UK Death Penalty - would you like it returned?

That's an interesting answer, if it were me I wouldn't want to spend life behind bars and I'd take the euthanasia option - if I accepted and knew I was guilty.

It costs £120,000 a year to keep someone in prison I believe. £millions over 30 years. I'm not sure I'm comfortable that my taxes are being spent keeping the worst of the worst criminals warm and fed for the rest of their lives either

I’m not sleeping well just now, and in the small hours typed out a long reply saying the same sort of thing NotSpaghetti. I didn’t post it as it wasn’t about the death penalty and because I was going round in circles.

I am not in favour of harsh punishments, but equally I believe that we should reward, rather than penalise, those who do the right thing. I think a lot of the problems we face (as a society) are because those who do what is expected see those who don’t get more. That applies to benefits, pensions, education, work etc, and people have had enough.

Why go to work in a low-paid unrewarding job if your neighbour has more money for staying at home? Why pay into a pension if that just lifts you out of being able to claim thousands of pounds more per year than if you hadn’t? Why struggle through school when there are special initiatives for those who opt out? Why obey the law if criminals get an education and work training that you were denied?

I believe that resentment of all of the above are pushing people towards extremism - there is no social contract any more, and as we’ve seen, politicians who claim to offer one seem attractive to those who don’t ask questions about the terms and conditions attached.

I don’t know the answers, and I am not advocating for making prisons harsher, but somehow we need to reset things to reward the average bod who just wants to do the right thing, but feels taken for a ride by those who contribute nothing but take out most.

I’m not expressing myself well (no sleep) as I realise this sounds like I want to be draconian and I really don’t. I absolutely support help for those who need it, but not for those who just want a free ride or to be excused the inconvenience of having to do things that someone else has to do for them. I hope that is clear from my post.

I suppose this is the problem, Doodledog, if we don't put our hands in our pockets for offenders to be educated and rehabilitated they will have nothing skill-wise to help them reform.

The "revolving door", in my opinion, is specifically because we don't invest in our prisons.

In "my day" there were people released unable to read and write inspite of being ready to learn - they repeatedly missed their lessons because there wasn't a prison officer able to walk them from the cell to the classroom.

I had this clarified from a prison governor.

It's not about the death penalty but I do believe that offenders need help at once before things escalate "next time".

You are right though Doodledog - it mustn't be at the detriment of honest people "on the outside".

I would pay more tax to benefit both groups.

I would pay for someone to sort out that conundrum across the board 😀.

As a student I had a summer job in a careers office in the 80s when unemployment was very high and YTS schemes massaged the figures. Some schemes were more attractive than others, obviously, and there was a constant stream of young people wanting to get onto the ones that might get them a real job at the end (bearing in mind that applicants were all those who left school early with no qualifications).

There was a fast-track lane for those with criminal records or who had been expelled from school, in order to avoid the risk of their taking to a life of crime.

Who could argue that this wasn’t a good idea? The ‘bad lads’ needed help and nobody wants to see crime figures rising. But the average Joe, who had tried his best at school but was never going to be academic was totally sidelined. The ones with qualifications got real jobs if they were lucky. The ones who got into trouble were helped, and the law-abiding kids who would once have got apprenticeships or unskilled but honest work were thrown to the wolves.

We are reaping that harvest now, I think.

infoman

I think it should be available,but for cast iron cases,
not circumstantial cases.

I think most murders are not intentionally and the murderers are known to the person who was murdered

If hanging was available,I think this would reduce the amount of murders with the perpetrators knowing that they could face the death penalty.

Infoman I think you contradicted yourself there. If most murders are not intentional, but done on the spur of the moment "accidentally", in a fit of rage or when a beating goes further than they meant it to, then the perpetrator would not be deterred by the thought that they could face the death penalty. There would be no logical thoughts of consequences in his/her mind, just red rage.

I don’t think that anyone can be expected to decide whether someone else acted with malice aforethought, as a crime of passion or for any other reason. Splitting hairs, or tempering justice with mercy - all of these caveats are abhorrent when it comes down to whether we (and executions were done in the name of us all) should take or spare the life of another.

