Death penalty in the UK, yes or no???

[secret_squirrel]

No. Because there is no such thing as 100% guilty - there is always room for doubt - and there is always a chance of redemption even for the most evil.

 

[tintin40]

no. I don't trust the police to catch the killer. Been to many cases of them lying etc to get a conviction. Not all cases are as clear cut as the Moors murders or the Yorkshire Ripper etc

 

[Mike Muz]

Life in prison, well they are not likely to have much chance for further activity. actually incarceration is a lot worse than you think, not being able to go out, meet mates, have a drink, or even just nip to the supermarket. You'll say this has no relevance but I was locked up for 4 and half months, OK in a psychiatric hospital, but I couldn't go anywhere, very little access to my family, about twice in that time did I see my children, no alcohol, no time outside, moving from one building to another had to be supervised, it was no better than prison and I hated it, believe me loosing your liberty for life is not a holiday by any stretch of the imagination.

And you say there are cases with no doubt, yes there are until that moment when some new evidence suddenly casts doubt on a seemingly cut and shut case.

Alison[/quote]
'Life' in this country means nothing but that , so is a contradictory term . However the family of a murder victim have the real life sentence of losing a loved one .

 

[Bpool77]

If someone in this country gets life it can mean just that. There release date is 99 years from date of arrest or conviction they get a recommendation they serve what ever the judge says minimum then it's up to the parole board to let them out if they see suitable. Also there are British prisoners serving full life terms ie rest of there natural life.

 

[Alison]

Life in prison, well they are not likely to have much chance for further activity. actually incarceration is a lot worse than you think, not being able to go out, meet mates, have a drink, or even just nip to the supermarket. You'll say this has no relevance but I was locked up for 4 and half months, OK in a psychiatric hospital, but I couldn't go anywhere, very little access to my family, about twice in that time did I see my children, no alcohol, no time outside, moving from one building to another had to be supervised, it was no better than prison and I hated it, believe me loosing your liberty for life is not a holiday by any stretch of the imagination.

And you say there are cases with no doubt, yes there are until that moment when some new evidence suddenly casts doubt on a seemingly cut and shut case.

Alison

'Life' in this country means nothing but that , so is a contradictory term . However the family of a murder victim have the real life sentence of losing a loved one .[/quote]

I accept people will have lost a loved one, and sad as it is I still think, if something is wrong you cannot justify committing the same offence be it legally and 2, as has been mentioned before, there is very rarely a 100% surety in any murder/manslaughter conviction and sometimes even the police have lied to get a conviction they believe to be true.

Alison

 

[Neil]

Thing is, the penal system isn't about retribution.

Civilisation is supposed to be about being better than savagery, and so should the justice system. I know some people will try and play the economics card in the whole thing, but that's really just an excuse.

Appropriate legal punishments should never be about appeasing the baying mob. As far as I'm concerned, Lady Justice should be wearing a blindfold.

 

[highlandsflyer]

TinTin and Alison made my points for me. Gandhi; an eye for an eye and all that..

 

[Chute55uk]

nope, they (kiddie fiddlers, murderers ect) should be paralysed from the neck down and kept alive, through IV fed by a machine so minimal cost and resources, kept in a plain room with nothing in it including light, lets see how the prospect of 30-40 years like that appeals to them.
killing is too good for them, look at shipman et-al, they preferred the death option to life behind bars, maybe my idea would deter them altogether.

 

[FluffyChicken]

We as a civilisation and country go after people to kill them in the name of defense or putting a country to rights. We call them wars a few quite recently, our people die, their people die, people on the sidlines get killed by accident.
Alison's son iirc will be part of that. We all pay for it in out taxes. So what's different about killing somebody for crimes in a death sentence? At least there only the criminals die.
?

 

[Neil]

We as a civilisation and country go after people to kill them in the name of defense or putting a country to rights. We call them wars a few quite recently, our people die, their people die, people on the sidlines get killed by accident.
Alison's son iirc will be part of that. We all pay for it in out taxes. So what's different about killing somebody for crimes in a death sentence? At least there only the criminals die.
?

The justice system isn't infallible. Punishments aren't there to serve feelings of anger and retribution / revenge in either the victims or other partisan parties.

War is different - but for most civilised countries, the Geneva convention still applies. Once combatants have been captured, it's not acceptable to just shoot them 'til they're very dead for expediency purposes.