What is your opinion on introducing the death penalty in the UK?

Question

Do you think any crime can justify this punishment?
Would it help prevent serious crimes like murder?

Answer 1

It doesn't deter, because few people commit serious crime with the idea that they'll be caught.

Too many mistakes are made in the justice system for us to consider using the death penalty.

Answer 2

No it shouldn't. The idea it is a deterrent is believing that someone who commits murders are either logical or are in sound mind to make that decision. Murderers are generally neither. Serial killers are generally megalomaniacs who think they will never be caught and violent murders are generally crimes of passion. Gangland shootings are motivated by peer pressure and sometimes incedious cohersion by drug kingpins. In all these cases murders are not going to be deterred.

As for justice, in a trial the injured party is society as a whole not the murdered or their family. If a death penalty is applied societies becomes killers.

Pro-Death penalty Christians constantly use the biblical reference an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, whereas Anti-Death penalty Christians use turn the other cheek. But Biblical references are tricky as the bible condones slavery and forbids the eating of pork.

In deciding a sentence a judge must take into account circumstance, that is how sentences are handed down. Madatory sentencing is despised by judges as it takes away their ability to do what is best for society as a whole.

For those that think the family and friends of those have lost deserve that the killer of their loved one should die, what about the family and friends of the killer, should they not be given the same attention.

Finally, nobody, however sure they think they may be is infallible. Evidence is always reappearing showing people innocent of crimes. DNA evidence is not always available and unlike the CSI series, physical evidence is not enough. The State Pathologist in Ireland has stated she does not believe forensic evidence is enough to convict someone. Physical evidence can be interpreted and falsified, inexperienced lawyers may miss it and highly paid lawyers would have a team of experts able to counter it, so this opens up death penalties being passed on those who could'nt afford a lawyer good enough to give the jury reasonable doubt.

Answer 3

Why not institute life without parole. It means exactly what it says. Take a look at the United States experience with the death penalty. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people.

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

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

There may be crimes that justify the penalty, but the problem is two-fold. How do you KNOW they committed the crime? In some cases it's just not certain, and if you only make ONE mistake out of 100 cases, you've murdered an innocent man. NOTHING justifies that.

Secondly, there is absolutely NO evidence that the death penalty deters violent crimes. We've had the death penalty in various States here in the U.S. for 2 centuries, and the violent crime rate has never shown any signs of abating because of it. People don't think about consequences when they commit acts of violence. They never have, and probably never will.

Answer 5

In the USA they have the electric chair which is the death penalty, but also America has the highest gun crime in the world. The proof is that it does not deter people from carrying weapons thus when the guns are used against people, murdered is committed. The death penalty does not reduce crime.
So called murderers have been found innocent in later years, can you imagine if a member of your family was condemned to death and then find out that they were a miscarriage of justice? It doesn't bear thinking about.

Answer 6

I'm basically for the death penalty because there has to be an ultimate deterrent.

I also weigh my opinion against the fact that mistakes can be made but with modern DNA detection aids it is becoming more certain that the detection rate is diagnosed correctly.

As long as there is absolutely no doubt that the person charge is the perpetrator then a life for a life should mean exactly what it says. The Murderers human rights should not be above those of the victim.

So yes with reservations and a new definition of ''beyond all reasonable doubt'.

ATB Red

Answer 7

Yes - in CLEAR CUT cases where there can be no doubt ESPECALLY in child murders.

Can it be justified? I think it can - How much money will be spent on EG Ian Huntley who will be spending the rest of his life in prision? How much money has already been spent on The Yorkshire Ripper?

Why should people pay taxes for this when the money could go to the victims OR be used to fund hospitals etc.

Not sure if it would reduce crime - but it would make the criminal pay and not the taxpayer.

Issue is that it will never happen - The argument will be 'look at all the cases where innocent people have been sent to jail - Birmingham 6 - Guilford 4 - Colin Stag - Barry George (?) - That poor man who was in the news as the killer was actually found and he already spent 16 yrs in jail for it '

Answer 8

i think that too many innocent people died from the death penalty, and i believe that if someone commits a serious crime then the death penalty is too easy for them its like a way out of what they have done, i think that the law is too easy on people now, where i used to live some guy got 4 yrs for raping two little girls and i think that is wrong. it is made too easy for people now days, i believe that prison should be how it was, a bed, a piss bucket and a grinding stone, not allowing them to watch tele and play pool and get sky and qualifications it isnt solving anything its just making people want to commit crime for those specific reasons. its like they are being rewarded for what they have done. i know people who have gone to prison for not paying taxes and was inside longer than people who committed aggravated burglary. where is the sense. its ridiculous

Answer 9

Looking at statistics corporal punishment was around along time. Murder rates rose and therefore it concludes it doesn't actually prevent murders especially as most are not premediated to the degree, more a case of loss of temper etc or continual abuse. I think it would be a backward step. Yes we have DNA but is it worth the one innocent life if we get it wrong? NO. Don't ever bring it back. the only thing it wil do is encourage the sadist brigade!
NO NO NO

Answer 10

since you ask my opinion then i'll give it
yes,i believe certain crimes can only be dealt with by the gallows.
during my military service i detained bombers in belfast who left their devices outside schools,hospitals and care homes.
i also attended to the clean up job following an incident,it isn't pretty.
terrorism,sex crimes against children,certain rape cases where DNA evidence is irrefutable,most murder cases....yes,it's the mark of a civilisation that there are certain things we won't tolerate.
it costs 400 pounds a day to keep rose west locked up.it costs the country,and that's YOU,vast quantities of money to keep serious offenders in special protective custody.

there is a line you cross where you're not human anymore,you've cancelled your right to be treated as such.
you go,like i did,and pick up bodies in lockerbie and then tell me a prison term is enough.
this is an emotive issue but i have seen terrible things with my own eyes and my inbuilt sense of justice appeals to me most.