The death penalty

EKGO wrote (see)

There are a few side issues worthy of consideration

2).......what is being gained by keeping Ian Brady alive against his wish?

 

becuase as yet we do not allow voluntary euthanasia.

perhaps we gain nothing by having Brady alive, but equally the law does not allow him to choose to die - so he lives.

I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia - if someone chooses to die through illness, despair, grief, guilt or whatever they whould be allowed to choose that as it's a personal choice.   but that is subtly different to a death penalty imposed by law

cougie wrote (see)

 
Plus we do convict people wrongly. What happens then ? Execute the judge/jury/lawyers ?

That might just make the lawyers closing argument a little more exciting !

Allowing them to choose would be a cost effective option, dread to think how much it costs to keep a man in a maximum security prison for a year.

I think that the system would be clogged up by civil lawsuits if prisoners were given the option of choosing euthanasia. Imagine all those tort actions from family members who claimed that the prisoner never would have ended their life but for the action of the state in keeping them in such conditions that death was preferable.

cougie wrote (see)

Does the death penalty work in the US where they have it ? Are their crime rates any lower ? If they aren't then it doesn't work so why have it ? 
 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

Seems to show conclusively that almost all the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates.

Well we should make it as hard for them to gain from the system as we do for the victims of crime

JF50 wrote (see)

Seems to show conclusively that almost all the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates.

Stats say what you want them to say, maybe the death penalty is there because the murder rate is high

xine267 wrote (see)

I think that the system would be clogged up by civil lawsuits if prisoners were given the option of choosing euthanasia. Imagine all those tort actions from family members who claimed that the prisoner never would have ended their life but for the action of the state in keeping them in such conditions that death was preferable.

 

sure - it would be a difficult one to manage.  

You could pay off the relatives out of the £45k per annum you'd save

fat buddha wrote (see)

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??

It doesn't seem to get you very far, fat buddha.

Rickster wrote: "Also, we wouldn't be able to bring it back, as it contravenes Article 2, the right to life, of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is an absolute right, so can't be derogated from." I pointed out that Article 2 doesn't actually prohibit the death penalty. It allows for it as a sentence for a crime.

You are now referring to Protocols 6 and 13. On my reading of them, Article 5 of Protocol 6 and Article 4 of Protocol 13 both contain a mechanism for states to opt in and opt out from time to time for their own personal convenience. Even if the UK has signed up to Protocols 6 and 13 (I haven't checked this point), it can opt out whenever it wishes. It doesn't appear to support your argument that we need to stay in Europe to keep ourselves bound by provisions outlawing the death penalty. If the UK has signed up to the Protocols you mention, we can simply give notice under Article 5 / Article 4 not to be bound any more, and we won't be bound any more.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

Even if voluntary euthanasia was legal in the UK, I wonder if prisoners would be allowed to chose it while they were incarcerated or if it would be forfeit while they were serving their sentence - like the right to vote.

Colin McLaughlin wrote (see)

fat buddha wrote (see)

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??

It doesn't seem to get you very far, fat buddha.

Rickster wrote: "Also, we wouldn't be able to bring it back, as it contravenes Article 2, the right to life, of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is an absolute right, so can't be derogated from." I pointed out that Article 2 doesn't actually prohibit the death penalty. It allows for it as a sentence for a crime.

You are now referring to Protocols 6 and 13. On my reading of them, Article 5 of Protocol 6 and Article 4 of Protocol 13 both contain a mechanism for states to opt in and opt out from time to time for their own personal convenience. Even if the UK has signed up to Protocols 6 and 13 (I haven't checked this point), it can opt out whenever it wishes. It doesn't appear to support your argument that we need to stay in Europe to keep ourselves bound by provisions outlawing the death penalty. If the UK has signed up to the Protocols you mention, we can simply give notice under Article 5 / Article 4 not to be bound any more, and we won't be bound any more.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

 

ECHR Protocol 13, Article 1 - Abolition of the death penalty.

"The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed."

Johnny Blaze wrote (see)

Given we bombed the crap out of Dresden, one or two executions of Jerry spies weren't really pushing the envelope of "acceptable".

But they were bombing London during the Blitz. War is totally different.

Rickster wrote (see)

 

ECHR Protocol 13, Article 1 - Abolition of the death penalty.

"The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed."

Yes, yes, yes, but  Article 4 – Territorial application

1     Any State may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, specify the territory or territories to which this Protocol shall apply.

2     Any State may at any later date, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, extend the application of this Protocol to any other territory specified in the declaration. In respect of such territory the Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of receipt of such declaration by the Secretary General.

3     Any declaration made under the two preceding paragraphs may, in respect of any territory specified in such declaration, be withdrawn or modified by a notification addressed to the Secretary General. The withdrawal or modification shall become effective on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of receipt of such notification by the Secretary General.

Summary: This seems to say a state can opt in, and a state can opt out later. It doesn't get you very far. I thought I made this clear enough in my reply to fat buddha. We are no more barred from imposing the death penalty if we have signed up to Protocols 6 and 13 than if we haven't.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

Were there Geneva Conventions before 1948?

Protocol 6 to which you are referring was enacted on 1st November 1998.

Protocol 13 was drafted on 2002 and over rides Protocol 6.  

Protocol 2, Article 2 – Prohibition of derogations

"No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention."