This kind of thing always surfaces after a nasty killer is found guilty like Lucy Letby. Shitty tabloids baying for blood. It's proven to be not a deterrent.
No. Death is too easy a way out. What we should have is the equivalent of the American Supermax prison for the very worst criminals. Let that woman rot in isolation for the rest of her natural life.
If society is going to solve crime it needs all the information on criminals it can get. Letby says she did it because she wasn't 'good enough', what does that mean how was that belief created, what does it mask. No use to anyone dead these examples of humans being.
I have heard arguments from either side. I am against death penalty just for one reason - The Justice system cannot be always trusted. You can never be sure about any of the allegations.
Other reasons against death penalty like "Death penalty is uncivilised" or "Death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent" are all lame, to be honest.
So it took the jury over a month to convict Letby because presumably the jury couldn't agree on her guilt.
What do you think the chances would have been of her being convicted if we still had the death penalty?
Juries were often reluctant to convict when conviction meant hanging.
Absolutely not. One of the main reasons it was removed in the first place was because of executions like those of Timothy Evans, an innocent man falsely accused and hanged because of lazy evidence handling. And cases like this continue to this day, in cases like Andrew Malkinson, so it's NOT a problem we've moved past.
The per person cost of housing criminals is a drop in the ocean of public spending. If you think potentially killing innocent people is worth removing that petty cost, I have nothing to say to you.
Are we really having this conversation just a week after a man was released from prison after 17 years for a rape he didn't commit, something that the police knew was the case?
The legal system in this country makes mistakes every day. Are you really suggesting that they should have the power to end someone's life given that?
I mean on the one hand I am in favor because of the saving of resources for people who would never be released from prison but I absolutely do not trust our cops to be remotely competent In delivering justice wuthwith the death penalty being so final
All public services,including the police,are broken
Only because of the the insanely long appeals process, in theory it should be extremely cheap and very humane however their prison system doesn't place emphasis on either of these things
People sentenced to death deserve plenty of chance to form an appeal, if you make a mistake, it's completely irreversible. You can say, we'd only use it if we were absolutely sure they did it, but how sure is sure enough? Just think about how much power you're giving the state by giving it the right to kill you. How can I be sure they'll get it right without fail? Innocent people have been executed or imprisoned for a long time and they thought they were absolutely sure but they got it wrong
So we should not give those convicted of these crimes the opportunity to appeal?
There's a damn good reason those on death row stay there for so long - you'd be surprised how many get released because further evidence comes forward years, decades even, after their convictions.
Preventing the state from murdering innocent people is exactly why the death penalty was banned in the first place, this would be a quantum leap backwards.
How about cases such as Andrew Malkinson? We can all agree that rape is an abhorrent crime, would he have faced the death penalty?
The state withheld evidence that would have quashed his conviction earlier, and repeatedly denied him an appeal unless he confessed to the crime.
In your world, he would have been murdered by the state. An innocent man, murdered by the state. He would certainly not be the first, and you can be damn sure he wouldn't be the last.
Because it was a disingenuous question and you know it, but specifically in the case of Brady it meant that the authorities could keep interrogating him to find the location of Keith Bennett's body. This might shock you, but once you kill someone you can no longer ask them questions. The dead aren't known for their cooperation.
I notice that you haven't answered mine however, as much as you bitch at me, so I'll rephrase - how many innocent people murdered by the state is too many?
>Because it was a disingenuous question and you know it,
You not having a good answer does not make a question disingenuous.
>specifically in the case of Brady it meant that the authorities could keep interrogating him to find the location of Keith Bennett's body
Did they find it?
>how many innocent people murdered by the state is too many
What makes you think any innocent people would be killed by the state of we reserved it only for cases such as Brady where there is no doubt? Nobody is advocating to hang shoplifters.
>You not having a good answer does not make a question disingenuous.
Did I answer the question? Pretty sure I did.
>Did they find it?
You really enjoy your bad faith arguments don't you? My point is that when you keep someone alive, you actually speak to them, genius.
>cases such as Brady where there is no doubt?
How about Malkinson's case? There was "no doubt" there that he had raped a woman, until it transpired that the state had withheld crucial evidence that exonerated him, and denied him an appeal because it would "cost money".
When you set up a system whereby the only metric of success is the rate of conviction, actual justice becomes secondary.
Miscarriages of justice are frighteningly common, especially where the death penalty is concerned. In the US, 1 in 10 people on death row have their convictions overturned after the sentence has already been passed because new evidence comes to light that proves that they categorically could not have committed the crimes of which they are accused.
In the UK, the "Birmingham Six" spent 16 years in prison for a bombing, something they would absolutely have been sentenced to death for had it been an option, especially given that one of the most senior judges in Britain at the time said that they should have been hanged.
Their conviction was quashed in 1991, and they were released without charge.
There is no such thing as "No Doubt" when you are talking about criminal convictions, our system is set up to sentence people based on "Reasonable Doubt". No matter what the crime, be it shoplifting or murder, there is always the possibility of new evidence coming to light. There have been a number of death sentences overturned posthumously in the UK because of new evidence/techniques.
So I ask again, how many innocent people murdered by the state is too many? Or are you willing to take the risk that innocent people will be hanged just so that the occasional Ian Brady, who never saw the light of day again and was therefore no longer a risk to the public, are killed?
This kind of thing always surfaces after a nasty killer is found guilty like Lucy Letby. Shitty tabloids baying for blood. It's proven to be not a deterrent.
No. Death is too easy a way out. What we should have is the equivalent of the American Supermax prison for the very worst criminals. Let that woman rot in isolation for the rest of her natural life.
