Capital Sentences...

[Danllan]

We have had a referendum on the issue of EU membership and, for democrats, the matter is settled like it or not. Once we have left the EU we will be able have or rescind such laws as we choose, this means that we could reintroduce the option of a Capital sentence for some crimes.

Note that I have used the word option; clearly someone could be convicted of an offence with their guilt being 'beyond reasonable doubt' but still not 100% certain, in these cases it would be unwise to impose such a sentence since there would still remain a chance of their being innocent. Equally, there could be an undoubted crime committed, but a jury may see the defendant as not deserving such punishment e.g. a parent kills the killer of their child.

However, in instances where an illegal homicide has been committed, where there are no mitigating circumstances and where the guilt is 100% verifiable*, should the law be changed to allow the Courts the option of imposing the Capital sentence?


*One such an example could be when an individual that is of nominally of sound mind kills an infant in front of witnesses and while being clearly filmed by CCTV.

 

[czechmate]

Always seems to come up that if it came back it would be for the killing of police. Would make sense to me.
Also though, that horrid couple the West's, for example should of been done away with but Mr did the decent thing and killed himself didn't he?

Just to edit. You still seem obsessed with your hatred of the EU? If the UK had wanted to bring back hanging then they could have done so whilst in the EU

 

[Billhook]

I tried to persuade someone who was in a senior position looking after murderers such as Huntley and Dr Harold Shipman, that the cost of looking after them [100K plus a year]might be better spent on a more worthy cause such as the NHS or education.
The answer was “We do not have Capital Punishment as we live in a civilized society”
I pointed out the fact that we do actually operate a Capital Punishment system in this country which is probably active as we speak and on our doorstep. In this system there is no trial, or safeguard to discover whether the targets are acting under duress, or threats to their family.

I refer of course to the killing of people by the use of drones by personel sitting behind a computer at Waddington or other uk air bases.
The fact that people seem to be comfortable with that and not comfortable taking out people like Huntley is curious to me.

You can even witness the executions on youtube

 

[Danllan]

Always seems to come up that if it came back it would be for the killing of police. Would make sense to me.
Also though, that horrid couple the West's, for example should of been done away with but Mr did the decent thing and killed himself didn't he?

Just to edit. You still seem obsessed with your hatred* of the EU? If the UK had wanted to bring back hanging then they could have done so whilst in the EU

I think my children's lives are every bit as important as those of police officers, I wouldn't want there to be double standards; I think that unwarranted and unmitigated homicides should have the same consequences, regardless of who or what the victim was.

The point about being able to restore capital sentences while in the EU has been made before, no, it is not valid. Despite the derogation via protocol obtained by the UK and Poland from the Lisbon Treaty regarding the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, surprise surprise the ECJ found that the UK and Poland were still under obligation to comply with the Charter (another bit of EU double-speak and dishonesty... ).

This being so, there can be no return to Capital Sentences while a state is a member of the EU - the relevant case establishing this was NS v Home Secretary, I forget the year.


*I don't 'hate' the EU, meaning the states and the peoples that comprise it; I am deeply distrustful of undemocratic EU institutions such as the ECJ and the EC, and I do hate, viscerally, the undermining of my / our democracy by them.

 

[czechmate]

I think my children's lives are every bit as important as those of police officers, I wouldn't want there to be double standards; I think that unwarranted and unmitigated homicides should have the same consequences, regardless of who or what the victim was.

The point about being able to restore capital sentences while in the EU has been made before, no, it is not valid. Despite the derogation via protocol obtained by the UK and Poland from the Lisbon Treaty regarding the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, surprise surprise the ECJ found that the UK and Poland were still under obligation to comply with the Charter (another bit of EU double-speak and dishonesty... ).

This being so, there can be no return to Capital Sentences while a state is a member of the EU - the relevant case establishing this was NS v Home Secretary, I forget the year.


*I don't 'hate' the EU, meaning the states and the peoples that comprise it; I am deeply distrustful of undemocratic EU institutions such as the ECJ and the EC, and I do hate, viscerally, the undermining of my / our democracy by them.

