Should Britain re-introduce the death penalty for certain crimes ?

Question

Britain is becoming an increasingly violent place to live I suggets the death penalty for the following with DNA proof.
This is for people of 16 and over.

Child Killers
Rapists who kill
Pre-Meditated Murder
Any Acts Of Terrorism (wether people die or not)
Assasination of member of the Government or Royal family
Men or women who kill their partners in temper.

People whohave disagreed with me and others on this Would you have the same opinion if someone had murdered your little girl or boy or one of your family had been murdered by terrorists ?
I think NOT !!!

Answer 1

No because once all off the above have been to jail for a mimimun of 1 month or served at most half their life sentence they are completly rehabilitated and therefore completly valued members of this proud multicultural society:) How would you like to spend 10 years of you life in a jail with excellent facilities, no slopping out, playstations, music etc for the silly little crime of murder?


I hope you can tell i'm being sarcastic old chap. I agree totally with you. I think we could do one better and allow the families to decide their fate and carry it out if they wish.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Take a look at the experience of the US with the death penalty.

Risks of executing innocent people-
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't 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 don’t.

We have a good alternative. 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.

Death penalty costs. The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start mounting up before trial, continue through the uniquely complicated trial in death penalty cases (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court), and appeals.

The death penalty doesn't apply to people with money. Its not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.

Problems with speeding 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

The death penalty should never be introduced for anything, there have been to many cases where people have been imprisoned for years only to be found innocent years later. I would however lock them up for life. The killing part is also relevant, most paedophiles don't kill their victims, but more would if they knew they would be executed for their crime as they wouldn't want to leave the victim to identify them. If the punishments the same for both crimes then they would feel they have nothing to lose.

Answer 5

No return of death sentence in UK - no noose if good news. Far too many innocent men and women got hanged in my youth, including Tomothy Evans and yes, Ruth Ellis, who would not be hanged today but given a short 3 or four year sentence.

Not only were people hanged in my childhood and youth, they were also flogged. None of this made any difference. The people remaind as violent and agressive as ever. Nothing has changed except the date.

Britain in fact is far less violent than it was say 100 year ago.

The British have a culture which is best described as either 'mob rule' or 'warlike'. The police know how to deal with the problem[s] of youth violence on the streets and are doing it.

People just need to take a week off the news to appreciate just how peaceful UK actually is. There are no gangs roaming the streets where I live. In fact most streets in UK are very much like mine, quiet most of the time.

You only have to look at the history of the Brits to appreciate just how violent and warlike we are. There are some 200 battle fields in England alone - what were we doing to each other? Apart of killing?

People know that if you shove a bunch of Germanic tribes on an island somewhere, sooner or later they will form a war committee. What have we got here in UK? About 85% of the population are classified as Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman, the next big 'mob' are the Celts and in amongst all of these 'disperate tribes' are the Vikings. We're talking warlike.

In a few weeks from now, we'll all be able to let off a few dangerous fireworks, often in the street, and celebrate the death of one Guy Fawlkes - a traitor, a murder and terrorist.

So, what's new?

When I was born in 1941, the city where I live, London, was being bombed to bits by the Nazi Luftwaffe. I do not think that London is anything like as violent today.

During the war years, us kids did not see our dads, they wee all off fighting in the war. We were completely out of control.
I never saw my dad until about 1946 - blimey, who's this strange man mummy?

Later at school, there were large gangs with catapaults, air rifles and slings. Dangerous or what?

Answer 6

No absolutely not. It is not a deterent and would do little or nothing to prevent crime. People are still legally children at 16 years of age. What kind of a barbaric society would we be if we allowed such a thing to be done on our behalf?

Unfortunately people have always killed other people. In many ways we are just more aware of it now with 24 hour news coverage we have available to us.

We've come a long way in some respects socially recently, though we still have a long way to go. The death penalty would solve nothing and would just satisfy the need for revenge. Such a practice belongs in the past.

Answer 7

This argument has been done to death and rejected consistently for some 40 years. Everyone who was ever convicted of anything was convicted "beyond reasonable doubt" even those who later were found to be innocent. People like Stefan Kiszko, who served 16 years for murder. His sperm was reportedly found on the victims body. 16 years later someone realised it couldn't have been his, since he had never in his life produced live sperm. DNA evidence in a rape case proves someone had sex, not that it was rape. As for acts of terrorism, the Guildford four and the Birmingham six would have hanged in your justice system. That's ten innocent men to the gallows.

Answer 8

Anybody can do something in temper and not mean to do it and they have to live with it for the rest of their live but the others yes I do agree if they are 100% sure i do belive an eye for an eye if someone killed a member of my family I would want to see the same happen to them

Answer 9

Your half right, but you should broaden your scope of crimes punishable by death. you should include the following.
Murder (an eye for an eye)
Rapist
Wife/Husband batterers
Carrying a firearm/knife/bomb
Dealing or distributing drugs
Grooming children (paedophile)
Child neglect
Animal cruelty
Driving while disqualified.
Violence towards police/ambulance/fire crew/hospital staff/prison officers.

This would help keep down the prison population.
It seems that in society that you can get away anything if you are a drug addict.

While we are at it lets sentence them as well.

Answer 10

There have been too many miscarriages of justice in recent years to have a return to capital punishment. Death is quick but a lifetime in prison without parole is harder to stomach.
As for the question whether one of my close relatives was murdered. I can't answer that until I'm in that position and god forbid none of us are put in that position. If it happened and I wanted someone hung for that crime, then found out years later they were innocent all the time, then I'd feel guilty for wanting an innocent person dead. That would just compound my grief.