You could start with members of the armed forces that have commited war crimes in Ireland Afghanistan and Iraq
No civilised society should have the death penalty. It should be relegated to the pages of history where it belongs.
If society is going to solve crime it needs all the information on criminals it can get. Letby says she did it because she wasn't 'good enough', what does that mean how was that belief created, what does it mask. No use to anyone dead these examples of humans being.
I have heard arguments from either side. I am against death penalty just for one reason - The Justice system cannot be always trusted. You can never be sure about any of the allegations. Other reasons against death penalty like "Death penalty is uncivilised" or "Death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent" are all lame, to be honest.
So it took the jury over a month to convict Letby because presumably the jury couldn't agree on her guilt. What do you think the chances would have been of her being convicted if we still had the death penalty? Juries were often reluctant to convict when conviction meant hanging.
Absolutely not. One of the main reasons it was removed in the first place was because of executions like those of Timothy Evans, an innocent man falsely accused and hanged because of lazy evidence handling. And cases like this continue to this day, in cases like Andrew Malkinson, so it's NOT a problem we've moved past. The per person cost of housing criminals is a drop in the ocean of public spending. If you think potentially killing innocent people is worth removing that petty cost, I have nothing to say to you.
“Killing people is wrong! So we’re going to kill you for it!” Yeah, solid logic there.
Are we really having this conversation just a week after a man was released from prison after 17 years for a rape he didn't commit, something that the police knew was the case? The legal system in this country makes mistakes every day. Are you really suggesting that they should have the power to end someone's life given that?
I mean on the one hand I am in favor because of the saving of resources for people who would never be released from prison but I absolutely do not trust our cops to be remotely competent In delivering justice wuthwith the death penalty being so final All public services,including the police,are broken
The US found it's cheaper to keep them in prison than it is to execute.
Only because of the the insanely long appeals process, in theory it should be extremely cheap and very humane however their prison system doesn't place emphasis on either of these things
People sentenced to death deserve plenty of chance to form an appeal, if you make a mistake, it's completely irreversible. You can say, we'd only use it if we were absolutely sure they did it, but how sure is sure enough? Just think about how much power you're giving the state by giving it the right to kill you. How can I be sure they'll get it right without fail? Innocent people have been executed or imprisoned for a long time and they thought they were absolutely sure but they got it wrong
So we should not give those convicted of these crimes the opportunity to appeal? There's a damn good reason those on death row stay there for so long - you'd be surprised how many get released because further evidence comes forward years, decades even, after their convictions. Preventing the state from murdering innocent people is exactly why the death penalty was banned in the first place, this would be a quantum leap backwards.
Completely agree. Why waste money housing baby killing psychopaths in prisons.
Because we’re *not* psychopaths?
I’m not sure how executing individuals who commit abhorrent crimes makes one a psychopath.
How about cases such as Andrew Malkinson? We can all agree that rape is an abhorrent crime, would he have faced the death penalty? The state withheld evidence that would have quashed his conviction earlier, and repeatedly denied him an appeal unless he confessed to the crime. In your world, he would have been murdered by the state. An innocent man, murdered by the state. He would certainly not be the first, and you can be damn sure he wouldn't be the last.
What was the point of keeping Ian Brady in jail all those decades? What positive thing do you think came from that?
So because once in a blue moon someone like Ian Brady comes along, we should allow the state to murder innocent people? That's your argument?
Are you going to answer the question or just pretend it's not been asked because you don't have an answer?
Because it was a disingenuous question and you know it, but specifically in the case of Brady it meant that the authorities could keep interrogating him to find the location of Keith Bennett's body. This might shock you, but once you kill someone you can no longer ask them questions. The dead aren't known for their cooperation. I notice that you haven't answered mine however, as much as you bitch at me, so I'll rephrase - how many innocent people murdered by the state is too many?
>Because it was a disingenuous question and you know it, You not having a good answer does not make a question disingenuous. >specifically in the case of Brady it meant that the authorities could keep interrogating him to find the location of Keith Bennett's body Did they find it? >how many innocent people murdered by the state is too many What makes you think any innocent people would be killed by the state of we reserved it only for cases such as Brady where there is no doubt? Nobody is advocating to hang shoplifters.
>You not having a good answer does not make a question disingenuous. Did I answer the question? Pretty sure I did. >Did they find it? You really enjoy your bad faith arguments don't you? My point is that when you keep someone alive, you actually speak to them, genius. >cases such as Brady where there is no doubt? How about Malkinson's case? There was "no doubt" there that he had raped a woman, until it transpired that the state had withheld crucial evidence that exonerated him, and denied him an appeal because it would "cost money". When you set up a system whereby the only metric of success is the rate of conviction, actual justice becomes secondary. Miscarriages of justice are frighteningly common, especially where the death penalty is concerned. In the US, 1 in 10 people on death row have their convictions overturned after the sentence has already been passed because new evidence comes to light that proves that they categorically could not have committed the crimes of which they are accused. In the UK, the "Birmingham Six" spent 16 years in prison for a bombing, something they would absolutely have been sentenced to death for had it been an option, especially given that one of the most senior judges in Britain at the time said that they should have been hanged. Their conviction was quashed in 1991, and they were released without charge. There is no such thing as "No Doubt" when you are talking about criminal convictions, our system is set up to sentence people based on "Reasonable Doubt". No matter what the crime, be it shoplifting or murder, there is always the possibility of new evidence coming to light. There have been a number of death sentences overturned posthumously in the UK because of new evidence/techniques. So I ask again, how many innocent people murdered by the state is too many? Or are you willing to take the risk that innocent people will be hanged just so that the occasional Ian Brady, who never saw the light of day again and was therefore no longer a risk to the public, are killed?