I assumed the difference about murdering police is that most likely thé murder won't have known them so a killing for the motive of money whereas killing your wife because she was shagging your best mate, maybe seems a more humane motive?

I feel I have spent most of my adult life with free votes at Westminster with it never being popular, so still can't see any link with the eu.

Do they actually carry out many executions in the USA at this time?

 

[Danllan]

I can't argue for others regarding the police and so on but, for me, all innocent lives should be of equal value before the law.

You make a very good point regarding Westminster, but you must remember that - as they incessantly tell us - MPs are our 'representatives' and not delegates. Therefore, on any given subject, they don't have to vote as their electors would wish them to, but as their 'consciences' dictate; very convenient with regard to Capital Punishment when one recalls that a majority of MPs were, and may still be, pro-EU.

In fact, many MPs used the EU as an excuse not to participate in votes for this sentencing option claiming, rightly, that it could not be implemented while the UK was part of the EU. They will be in an awkward position now, they will have to nail their colours to the mast and, as we have seen with Brexit votes in the Commons, most MPs tend to vote the same way that the majority of their constituents would wish them to when the only alternatives are opposing the directly expressed will of those constituents, or ignoring them by abstaining.

There are many such sentences in the US but, from memory, in modern times there are rarely more than a two or three dozen executions each year.

 

[Pond digger]

I don’t believe in capital punishment, but there’s plenty that do, so yes, it should be put the vote.

I certainly think we should be building more prisons, and handing out tougher sentences. What I don’t understand, is why it should cost 100k/yr to lock someone up.

 

[czechmate]

I don’t believe in capital punishment, but there’s plenty that do, so yes, it should be put the vote.

I certainly think we should be building more prisons, and handing out tougher sentences. What I don’t understand, is why it should cost 100k/yr to lock someone up.

I don't think I do. I could easily of killed the guy my missus was running around with and I don't think it would of been fair to of been hung for it. However, monsters like the Wests, then yes definitely. Also those two that killed Jamie Bulger but then they were only 12 or something so hardly likely to swing. Also, there was a guy running orphanages in Leicester, fiddling with kids and ruining dozens of lives but he didn't kill anyone so I suppose he would be ok despite doing far more harm. That bloke also did the decent thing and killed himself in prison.
Can't see it ever coming back in the uk myself

 

[nivilla1982]

It would be an idea.

 

[Ashtree]

Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing, and so

Nuf said!

 

[rob1]

Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing, and so

Nuf said!

not guilty in court is not the same as innocent though, but I do think there has to be no doubt before capital punishment is carried out, for instance those pansies that killed the soldier in london back along need sending off to reap their virgins

 

[Blackcoos]

I thought this was a thread .. ABOUT THE BOSSFARMER

 

[Danllan]

Birmingham six, Guildford Four, Bridgewater four, M25 three, Cardiff three, Stephen Downing, and so

Nuf said!

I know someone who was involved in the Birmingham case, and it is for precisely such a reason that I wrote about requiring 100% certainty. But you have given these as instances of mistakes, what about when there is total certainty?

As for crimes other than homicide, there is a very strong case for the extension of the sentence, provided the same 100% standard of proof is met. Were I not to be in favour of having the Capital option, I would want a life sentence to mean exactly that.

I do think a great deal of public money is wasted on individuals who have shown no regard for the lives of others; in the case of a 'typical' murderer this will mean ~ fifteen years in prison, even with some time in a low cat' prison this will cost around £1m. I'm not fully up to date, but I doubt if things have changed greatly; take a look at the public compensation offered to those bereaved due to murder, when you bear in mind the cost of imprisonment for the offender, it will make most of you sick.

I'll save you some time, if a murdered man had a wife and two children they would, all together, receive well under £20k, that's less the 2% of the cost of keeping the killer in prison... food for thought.

 

[Muck Spreader]

I know someone who was involved in the Birmingham case, and it is for precisely such a reason that I wrote about requiring 100% certainty. But you have given these as instances of mistakes, what about when there is total certainty?

