask me if I am soft on sex offenders as I have personal experience of the damage they can do, far more than you would ever want.

I do not think the death penalty could ever be considered for anything less than the utter ruination of another human being's life , and then only as a result of a deliberate and preconceived act of cold hearted malice .

This does not necessarily mean that one has to kill to merit the death penalty - it might be that by raping a victim , or abusing a small child , you do them irrepairable damage and completely ruin the rest of their life ; something that will scar them forever and from which they will never recover , perhaps never being able to form normal relationships , live a normal life or perhaps being physically disabled in some way . Someone who does any of that to a victim as a deliberate act might deserve the death penalty .

Crimes such as rape , murder , child abuse , drug dealing or ( just possibly ) causing death by some reckless act where the risks were obvious ( this could , just , be an orgy of drunk and recklessly dangerous driving where there were passengers or innocent bystanders at risk ) could be considered for the death penalty .

The two criteria ( in my view ) would be that one or more victim(s) had to suffer lasting and incurable harm such that they could never recover , and that this harm came about as a result of a deliberate and reckless or calculated act on the part of the criminal .

If both conditions are satisfied , then the death penalty should be available , but not necessarily imposed : that would depend on the outcome of the trial . The burden of proof would have to be that there was absolutely no room for doubt that the perpetrator did the crime , and beyond reasonable doubt that it was a reckless or calculated act without regard for the victim and that their life was ruined .

Thus the death penalty might be considered for the drunk driver who sped through town at 60 mph and mowed down a pedestrian on a crossing ; but the sober driver who came round a bend a little too fast on a country road and knocked down a hiker would only face a ban/prison . In the first case , it was a reckless act which could be expected to have tragic consequences , the latter could be considered a tragic accident as a result of poor judgement . Although the consequences of both acts are the same , the degree of wrongdoing or culpability is quite different .