Should capital punishment be brought back?

Originally Posted by downquark1

These are largely solved problems. You can put multiple charges to the jury, explain which the death penalty can be considered. It is then the judge who decides the punishment - with multiple levels of appeal.

It is of course always technically possible you kill an innocent person, but that is probably far less likely than getting murdered in prison at this point. The objections to it are largely hand wringing or some very committed pacifist principle.

The easiest way to make sure we don't kill an innocent person is to avoid the death penalty in the first place.

It's not cheaper, given all the appeals you would need to have and the circumstances in which it would both apply and reach a standard where you feel confident enough to give it as a sentence.

As the Americans have found, convictions aren't always are clear cut as they seem. Confessions can be forced or made by the mentally ill, eyewitnesses lie or misremember and you can find evidence was flawed decades on from the case.

Wikipedia has a list of exonerated death row inmates. These are people who would have been killed, or were killed, by the state for crimes they didn't commit. Innocent lives taken by the justice system. For nothing.

Thankfully, ours doesn't go into recent decades because we abolished it, although that is little comfort to those on that list who were killed.

Really, what do we gain in the end for the risk we would be introducing? Are there people whose crimes are so awful that they would be better off dead? Yes. But I don't think we or the state should have the power to make that decision.

No! The best decision was to do away with the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo

Not sure what your point is here ?
This conviction would not happen now, for the very reason it was overturned.

[papa smurf]

no

Originally Posted by Paul

Not sure what your point is here ?
This conviction would not happen now, for the very reason it was overturned.

The point is, in general terms, it’s a case that could easily have resulted in the death penalty had it been available, due to apparent confession evidence during questioning. The case was convicted without DNA evidence in 1987, and a rape/murder could still be convicted without DNA evidence today.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by downquark1

These are largely solved problems. You can put multiple charges to the jury, explain which the death penalty can be considered. It is then the judge who decides the punishment - with multiple levels of appeal.

It is of course always technically possible you kill an innocent person, but that is probably far less likely than getting murdered in prison at this point. The objections to it are largely hand wringing or some very committed pacifist principle.

Can you provide evidence to support your statements in your second paragraph ? I’ll wait

A consideration and a question for you

1. Does the death sentence act as deterrent to potential offenders ? (And yes obviously it does at an individual)

2. If it doesn’t then what would the reintroduction of the death penalty solve? Is it justice ? Or, is it as i believe more about vengeance

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Can you provide evidence to support your statements in your second paragraph ? I’ll wait

A consideration and a question for you

1. Does the death sentence act as deterrent to potential offenders ? (And yes obviously it does at an individual)

2. If it doesn’t then what would the reintroduction of the death penalty solve? Is it justice ? Or, is it as i believe more about vengeance

It would potentially act as a deterrent for people with certain psychologies but even if it doesn't you are then not forcing people to babysit a monster for the rest of their life.

It wouldn't be vengeance unless the crime was against me personally so I'm not sure how that is relevant. It would be justice yes, you can cite different conceptions of justice and this would be one of them. Also certain types of reoffending criminals are rarely reformable, this is information that can be considered during sentencing.

[Jaymoss]

One innocent executed is enough for me to never want to see capital punishment return . The guy just released after 38 years is a prime example of a miscarriage of justice and you can not trust the Police in its entirety to not fit someone up even today with DNA and the like so No No No No No

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by downquark1

It would potentially act as a deterrent for people with certain psychologies but even if it doesn't you are then not forcing people to babysit a monster for the rest of their life.

It wouldn't be vengeance unless the crime was against me personally so I'm not sure how that is relevant. It would be justice yes, you can cite different conceptions of justice and this would be one of them. Also certain types of reoffending criminals are rarely reformable, this is information that can be considered during sentencing.

I’ve read some claptrap (and I’ve authored my own considerable share) on here , but the above is right up there.

[downquark1]

Which part is claptrap? The part of multiple murderers not being reformable or the part about execution being a conception of justice?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo

Mr Sullivan became a suspect after witnesses reported seeing a man who they recognised as "Pete" running out of some bushes near the site of the fire.
During the course of the investigation Mr Sullivan gave conflicting accounts of his whereabouts and offered "confessions", the court heard.

Those were the reasons for the conviction. It wasn't based upon non-existent evidence on a random person.

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Can you provide evidence to support your statements in your second paragraph ? I’ll wait

A consideration and a question for you

1. Does the death sentence act as deterrent to potential offenders ? (And yes obviously it does at an individual)

2. If it doesn’t then what would the reintroduction of the death penalty solve? Is it justice ? Or, is it as i believe more about vengeance

Having laws, police forces, and prison doesn't act as a deterrent, so what does? Should all those be scrapped?

[Sephiroth]

Death penalty should not be brought back. But tougher regime for those who might otherwise have been hanged could be considered.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Death penalty should not be brought back. But tougher regime for those who might otherwise have been hanged could be considered.

"Human rights" lawyers would be all over any suggestion of a tougher regime.

Originally Posted by nomadking

"Human rights" lawyers would be all over any suggestion of a tougher regime.

You forgot the other shibboleths of "woke", "left-wing", & "tree-hugging"…

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Death penalty should not be brought back. But tougher regime for those who might otherwise have been hanged could be considered.

oo … ah .. oo .. ah .. that’s the sound of the men, workin’ on the chain ga-a-ang …