What is your opinion on the death penalty (in the UK)?

Question

Considering the positive response (apparent majority) to the Saddam execution. What is your opinion on the death penalty (in the UK)?

Answer 1

I thought be were supposed to be civilised now .Most murders are domestic and DNA proves nothing one way or the other I wonder how many people would be shouting for the death penalty is one of their family was wrongly accused it happens all the time The police can`t even be trusted ,they get caught out lying ,cover up for each other for innocent people they have killed and never get charged anyway. And half of the people someone mentioned earlier were not locked up for years by accident they were locked up because of the police concealing and tampering with evidence Just because you have done nothing wrong doesn`t mean you have nothing to worry about .

Answer 2

People in the UK should pay attention to the experience in the US with the death penalty and what we are learning about it. Our countries share a legal tradition and the American example can help you too. Here are just a few of the facts.

It is not a deterrent- murder rates are higher in states that have it than it states than do not.

The death penalty costs many times more than life without parole, and this is not all because of appeals.

Human beings make mistakes. Over 120 people on death rows in this country were released when they were found to be innocent.

Life without parole means what it says and is on the books in more and more states.

Death sentences can be very hard on the families of murder victims. With each legal proceeding they are forced to relive their ordeal. Why don't we speed it up- the answer is that we don't want to risk executing innocent people. Life without parole is swift and sure and rarely appealed.

With every high profile case there are always cries for revenge. People who oppose the death penalty do not condone depraved and brutal acts or excuse the people who commit them. But Common sense based on a knowledge of the facts is a better way to respond than seeking revenge.

Answer 3

100% against. I doubt anyone will be executed in Britian unless some leader commited huge genocide or sumthin. Like Saddam.
Im completely against because how is it right to kill someone for killing someone else, it makes you a hypocrite. What right do we have as humans to tell someone they must die. A 17 year old boy in the US who was exectued for murder said 'today we tell our children sometimes it's OK to kill'. (It is now illegal for under 18's to be exectued in the US). Also a lot of europe would be angry at us if we brought back the death penalty and we would get thrown out of the European Union if we refused to get rid of it. The only country in Europe to still have the death penalty is Belarus and that's because they have this dodgy leader.
Anyway George Bush is for the death penalty and doesn't that say it all. More the reason not to have it. He says 'it gives a chilling message'. But at what price? I say. He seems to think that it could be saving lives through the fear of it. About 70 people are executed each year in the US and surely a few of those must be innocent. Emagine the fear of that.

Answer 4

The majority are usually wrong. Read Minette Marrins article in the Sunday Times (31-Jan). I don't agree with the death penalty, and the Saddam execution reinforces that belief. It was carried out and watched by a bunch of sickoes who were every bit as bad as he was. In my view, it was completely unnecessary to film it. If there are those who don't trust their government to carry out an execution without proof positive, then that is a poor basis for trusting the government in future. It is not good for people to watch such grizzly spectacles, because it brutalises them, and then they slowly become more and more immune to the suffering of others. Who is 'kelly m' to decide who should be taken off the face of the earth. She includes rape as a capital offence. I don't think so, particularly given the way the scope of offences falling within that catagory has been broadened to include situations, eg. in which the male has to prove he didn't do it. In other words he is guilty, unless he can prove that he is innocent. It carries the hallmark of man hating feminism.

Answer 5

Funny how some people think you can forfeit your human rights by murdering someone. Here's the thing - you have human rights because you are a "human", not because you are a "nice human".

Therefore, if someone's right to life can be taken away, then, by definition, it is not a human right, and so nobody has a right to life.

So, people who are in favour of the death penalty must tacitly accept that no one has an automatic right to life (which seems to have been Saddam's moral opinion of the matter too), lest they find themselves with a nasty case of cognitive dissonance.

Pot - kettle - black anyone?

Answer 6

It's not going to happen
the EU is against it
If you allow for full judicial process, it is more expensive than life imprisonment - ALL studies in the US have shown this
it has NO deterant effect - ALL studdies in the US have shown this
Britain has a lot of recent cases (last 30 years) where people convicted of major crimes (which would probably have gotten the death penalty), have later proved to have not done the crimes - example, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Stephan Kisco (SP?) and the Bridgewater 4.

Answer 7

It is totally indefensible in our society. We live in a culture far removed from that of Iraq's and it would never work - we have moved beyond that vengeance attitude to crime.

