The death penalty

i feel so ashamed 

Its like seeing a gaggle of Guardian readers all come together .......

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Its like seeing a gaggle of Guardian readers all come together .......

I'm a Conservative voting Times reader actually, but I'm still against state-sponsored murder.

Rickster wrote (see)

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Its like seeing a gaggle of Guardian readers all come together .......

I'm a Conservative voting Times reader actually, but I'm still against state-sponsored murder.

Even for scum who deserve it? Didnt see the murder victims get much of a say in when or how they died.

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Rickster wrote (see)

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Its like seeing a gaggle of Guardian readers all come together .......

I'm a Conservative voting Times reader actually, but I'm still against state-sponsored murder.

Even for scum who deserve it? Didnt see the murder victims get much of a say in when or how they died.

Give them a longer tariff on their life sentence. If the state kills, then the state is lowering itself to the level of the murderer. Of course a murderer deserves to be punished for their crime, but the death penalty is not the answer.

How about this for an example. Anders Brevick killed over 100 people in Norway. If Norway had the death penalty he would most certainly would have been executed. but even if he had beed executed, it wouldn't have brought a single one of his victims back to life.

The death penalty is all about revenge. It's not about serving justice.

Breivik killed 77. But aside from my pedantry, I agree with you that his murder by the state would have resolved nothing. I can scarcely think of a single example of someone more reprehensible or deserving of punishment, but his murder would neither have restored his victims, nor would it have deterred people from committing murder (as there is no evidence that capital punishment has any deterrent effect).

I also agree that vengence should not be a function of government. Murder is not a right that I wish governments to have the power to exercise.

AgentGinger wrote (see)

Breivik killed 77. But aside from my pedantry, I agree with you that his murder by the state would have resolved nothing. I can scarcely think of a single example of someone more reprehensible or deserving of punishment, but his murder would neither have restored his victims, nor would it have deterred people from committing murder (as there is no evidence that capital punishment has any deterrent effect).

I also agree that vengence should not be a function of government. Murder is not a right that I wish governments to have the power to exercise.

77 people. I stand corrected. 

It is a tough one, I think it is easy to argue that some people may deserve it but there are a couple of reasons I would oppose it :

- There is no chance to rectify it at all.
- I could personally not flick the switch to end a life on someone else's say so. Therefore, I would not expect anyone else to have to have that responsibility.

I believe the trial judge should have the discretion to impose the death penalty if:

(a)  the crime is sufficiently heinous that it cries out for it; and

(b) as well as the jury having convicted, the judge himself is 100% satisfied that the case against the accused has been proven.

(If there isn't any doubt about guilt - and there often isn't - then arguments about the danger of putting to death the wrong person fly out the window.)

However, it is rather pointless discussing this. Although the British public favour the death penalty, our Westminster Parliament won't give it to us. So much for the notion of democracy.

Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)

I believe the trial judge should have the discretion to impose the death penalty if:

(a)  the crime is sufficiently heinous that it cries out for it; and

(b) as well as the jury having convicted, the judge himself is 100% satisfied that the case against the accused has been proven.

(If there isn't any doubt about guilt - and there often isn't - then arguments about the danger of putting to death the wrong person fly out the window.)

However, it is rather pointless discussing this. Although the British public favour the death penalty, our Westminster Parliament won't give it to us. So much for the notion of democracy.

 

a) How do you decide if the crime is sufficiently heinous?

b) Guilt can never be proven 100%, and the burden of proof on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt.

c) You can't blame Westminster. As I have already said, Parliament are not allowed to bring back the death penalty, as it contravenes Article 2 of the ECHR, which is an absolute right, so can't be derogated from.

I hope that addresses the points that you made.

(a) Let the judge decide.

(b) Obviously there are cases where guilt is proved 100%. e.g. clear video evidence. Or a guilty plea.

Like I said, concerns about putting the wrong person to death aren't relevant where the person is clearly guilty. Then it becomes a question simply of, ought this person be punished by being put to death for a crime of this seriousness?

(c) I don't think you're right here. Otherwise why would Parliament keep debating the death penalty frequently?

Article 2 says "1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law." The words I have put in bold seem to allow a state to impose the death penalty, in fact. But correct me by all means if I have misinterpreted this.

and retaining Article 2 of the EHCR is one solid reason why the UK should stay in Europe. if the country withdraws from the EU, the right wing Daily Rant readers will be clamouring for the return of the death penalty as the country will no longer be bound by that convention.

and nobody should ever have discretion over whether to lay down the death penalty - such an act would be as bad as a Roman Emperor giving the thumbs down in a Colisseum fight just because he could.  we are beyond barbarism

There are a few side issues worthy of consideration

1) An admission of guilt does not mean guilt

2) If you prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty or if there is overwhelming evidence, maybe they should be killed humanely if they so choose (they choose to do it with razors and bootlaces so why not) what is being gained by keeping Ian Brady alive against his wish?

3) There seems to be an absolute view that it is wrong to take a life just because that person has previously done so, this is not necessarily wrong, and taking the life of a murderer could be considered humane, cost effective, and a comforting preventative action.

fat buddha wrote (see)

and retaining Article 2 of the EHCR is one solid reason why the UK should stay in Europe. if the country withdraws from the EU, the right wing Daily Rant readers will be clamouring for the return of the death penalty as the country will no longer be bound by that convention.

 

Did you not read what I wrote at (c) above? The Convention doesn't seem to prohibit the death penalty anyway.

C McL

this makes things pretty clear as to the death penalty - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm

it's supplementary and successor to the other acts and conventions and specifically prohibits the death penalty under ALL circumstances,  specifically read the Explanatory Report (link in top right) and read Pt 2 in the Introduction - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/187.htm

clear??

fat buddha wrote (see)

and retaining Article 2 of the EHCR is one solid reason why the UK should stay in Europe. if the country withdraws from the EU, the right wing Daily Rant readers will be clamouring for the return of the death penalty as the country will no longer be bound by that convention.

and nobody should ever have discretion over whether to lay down the death penalty - such an act would be as bad as a Roman Emperor giving the thumbs down in a Colisseum fight just because he could.  we are beyond barbarism

I would emigrate if the same people who want to canonise a person who shoots a burglar in the back while is was running away from their property had anything to do with making decisions on something as important as the death penalty.

I think to shoot a burglar whether running away or not (in the heat of the moment) is legitimate

EKGO wrote (see)

There are a few side issues worthy of consideration

1) An admission of guilt does not mean guilt

2) If you prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty or if there is overwhelming evidence, maybe they should be killed humanely if they so choose (they choose to do it with razors and bootlaces so why not) what is being gained by keeping Ian Brady alive against his wish?

1. No, but you can't really complain you're being hard done by being put to death if you chose to plead guilty in the first place, having been advised the death penalty might be available to the judge. It's your own fault, pretty much.

2. One argument is that confining someone for life is punishment, whereas allowing them to die voluntarily would be less so.

A judge could impose a combination sentence, e.g. a life term (e.g. 10 years' incarceration) to be followed by the death penalty after 10 years, so the punishment of having to sit in a cell wouldn't be bypassed too soon.