As for crimes other than homicide, there is a very strong case for the extension of the sentence, provided the same 100% standard of proof is met. Were I not to be in favour of having the Capital option, I would want a life sentence to mean exactly that.

I do think a great deal of public money is wasted on individuals who have shown no regard for the lives of others; in the case of a 'typical' murderer this will mean ~ fifteen years in prison, even with some time in a low cat' prison this will cost around £1m. I'm not fully up to date, but I doubt if things have changed greatly; take a look at the public compensation offered to those bereaved due to murder, when you bear in mind the cost of imprisonment for the offender, it will make most of you sick.

I'll save you some time, if a murdered man had a wife and two children they would, all together, receive well under £20k, that's less the 2% of the cost of keeping the killer in prison... food for thought.

I don't think there can ever be a 100% certainty, there always has to be some level of doubt by diminished responsibility, accidental homicide, coercive control, proxy murder etc that can always be brought into the equation. The death sentence IMO immediately removes a countries moral high-ground and is a somewhat cop-out option. But I do think life should be a very serious sentence and convicted murderers should be made to fully atone and face-up to their crime by whatever means necessary.

 

[franklin]

should the law be changed to allow the Courts the option of imposing the Capital sentence?

No. Some things are historical relics and need to stay there.

As in many cases, what the majority may think they want is for parliament to kick into the long grass.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ashtree]

I know someone who was involved in the Birmingham case, and it is for precisely such a reason that I wrote about requiring 100% certainty. But you have given these as instances of mistakes, what about when there is total certainty?

As for crimes other than homicide, there is a very strong case for the extension of the sentence, provided the same 100% standard of proof is met. Were I not to be in favour of having the Capital option, I would want a life sentence to mean exactly that.

I do think a great deal of public money is wasted on individuals who have shown no regard for the lives of others; in the case of a 'typical' murderer this will mean ~ fifteen years in prison, even with some time in a low cat' prison this will cost around £1m. I'm not fully up to date, but I doubt if things have changed greatly; take a look at the public compensation offered to those bereaved due to murder, when you bear in mind the cost of imprisonment for the offender, it will make most of you sick.

I'll save you some time, if a murdered man had a wife and two children they would, all together, receive well under £20k, that's less the 2% of the cost of keeping the killer in prison... food for thought.

You need to have much much higher aspirations for post Brexit Britain.
Really and truely bringing back the death penalty for Britain is the most unbritish thing I have ever heard on here. It’s a total anathema to British values. Shame on you.
And you accuse me of being anti British.

What the hell are some of you guys going to turn Britain into post Brexit.
A Singapore style low regulation low tax outpost, with capital punishment, feeding your children with chlorine chicken and antibiotic / hormone laced beef from God knows where!

 

[Danllan]

I don't think there can ever be a 100% certainty, there always has to be some level of doubt by diminished responsibility, accidental homicide, coercive control, proxy murder etc that can always be brought into the equation. The death sentence IMO immediately removes a countries moral high-ground and is a somewhat cop-out option. But I do think life should be a very serious sentence and convicted murderers should be made to fully atone and face-up to their crime by whatever means necessary.

Fair comment, but I disagree with your view on uncertainty, unless you infer that by definition someone that kills has diminished responsibility - that is an argument that has serious merit, but... most reasonable people nowadays accept that homosexuality is not an acquired 'perversion' but an inherent quality, hard-wired into people; what if, some time soon, neurological research can prove that paedophilia is too? Of course the matter of consent is all important here, children simply don't have the capacity to give it. But, in a defence, if a someone can show clear medical evidence that they are 'hard-wired' with paedophilic feelings, they would have a fair case for avoiding conviction, detention for medical reasons would be the probable alternative.

How can murderers fully atone, what could someone who killed your child ever do that would atone for their action?

No. Some things are historical relics and need to stay there.

As in many cases, what the majority may think they want is for parliament to kick into the long grass.

