do you think the government in the UK should bring back capital punishment for child killers?

Question

I was against the death penalty because it seemed inhuman but in recent years i've changed my mind,especially for child killers because we need to stop these monsters from hurting our children and this can be done by removing them from society for good !

Answer 1

YES, I agree with the asker here. i think that the death penalty should be brought back and not just for child killers, but for child abusers and murderers in general.

Locking them up is not the answer, why should the tax payer pay several thousand pounds per pervert/ monster per week to keep these evil people in jail or secure hospitals. It's just not on.

But saying that like another answerer said we need 100% conclusive proof which with DNA, fingerprints and other forensic techniques this can be proven beyond all doubt.

However the death penalty is not the answer for all crimes. nevertheless if you take one life anyones life for any reason except that of self defence or defence of others reasonable force (the only way to incapacitate an attacker for example to kill them) should be exempt, how that gets proven in a court of law is up to the forensic scientists and law makers (government).

I also agree with delilah it would weed out the populations sickest individuals. rapists included. a great result for the worlds society. hey why just in the UK why not world wide.
remeber one of the sickest things i heard was the recent reports on the news of sick freaks visiting the far east to abuse kids (case in point the alleged abuser glitter proven guilty wasn't he?). dead man walking in my opinion. but then so are most child abusers once they enter general population in prisons; or so i heard from an ex inmate once that given a chance robbers and other criminals would end up killing rapists and molesters once in general population in prison, hence why it costs more to keep the sickest perverts and deviants locked up, typically in solitary or so i was told for there own safety, WHY?

Answer 2

There are many problems with the death penalty. Here are just a few:

There is simply no objective evidence that proves the death penalty is a deterrent for any crime, be it murder, child abuse or terrorism.

We are also kidding ourselves if we think there has been an increase in child abuse over recent years. Society is simply talking about this more. Many cases that make the news relate to allegations that date back decades, but were not brought to light at the time.

It's also worth remembering that Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (a document drawn up effectively prevent another holocaust), prohibits members from executing criminals, except during 'times of war'.

And this one is probably the biggest: In the past in the UK, juries were acquitting people of crimes, not because they believed they were innocent, but because the suspect faced hanging if found guilty.

If juries are afraid to convict because of the punishment involved, guilty men (and women) WILL walk free.

Answer 3

I've always been of the opinion that there are certain crimes that deserve the death penalty. Killing a child is awful and certainly falls into that category. I'm only wary that the justice system can adequately prove guilt. It seems with the advent of DNA that too many cases have been overturned. It seems to me that it would only take one innocent person being put to death to make the whole system wrong. Can we be 100% right all the time with determining guilt in capital punishment cases? But if that guilt is definite, I agree that death is just for some crimes.

Answer 4

No, i think of that the prospect of executing somebody who's harmless isn't one i will justify to myself. this is quite perplexing to be a hundred% particular that somebody comitted against the regulation and previous resonable doubt does not look particular sufficient in case you're speaking approximately killing somebody for some thing they could have finished. you apart from could run the prospect of short sighted executions in the "warmth of the 2d" the place anybody is baying for blood with appreciate to particular case types the place the case won't have been investigated thoroughly with the aid of could desire to get a speedy conviction. a minimum of with a penal complex sentence if the conviction is faulty then the guy could nicely be released, a posthumous pardon isn't sturdy sufficient. I do despite if have self assurance that the justice gadget desires significant progression and that a sentence ought to be appropriate enforced in circumstances the place the convicted persons rights are constrained to fundamentals (nutrition, defend) and not something extra. A punishment ought to be a punishment. yet another speedy element, DNA info isn't the be all and end all, this is faulty and this is misinterpreted so the importance placed on it with the aid of juries now days is in basic terms somewhat of a situation.

Answer 5

Criminal psychologists who study sex offenders discovered that a very high percentage of them would respond to the death penalty by killing their victim to stop them giving evidence, NOT by stopping their attacks.
States that have a high rate of death penalties still have high rates of violent crime. Punishment is not a method of crime prevention. Criminals don't think like the rest of us; that's how they're able to go through with it in the first place.

If you really want to do something to promote child safety then be a safe person yourself. Learn to listen; even if your child is telling you that it is one of their own relatives that's the problem. Over 75% of violent crimes are committed by someone known to the victim.
Teach children how to spot the warning signs, teach them that its safe to tell.
Teach them safe behaviours, escape strategies and survival strategies.
The fact that this is more difficult than a witchunt is tough. It works.

Learn that these people are not monsters. There is the capacity for violence in all of us. You display yours towards people you call monsters because it is socially acceptable to do so.
Life imprisonment is enough.

Answer 6

No, these people are mentally ill and should be removed from society. If you execute these scum, where do you draw the line? A paranoid schizophrenic is also mentally ill, may be no danger to society but may be unable to benefit society. Should we also kill them?
We should try and find what causes this disease and prevent it happening in the future if possible. If the case is proven, they should be incarcerated for life, with no parole and in answer to the inevitable 'why should I pay for these people to be in prison', why should we pay for anyone who injurs themselves through their own volition, or why should we pay for a war, or space exploration if we don't see the point of it?
It all depends on your point of view, but as has been said, there is often a knee jerk reaction to this kind of question fuelled by the media. Don't get me wrong, if anyone touched or hurt one of my children I would want to kill them, but I like to believe I live in a civilised society that has moved beyond the lynching mentality however hard it may be to turn against our baser urges.

It has also been proven this does not act as a deterrent, so do we really want to become murderers purely to make ourselves feel better?

Answer 7

Absolutely. There is far too much of it these days they are no good to society - getting shot of them is the best thing, as they will never change. And for all you do gooders out there, what if it were your child murdered? Would you want the killer living and breathing? I certainly wouldn't. God does not put people like this on earth for a reason.

Answer 8

The problem with the death penalty is that it is irreversable. In the UK we have a situation of decreasing literacy and a standard of education whose success can be noted by the increasing popularity of "Big Brother" and by the mushrooming consumption of chemicalised beer, alcopops and nutritionally (and aesthetically) useless fast food. This is coupled with a Press that continually invents moral panics to increase sales of their newspapers. One campaign of hatred generated by a press-inspired campaign against paedophiles (child-molesters in the sexual sense) led to a paediatrician ( a medical professional specialising in children's health), being lynched.

Murder trials in the UK are trials by Jury - 12 randomly selected people decide upon the fate of the accused in accordance with the evidence presented in the trial, and by the comments of the presiding Judge. With the media and commercial influences that I have cited above, I would not trust a jury to try me on a charge of stealing a light bulb.

Many citizens of the UK have no more idea of morality (not meaning sexual morality - the word "morality" has been twisted by the Press towards entirely sexual connotations) than I have of the deeper secrets of Nuclear Physics, and are thus not qualified to condemn anyone to death. We can argue for Capital Punishment when our society shows evidence of the appreciation of the finer points in life. Currently, we are simply being led towards a simplistic and brutal means of living.

Answer 9

No government should be able to kill its own citizens. To do so is to give the state the ultimate power over the individual. And power is always abused.

There are terrible crimes out there. Those criminals should remain incarcerated for forever. But don't give government power over their very lives.

How many people have been later proven innocent in the U.S.? You don't want to go down that path. Not to mention the incredible toll it will take on your legal system. Don't do it.

Answer 10

Not just the UK but the US too. And not just for child killers, for child molesters, rapists, serial killlers.
I'm all up for Monday night hangings broadcast on national tv. Crimes like that would stop quickly..and if not..we'd at least weed out most of the weirdos.