Apart from the obvious pitfall of mistakes being made (think of all the miscarriages of justice we have witnessed recently!) There are many other arguments against the death penalty.

Because we have moved beyond that way of thinking, we would get a situation like in America, where people are on death row for years and years, with appeal after appeal going backwards and forwards. If you are going to have the death penalty it needs to be supported universally by the population - like in Iraq, sentence needs to be carried out swiftly. But because we don't live in the same culture as Iraq, we would inevitably have people on death row for years, which is totally inhuman and a dreadful way for someone to have to live - never knowing when the final sentence would be carried out, being imprisoned but not being any closer to finishing their prison term.

You would also have huge problems in the legal system itself. Many people in this country are opposed to capital punishment, myself included. If I was called to jury duty and the case was one where a guilty verdict would mean the person on trial would be executed, I would vote 'not guilty' even if in my heart of hearts I felt he would be. You would get far more hung juries and could never be sure of getting a fair verdict.

You also have to think of the psychological impact on the whole legal system - the people who are employed to carry out the death sentence, the judges, clerks of the court, prison wardens - it is a terrible and dreadful thing to be part of a system that leads a man or woman to their death.

I hope I have given you a reasoned and intelligent response to your question, and that the people who read this answer will realise that we can never again have the death penalty in the UK.

Answer 8

I am all for the death penalty for certain crimes, but I know that it will never happen. What our justice system needs to do is to give much stiffer sentences. When someone is given life, it should mean life, not just a few years. the sentencing today is no detereet to crime. Incidentally there is one crime that you can still be hanged for which is stil on the statute book, and that is for treason.

Answer 9

Bring it back A.S.A.P. i say--FUTURAMA, i understand what you are saying, however the fact is that science, and in particular-the forensic sciences, have moved on considerably in the last 30 years-so there are likely to be far less mistakes made with regards to DNA identification of a perpetrator. The problem is within the law lords rulings to be honest...were you to have the guildford bombers-(AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY MIND!)-up before the beaks nowadays-and the judge gave them life sentences, they would do within the region of 15 years-is that life? Whereas 30 odd years ago when they got life, they would still be behind bars now. I digressed a little there, but yes, bring back the death penalty for murderers, and a minimum 75 years for rapists/paedo's/armed robbery/robbery with violence. The rest of the idiots in prisons should be sent to either the catterick or colchester army garrisons, to learn what respect to people and property really means, for a minimum 5 year stretch-all except the pensioners, who shouldn't have to pay the polltax any way.

Answer 10

No it won't. the assumption it somewhat is a deterrent is believing that somebody who commits murders are the two logical or are in sound recommendations to make that determination. Murderers are frequently neither. Serial killers are frequently megalomaniacs who think of they heavily isn't caught and violent murders are frequently crimes of hobby. Gangland shootings are inspired via peer stress and on occasion incedious cohersion via drug kingpins. In each and all of us of those situations murders are actually not likely to be deterred. As for justice, in a tribulation the injured occasion is society as an entire not the murdered or their kinfolk. If a loss of life penalty is utilized societies turns into killers. professional-loss of life penalty Christians continuously use the biblical reference an eye fixed for an eye fixed a tooth for a tooth, while Anti-loss of life penalty Christians use turn the different cheek. yet Biblical references are complicated as a results of fact the bible condones slavery and forbids the ingesting of beef. In determining a sentence a choose would desire to evaluate situation, it somewhat is how sentences are exceeded down. Madatory sentencing is despised via judges because it takes away their potential to do what's ultimate for society as an entire. for people who think of the chums and kinfolk of those have lost deserve that the killer of their pal would desire to die, what regarding the chums and kinfolk of the killer, would desire to they not settle for a similar interest. finally, no person, even inspite of the shown fact that express they think of they may well be is infallible. info is often reappearing showing human beings harmless of crimes. DNA info isn't continuously attainable and not basically like the CSI sequence, actual info isn't sufficient. The State Pathologist in eire has reported she would not have faith forensic info is sufficient to convict somebody. actual info may well be interpreted and falsified, green legal experts would omit it and distinctly paid legal experts could have a team of experts waiting to counter it, so this opens up loss of life consequences being handed on people who would desire to'nt locate the money for a lawyer sturdy sufficient to offer the jury sensible doubt.