I say yes…..yes for child abuse murderers, yes for elderly abusers, yes for terrorists. Only with 100% evidence. I’m sick of people getting suspended sentences for things that they would’ve been given a life sentence before…..today’s justice shows that life is now very cheap.

Give me one example of someone having been given a suspended sentence instead of a life sentence.

Was thinking that too Barleyfields!

No to the return of the death penalty.

No. What an idiotic question.

NotSpaghetti

I suppose this is the problem, Doodledog, if we don't put our hands in our pockets for offenders to be educated and rehabilitated they will have nothing skill-wise to help them reform.

The "revolving door", in my opinion, is specifically because we don't invest in our prisons.

In "my day" there were people released unable to read and write inspite of being ready to learn - they repeatedly missed their lessons because there wasn't a prison officer able to walk them from the cell to the classroom.

I had this clarified from a prison governor.

It's not about the death penalty but I do believe that offenders need help at once before things escalate "next time".

You are right though Doodledog - it mustn't be at the detriment of honest people "on the outside".

I would pay more tax to benefit both groups.

doodlebug
NotSpahetti

Great posts from both of you.

I feel your frustration and agree with most both of have said.

wibblywobblywobblebottom

No. What an idiotic question.

Bit rude, and it’s not idiotic and if you think it is why bother answering!

Absolutely not, even if the murderer admitted the crime. If it is wrong to kill another person, which it obviously is, then why would it be the right of the state to commit murder?

For those who say it is a deterrent, I think many studies have shown that it is not.

Oh the last thing I would do would be to put animal abusers together with animals, supervised or not. That is very unfair to the animals. To me , it's like putting elder abusers to work in residential care homes with vulnerable people. Not right at all.

They could always be thrown into a lions’ den at feeding time. Too quick a death though.

Yes - in a few certain cases where guilt is 100% proven.

I used to be against the death penalty because I thought that a person couldn't repent what they had done if they were dead - however it is clear that some people are beyond evil and would never feel regret for their wrongdoing - so they might as well be gone - maybe it would act as a deterrent as well.

Yes, I totally agree with Desdemona if the DNA shows 100% guilty.

When I read some of the horrific crimes recently in the news of children and young women being horrendously tortured, terrorised and murdered. I do think that these perpetrators do not deserve a life. They themselves have taken a life or lives, for that reason should they be entitled to human rights?
We should consider the cost to keeping murderers in prison which is a huge cost to us all, coupled with the fact they shout about their human rights. I think we need a much tougher system in many areas where lives have been taken; drunk driving where other road users have been killed, terrorists etc. life sentence should mean life.

Pudding123

Yes, I totally agree with Desdemona if the DNA shows 100% guilty.

Even DNA evidence is not infallible.
Other evidence is required too.

I am not in favour of the death penalty although I am in favour of longer sentences for serious crime.

I think our justice system needs a complete overhaul. The legal profession these days is more about how much money can be made from a case rather than who is guilty or not guilty and money talks!
There are a few cases where the death penalty might be appropriate - I still have nightmares about that poor little girl being beaten to death by her father). I don't think I'd worry to much about keeping him alive or safe.
I also think that anyone in our prisons who is not a British national should be deported.
Criminals who are convicted of stealing or financial embezzlement etc should have all their assets seized (including any that have been sqirrelled away in the accounts of relatives or offshore banks) and after the insurers have been repaid for their outlay, other monies should be used to improve emergency services - police fire ambulance/NHS.

Jannipans, people convicted of fraud do have their assets seized, usually. Problems arise when there are none left due to the fraudsters having spent the money on holidays etc.
We are not able to access off shore accounts. It's why criminals set them up!

Jannipans Solicitors and barristers working on the majority of criminal cases do not earn huge amounts of money, though wealthy defendants can, I believe, afford to pay for a high profile solicitors practice and a barrister who has a particularly good record of winning their cases.

Generally speaking, though, criminal matters are not great money earners. The big money earners are large legal practices and barristers who deal mainly with corporate and tax matters.