Death penalty?

Question

Should the death penalty be brought back in the UK?

Answer 1

No.Hung, drawn and quartered would be a much better punishment!!

Answer 2

We have justice system that allows offenders to laugh at the system even when they are caught.

Life means summat over 5 years, 5 years means two an a half, 10 means 5 and so on. We really come down hard on them because we stick them on licence for the remainder of their sentence. We provide tellies, full meals, board, access to gym, access to medical facilities that the old would wince at.

I think that our country is being run by psychologists and those that are not subject to crime as such. They all preach that capital punishment doesn't work. Well maybe they are right, however those we do catch will not do it again, and the victims can sleep well for once, they are the ones doing life!

Too right would I bring back the death penalty, but only for those that we can prove 100% that they did it (pre meditated Murder, some rapes, terrorism, bomb making etc). I would also bring in mandatory 10-year sentences for the carrying of a weapon (knife, gun etc) and double the sentence if the weapon is used. I would also make the sentences what they should be, that is 5 years means the serving of five years.

Answer 3

Why copy the US on something that does nothing to prevent or reduce crime and risks exectuting innocent people. Here are answers to questions about the death penalty system in the US, with sources listed below. Many of the answers you received are incorrect about the costs.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. Anytime the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start to mount up even before a trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases, and appeals.

What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 4

I was pro-death penalty for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. In the U.S., violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 5

No. Data from the USA shows so far the death penalty does not discourage any crime. Crime has other causes mainly economic and the death penalty will not change these causes.
Its weird but changes Thatcher made in the 80s are still affecting the housing and job markets today in a BIG way and have created whole communities since the miners strikes etc that survive on crime and the death penalty will not break this cycle or impact it at all.

Answer 6

Yes, for certain crimes- i.e. A new first degree murder charge and the murder of serving Police Officers and treason (which should be the charge drawn up against terrorist suspects rather than daft new anti-terror legislation).

I would not say paedophillia and rape deserve to have the death penalty, because, no matter how heinous they are, they in no way equate to the barbarity of taking an innocent life. Incidentally I do not believe in using capital punishment as a deterrant (although it helps). I want it reinstated for punishment, clearly and simply. Most murderers are like animals, and taking this very obvious and true simile to its logical conclusion- if an animal attacks or murders a human then it is put to sleep. We should not have to walk this earth with such people whether they are locked up behind bars or not. If there is a God (and I do not intend to make this reply religious), he shall judge them and if not then the world will be better a place without them.

I would also leave it to the discretion of the trial judge when sentencing. If they believed the crime to be so evil they could refer the case to a separate body established soley to deal with capital offences. This would comprise of legal professionals, the Law Lords, the Lord Chancellor, Home Secretary and randomly selected members of the public (like jury service), who would convene to discuss and vote on the case. A clear majority would have to be reached as to whether, regardless of whether the death penalty is morally right, the convict deserves to receive the death sentence. Once the panel had decided there would be a suitable ammount of time to ensure that mistakes could be rectified and appeals could be made before the prisoner is hanged.

I have spent a long time coming to terms with my arguments in my head and this in my opinion, is the fairest way that the death penalty could be reinstated. Making it mandatory is not the answer, nor is letting individual judges decide (as each judge is independent to a certain extent).

Bringing back the death penalty would also bring about Britain's exit from the European Union, which is no bad thing. It would also mean re-looking at the Human Rights Act 1998 which needs to be repealed asap.

Before all of this is done, I think that a change in the law to give MPs the right to a free vote on the issue in every Parliament (as was the case before the Labour debacle came to office) needs to be made. If this means upsetting the EU and being forced out of it before even having capital punishment again so be it.

After recent horrific murders such as Garry Newlove on Sunday, PC Sharon Beshenivsky, Tom ap Rhys Pryce, Nisha Patel-Nasri and Thomas Grant, we have seen violence rule our streets. Police men are too over-stretched, gang law rules most deprived inner-city areas (the shootings in black communities in London) and very few people seem to have respect for human life any more.

I would also not have an age limit on 18. I would say anyone over 10 or 12 could be liable to be executed. Most of the evil crimes are committed by gangs of 15-16 year olds, and examples must be made. Gary Newlove's murder was a senseless act, and regardless of his killers' ages, they need to be punished in the most severe way possible. Perhaps by reintroducing corporal punishment in schools, children would learn discipline and respect but if we are going to sort out the problem of murder with the death penalty, teenagers need to be aware that it is wrong to take the life of a fellow human being as well.

Answer 7

I've answered this question a few times as it's something I have changed my opinion on.

Had you asked me that 19 years ago when my mother was murdered I would have agreed 100% BUT there could be many miscarriages of justice, and innocent people would be put to death for crimes they didn't commit.

I do believe however, that murderers, paedophiles and rapists should get maximum sentencing and stay in prison for life. I don't mean sat in their cells doing nothing, a life of hard labour. They need to suffer for the rest of their days, and this just doesn't happen in the UK today.

My mother's killer (he shot two people in cold blood) got 8 years reduced to 4 for good behaviour. His lawyer used the "diminished responsibility" facade to get him a lighter sentence. He should have been inside for the rest of his days, but he was released when he was 37 years old, 2 years younger than my Mum was when he killed her.

I live abroad now but when I hear of the things going on in the UK, I can't believe that the justice system fails the victims so much. Something has to be done, but the death penalty is not the answer.

Answer 8

The death penalty is illegal under EU law. Reinstate it and you will not only get international condemnation for being barbaric, you will get expelled from the EU and probably get sanctions from both them and the UN.

Not a good idea.

Plus the death penalty is ABSOLUTELY no deterrent from crime. The US has the highest violent crime rate in the western world, and is the only western country to have the death penalty. When you could be hanged for stealing it did not put people off. The death penalty is barbaric and serves as no deterrent, and creates criminals - the murderers who send other people to their deaths.

Answer 9

With the average prisoner costing the UK taxpayer £35,000+ a year to keep in prison.With the increasing amount of over population in our prison system and constant flow of undesirables from former eastern block countries coming here each year, something has to give.

Sometimes we have to accept that some types of criminals will never be reformed. These used to be sent to Rampton (Hospital for the criminally Insane.) Now even that is over crowded. A complete reform of how we treat our prisoners needs to be implemented. Following that we need to bring in a strong enough deterrent to keep from carrying out the most horrific crimes.

The death penalty is the strongest there is, and at least you don't get repeat offenders.

Answer 10

yes, why should we the public pay to keep these sick and twisted alive, its hard enough we work our socks of to feed our own familys, let alone having to feed the likes of huntly, brady, rose west and many more, we also keep them in fags then we pay for there health care and coz these evil bastewards are kept alive our taxes keep rising, somone who can plan to rape/murder a child, will never be able to change, regardless how long there behind bars, there sick thoughts will always remain, they should all be killed, and send a message to any one else with these thoughts in there head, and maybe just maybe some innocent child could be saved from the pure evil that habitat in our country. i dont think they deserve to live, they have no right to breath the air the rest of us do, these monsters get a cushy life in there prison cells, while the rest of us struggle along. our justice system is a joke, fair enough some one innocent may be executed, but with technology and DNA tests these days they can 99% sure theyve got the right person.

Answer 11

Yes. Perhaps people would be less likely to break the law if the punishments were more severe. I know the arguments about what if the governement/police make a mistake but I would say that if you have DNA evidence, confession from the person or for a habitual criminal of rape, murder or child molestation then it should always be a last resort that can be used.