Death penalty

[multitool]

I take it we've all seen Priti Patel speaking her branes about CP on Question Time?

Astoundingly dim.

 

[C R]

I take it we've all seen Priti Patel speaking her branes about CP on Question Time?

Astoundingly dim.

I think you're being kind to her.

 

[Bazzer]

Who's claiming it's a deterrent?

If it is revenge you are seeking then surely you want them alive? As the late Terry Pratchett wrote in Witches Abroad
" Where's the pleasure in being the winner, if the loser ain't alive to know they have lost?"

 

[Banderill]

I can see the attraction in cases where the evidence seems irrefutable and the crime heinous; why should the state sponsor the upkeep of someone so vile, often for decades?

Overall I’m against it, but for a select few, a very, very, select few I think I could throw the switch without too much afterthought. But therein lies the problem. How do you choose the few? What is the criteria for playing God (other deities are available)?

 

[Deleted member 28]

If it is revenge you are seeking then surely you want them alive? As the late Terry Pratchett wrote in Witches Abroad
" Where's the pleasure in being the winner, if the loser ain't alive to know they have lost?"

I can understand this approach and if the prisoner genuinely lived a life of hell then I would agree to a point but they don't do they.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I can see the attraction in cases where the evidence seems irrefutable and the crime heinous; why should the state sponsor the upkeep of someone so vile, often for decades?

Overall I’m against it, but for a select few, a very, very, select few I think I could throw the switch without too much afterthought. But therein lies the problem. How do you choose the few? What is the criteria for playing God (other deities are available)?

Perhaps I should have said "for a very, very select few" then maybe I wouldn't have had such a slating, you people!

 

[Bromptonaut]

I can see the attraction in cases where the evidence seems irrefutable and the crime heinous; why should the state sponsor the upkeep of someone so vile, often for decades?

Overall I’m against it, but for a select few, a very, very, select few I think I could throw the switch without too much afterthought. But therein lies the problem. How do you choose the few? What is the criteria for playing God (other deities are available)?

I've bolded the key word there. What evidence is less refutable than a confession and scientific evidence of having handled explosives?

The Birmingham Six would have been given death sentences for certain had the option been available. I doubt even the most humane Home Secretary would have had the political balls to reprieve any one of them.

 

[Bazzer]

I can understand this approach and if the prisoner genuinely lived a life of hell then I would agree to a point but they don't do they.

Then you should lobby those in power to make changes to the justice/penal system to one of outright punishment.
As identified several times in this thread, if hanging had been retained, there are several people who would have died at the end of a rope where the original verdict was found to be incorrect. Their names would have been added to the (possibly) hundreds who had died before them who were also innocent.

 

[Deleted member 49]

When the Guildford 4 were sentenced, trial judge Mr Justice Donaldson told them: "If hanging were still an option, you would have been executed"
Yet recently an ex solder got non custodial sentence for shooting an unarmed man in the back.
Nobody has the right to decide when another human lives or dies.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I can see the attraction in cases where the evidence seems irrefutable

Sorry, but that brings us back to having two levels of guilty in a trial;
A) sure enough to hang and B) not sure enough to hang.

And if you have a case where you are not sure enough to convict to execute, then you must have reasonable doubt, and if you have reasonable doubt, that's automatically not guilty.

why should the state sponsor the upkeep of someone so vile, often for decades?

As already pointed out earlier in the thread, execution is substantially more expensive than lifetime incarceration.

but for a select few, a very, very, select few I think I could throw the switch without too much afterthought

If you are speaking as an individual unconnected with the murder victim, that is a disturbing mindset.



Aside from the revenge, what purpose does executing someone serve?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Then you should lobby those in power to make changes to the justice/penal system to one of outright punishment.
As identified several times in this thread, if hanging had been retained, there are several people who would have died at the end of a rope where the original verdict was found to be incorrect. Their names would have been added to the (possibly) hundreds who had died before them who were also innocent.

I don't need to lobby anyone as I'm not that bothered, I'm doing like everyone else on here and expressing my opinion.

 

[stephec]

I can understand this approach and if the prisoner genuinely lived a life of hell then I would agree to a point but they don't do they.

That's probably similar to what happened to Ian Brady towards the end when he went on hunger strike.

It would've been a lot quicker and cheaper to just shoot him, but by force feeding him and keeping him alive it was hopefully a living hell for him every day.

 

[albion]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/24/supreme-court-nitrogen-gas-execution-case

Let us hope it is less evil than all their other grossly evil methods.

 

[AndyRM]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/24/supreme-court-nitrogen-gas-execution-case

Let us hope it is less evil than all their other grossly evil methods.

It's clearly not going to be. The death penalty is one thing, but using this method as an experiment on someone they already made an arse of executing? That's next level barbarism.

 

[albion]

It has been for years. Horrifying.