[/QUOTE]

You are clearly a fellow of sound undemocratic principal . Parliament is not sovereign, the people are; right or wrong, Parliament can't be allowed to ride roughshod over the will of the people, that is just too dangerous a path to go down.

You need to have much much higher aspirations for post Brexit Britain.
Really and truely bringing back the death penalty for Britain is the most unbritish thing I have ever heard on here. It’s a total anathema to British values. Shame on you.
And you accuse me of being anti British.

What the hell are some of you guys going to turn Britain into post Brexit.
A Singapore style low regulation low tax outpost, with capital punishment, feeding your children with chlorine chicken and antibiotic / hormone laced beef from God knows where!

Neurotic hysteria, virtue flagging, attributing unsaid words and priggishness, you've really out-done yourself . The question is whether we should do so and, as a democrat, I think that if most people want it, it should - with the caveats given - be brought back.

It is probable that there is a majority of the British people would vote for it to return if asked in a referendum, how very un-British of them, voting and expecting it to be respected... but then, the last time the Irish were asked more than a third wanted it, are they 'un-Irish', really, is every third person you pass in the street un-Irish?

Of course not, they just hold a different opinion to you; but you know best so the rest of us are un-whatever you think might sting a bit, prig.

 

[RagnarHairybreeks]

If you want to look at capital punishment in action in a (nominally) civilised society then look at the USA.

Because you have to have so many checks, balances, appeals etc. typically people sit on death row for at least a decade before execution. The trend is upward;

This time is hugely expensive: Not merely because the inmates are in solitary confinement (usually) so your housing and staffing costs are far higher than other prisoners, but also all those mandated appeals and court appearances attract lawyer and court time like maggots to a corpse.

Regardless of any moral issues any of us might have, if you look on it purely from a financial perspective, executing someone in a modern western society is just too damn expensive to make sense.

Surely easier (in the 110% no room for error guilty scenario described in the OP) to simply hand out a whole life term and provide a decent length of rope and a handy hook in the cell in case the prisoner doesn't want to burden society with the cost of keeping him.

 

[czechmate]

If you want to look at capital punishment in action in a (nominally) civilised society then look at the USA.

Because you have to have so many checks, balances, appeals etc. typically people sit on death row for at least a decade before execution. The trend is upward;

This time is hugely expensive: Not merely because the inmates are in solitary confinement (usually) so your housing and staffing costs are far higher than other prisoners, but also all those mandated appeals and court appearances attract lawyer and court time like maggots to a corpse.

Regardless of any moral issues any of us might have, if you look on it purely from a financial perspective, executing someone in a modern western society is just too damn expensive to make sense.

Surely easier (in the 110% no room for error guilty scenario described in the OP) to simply hand out a whole life term and provide a decent length of rope and a handy hook in the cell in case the prisoner doesn't want to burden society with the cost of keeping him.

I have often thought that last paragraph myself and it does seem obvious.
Or maybe, to reduce costs, some kind of "chain gang" could work for murderes?

I don't quite understand why @Danllan brings up his own kids?
If heaven forbid something like this happened to one of my three, killing the killer isn't going to bring them back and wanting to see them killed sort of smacks of wanting revenge? Kind of bringing you down to their level.

 

[Danllan]

I have often thought that last paragraph myself and it does seem obvious.
Or maybe, to reduce costs, some kind of "chain gang" could work for murderes?

I don't quite understand why @Danllan brings up his own kids?
If heaven forbid something like this happened to one of my three, killing the killer isn't going to bring them back and wanting to see them killed sort of smacks of wanting revenge? Kind of bringing you down to their level.

What is wrong with wanting revenge? No, nothing can bring back a murdered child, but I would have no problem in seeing the murderer dead. It is certainly not going 'down to their level', it would be following the rule of law.

I mentioned my children because they are the most precious lives to me, I don't think it unreasonable to believe that other parents feel similarly and, on that basis, I think it right for people to consider their own near relatives when discussing this matter - every victim is somebody's child.