Should we give murderers a choice?

Question

In view of longer sentences clogging up jails should we give murderers a choice of a shorter sentences and then a lethal injection. They could be asked at yearly intervals to make sure they hadn't changed their mind.

Answer 1

A life sentance actually costs the taxpayers far less than deathrow, appeals process and execution. We'd save more money for the Justice and Penal systems if we abolished capital punishment.

Of course, if assisted suicide were legal, maybe we could give lifers that option.

Answer 2

There are relatively few homicides in Britain and it is fairly certain that the jails are not clogged with murderers, but with thieves and fraudsters.

The problem with the death penalty is not when you've got the right person and it takes years to execute the sentence but when you've got the wrong person and their life or death depends on which lawyer can tell the best story.

There were a number of hangings in the early to middle part of the 20th century in Britain that in hindsight look more like the Prosecution's intention to hang someone - anyone - for a crime that particularly exercised some important sector of society.

The whole problem of criminalisation is one that no government has ever managed to get a handle on. It has been shown again and again that draconian imprisonment regimes have no effect on criminal rates. In the early 1800s in Britain there were over 100 crimes, involving theft NOT HOMICIDE that attracted the death penalty and it had no effect whatsoever on theft rates.

It has also been shown by many studies in many countries that all rates of crime increase and decrease in line with the average relative poverty levels.

The very idea that crime should be reduced by reducing the inequalities in society is one that, so far, no government has been able to get past the hang 'em, shoot 'em and flog 'em brigade. It happened by accident after the second world war during which everyone got used to having a more level playing field. This is why the 1950s are seen as a 'golden age' in terms of law and order.

As soon as our society began to reap the benefits of economic growth during the 1960s things began to go awry and the worst periods of the growth of criminal activity have been when economic growth has been most rapid and most unequal. QED

Answer 3

no I think the sytem that works the best is Singapore's no hanging around (Pardon the pun) usually from trial to one appeal maximum the killers recieve there punishment and are executed usually within a year. No hanging around for years as in America. Or lenient jail sentences as in the UK. As someone said earlier they never gave there victims a choice why the hell should they be treated humanely and given one.

Answer 4

Just give the scumbags what they deserve, there wont be much re-offending then and it will deter other idiots from following the same path.

Answer 5

Did they give the people they murdered the choice, i doubt it so if they are found guilty without any doubts on the evidents, then execute them.

Answer 6

That won't happen. Some states outlaw the death penalty altogether and, rightly or wrongly, it's considered much more punative than life imprisionment.

Answer 7

I love people who ask such dumb questions, and the equally dumb people who answer them.

The law, as it stands, is part of European Union law,and we (and they) do not impose the death-penalty.....end of story.

Answer 8

no way we should build more jails and lock them all up for life

Answer 9

why should they be given a say in what happens to them, their victims were not given one

Answer 10

did they give their victims a choice ? hang them all