should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK only for serious crimes only?

Answer 1

he death penalty for murder was abolished nearly 40 years ago by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, and replaced with a mandatory life sentence. The passing of the Act followed a great deal of debate both inside and outside Parliament over the death penalty.

The death penalty was retained for the capital offences of treason and piracy with violence, however it was abolished in 1998 under the Crime and Disorder Act.

In 1999 the home secretary signed the sixth protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights which formally abolished the death penalty in the UK and ensured it could not be brought back.

But i think it should as the world is getting an evil place

Answer 2

The experience of the US with the death penalty should give you pause before thinking about using it in the UK. Here are some of the facts (verifiable) about the death penalty, in the United States.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The extra costs begin even before the trial.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person.

Re: DNA
DNA evidence is available in no more than 10% of all murder cases. It is no guarantee that we will never execute an innocent person. It is human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: Alternatives
More and more states have life without parole on the books. Life without parole means what it says and is no picnic.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty is not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. Wealthy people do not face death sentences.

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Last of all, opposing the death penalty does not mean a person condones brutal crimes or excuses the people who commit them. I believe that the dialogue on the death penalty should be based on verifiable facts. People in the UK should make up their minds using common sense and not be led, through a wish for vengeance, to copy the United States. The UK is much more sensible about this.

Answer 3

Yes it should be, as it stands murderers today can be in and out of prison carrying out a murder every time they are released. The home office let them out to save money with out any responsibility for consequences. If you take a life then you should be prepared to pay with your life. However the nannies would not allow that to happen it would reek too much of justice. Which as we all know is a dirty word in new age u.k. even treason does not allow the death penalty anymore. It would be poetic justice if the mad mullahs and their ilk started taking it out of the politicians instead of the innocent public. I have a feeling that if blair and his cohorts had there asses on the line there would be the fastest turn around of the hanging penalty in history. However as long as they only kill the voters it will be business as usual as we are expendable.

Answer 4

Yes!!!!

Seen the news this week in the UK with prison overcrowding and the fact that they jail someone for tapping into phone calls but let paedofiles free and the immigrant who had been jailed for sexual offences then released from prison but not sent back home because of the unrest in his home country so he did it again to a 7 year old - gonna be some unrest in Bristol I reckon??? Piggin joke.

Answer 5

Most definitely......but in particular the illegal immigrants who come here under 'asylum seeking' because they face death at home (Probably for the same crimes they commit here) who are jailed with the recommendation for deportation at the end of their sentence...and the bureaucrats that let them stay to offend again!!! This way the bureaucrats may give a little more attention to their work.....and the 'asylum seekers' will learn we are no longer a pushover for criminals!!!!!!

Answer 6

Only if you can guarentee that the judicial system is 100% correct all the time.

DNA advances are a step in that direction; but even they aren't fool proof (Maybe near as damit though) and sometimes only indicative of a presence rather than an act.

Answer 7

yes it should for murder, drug trafficking and gun running. If we got it back a great by product would having to leave the EU. Worth it that alone. In another answer he quoted a law and the debate held at the time.IN Which life must mean life,now if they are unlucky they just get 15 years.disgusting!

Answer 8

No, i've always been against the death penalty. However prisons are too comfortable and provide too many facilities such as gym, tv's, libraries etc. All that should be banned!

Answer 9

I think so, yes, but bringing back the death penalty will cause a huge controversy.

Answer 10

Yes. With the advancement in science DNA etc. it would be almost impossible to convict the wrong person. Another good reason is that we have no deterrent for murder. We just lock them up and the rate payer forks out to keep them in relative comfort until we release them to murder again. Treason is also a capital offence. Therefore, we could charge with treason all these so called British immigrants who keep trying to blow us up or incitement to murder.