Should we bring back the death penalty in england ???

Question

I just really want to know peoples opinions on this...for and against!!!

Every single day when i read the paper the crimes that people are comitting become more and more heinous.....Why dont we have the death penalty in england can anyone justify to me why people like ''ian huntley'' deserve to live after what theyve done and not just this sick animal these things are happening far too often....Recently i read and article about a man who beat his girlfriend to death with a mallett and then ate her and he got 12 years is prison i mean plz can someone justify this to me!

With forensic science these days mistakes are rarely made!

And surely bringing back the death penalty would solve the overcrowding problem we have with our prisons lol

ok david fair points....first of all what was there to prove in the first case the man admitted that he beat her to death cut her into peices then put her in a suitcase and then in a bin....all the while keepin the parts of her body he found to be edible....12 years for this ? hmmm one word springs to mind....justice, notice the sarcasm!

now explain to me why our goverment pays at least 1 million every year just to keep ian huntley safe inside prison incase ur not familiar with this monster he murdered 2 10 year old girls for no reason and burned there bodies he was given 40 or so years in prison which is fair enough i guess but why shouldnt he recieve the death penalty ?

and finally i do understand tht somtimes the evidence against a person may not be rock solid but what about when it is ? and also if they give a full confession ?

and also another thing i dont understand maybe u can explain to me....why is a person put on a death row in america and stays there for years at the end of which the death sentenced is lowered to life imprisonment.

Answer 1

You mentioned forensics and why people are on death row for a long time.

On forensics, DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Why it takes so long--Over 50 of the 124 innocent people released from death row in the US had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted.

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.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. 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.

Prison overcrowding in the United States (and perhaps in the UK as well) has very little to do with murderers. Our prisons are overcrowded because we imprison low level, non violent drug offenders for long terms. Another factor is that care for people with severe mental illness has been drastically reduced. Mental hospitals were closed and were supposed to be replaced by outpatient and community based clinics which did not happen.

Answer 2

No. Let’s look at a couple of things you said:

"he got 12 years is prison i mean plz can someone justify this to me!" - If he got only 12 years the death penalty being available would not have helped. They did not prove the crime well enough to even get life in prison. Why do you think the death penalty would have helped here?

"With forensic science these days mistakes are rarely made!" - Not really true. Many people are in prison for murder and other crimes simply based on eye witness identification. "Yes, that is the black man that was running away from me in the middle of the night on a dark street 300 yards away. I'm sure of it".

"And surely bringing back the death penalty would solve the overcrowding problem we have with our prisons" - Not likely. The average stay on death is many many years.

Here some good information on why the death penalty is a really bad idea. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
While the information is based on the US it is still very relevant.

---------------------------------
"why is a person put on a death row in america and stays there for years at the end of which the death sentenced is lowered to life imprisonment." - When a defendant receives the death penalty and appeal is automatically filed. This allows another court to review the case. This came about because in our early history many courts would railroad someone and hang them the next day. Swift justice is all great and good until an innocent person is executed. During the appeals process many things can happen:
1. New evidence can be shown that exonerates the defendant. This has happened over 100 times in the last 25 years due to DNA evidence alone. Pretty scary that a man was scheduled to die for something forensics finally proved he did not do.
2. The appeals court finds the trial was not fair. In this case a new trail is held where the person can be found guilty or not guilty and if found guilty gets a new sentence which may or may not include the death penalty.
3. The appeals court finds that the death penalty in the case violates the constitution of the state or the US constitution. In one case that I remember some details of a person was convicted of a crime committed as a juvenile. It has been pretty much established now by case law that it is unconstitutional to execute juveniles. As such it has been come case law that we do not execute defendants for crimes committed as a juvenile.
4. The appeals court in this case or another death penalty case in the state finds that the death penalty as performed by the state violates the constitution

Answer 3

as an American, where we have the death penalty, I think it's good the EU doesn't have the death penalty. I think America should follow suit and abolish it here. I'm not in favor of crime but I know the statistics and that it doesn't deter crime, and it's not our right to kill people. Were not in the dark ages anymore, when the state takes a life there no better than the criminals. that's what I think.

Answer 4

No. The death penalty brings society down to the level of the criminals.

It also cost more in attorney fees and appeals to kill them off than to house them for the rest of their lives. Of course, there are horrible people who should never be released, but killing them is very bad for our society, especially when we learn of those who were innocent.

America incarcerates a larger percent of its population than any other democracy in the world. We kill a lot of people too. Tough on crime turned into dumb on crime. We need prison and sentencing reforms and rehabilitation programs that will save us lots and lots of money, and will make us safer when inmates are released--as most will be.

Answer 5

Yes! For terrorists, murderers and paedophiles.

Answer 6

yes i agree with davismi7