Is the death penalty ever justified...
 

..just following on from another thread...do you think there is ever justification for the death penalty in the case of heinous crimes or do you think that 'two wrongs don't ever make a right'...?...

I don't think it is ever right. For a number of reasons:

Firstly, I do not believe the state should have power of life and death over its citizens.

Secondly, as no justice system is flawless, the potential for an innocent to be wrongfully convicted is always there and the death penalty is irreversible. There have been too many cases of miscarried justice in our and other countries for me to feel completely satisfied that justice would be done. Even with extensive appeals processes, as is the case in the US, there are still people being wrongfully convicted, then executed and then shown to be more than likely innocent. Each generation thinks it has the answer (lie detectors, then DNA evidence etc) and then the next generation discovers such certainty to be unsafe.

Justice is organised, mediated and applied by human beings with individual capabilities and prejudices. A poor defence lawyer, versus a very capable prosecution lawyer can result in a conviction despite innocence (and of course vice versa). Juries and judges can be swayed by their own assumptions and prejudices (without realising it) and this can lead to a different experience of justice depending on skin colour, gender, or economic status. The statistics on convictions certainly suggest this is still a very big problem. Both here and in the US, a black person is more likely to be convicted than a white person for the same crime, and the sentencing is likely to be harsher for a black person than a white person for the same crime once convicted.

Thirdly, no amount of horror or suffering meted out to the convicted will balance out what they have done. I would rather the state be better than the murdering swine. I would rather the state represent the best of what we are as humans, rather than mirror the worst of what we are.

I pretty much 100% agree...

Although, if I was ever in the situation where it was my loved one who had been heinously murdered, I think I would feel more closure if the person who caused me that much pain was no longer living and able to continue their life with the possibility of sometime being released.

I do worry about incorrect verdicts too and innocent people being executed

This is a really interesting documentary on the subject by Michael Portillo:

I don't have a problem with it. Sometimes it's the only way to deter the savages and bad people in society from doing wrong.

As a rule I do not agree with the Death Penalty but this crime in India has sparked moral outrage so to prevent riots in the streets and to send out a message to the masses I think this was the only sentence that would suffice...!!

When there is 100% proof of a pre meditated and heinous crime being commited then,yes ,it makes the world a safer place

No

If I committed an awful crime i'd WANT to get the death penalty. It's a quick, easy way out. Stick the murderers and the rapists in a high security prison for the rest of their lives... a much more deserving punishment.

My opinion is well known on this subject.

I don't think it is ever right and I think it's hypocritical. How can state sanctioned murder ever be justified? As a society we must be better than the criminals we punish and Death Sentences just lowers us to their level.

I am all for bringing it back. With conditions.
There should be none of this "reasonable doubt" rubbish, it has to be absolutely proven beyond doubt.
Hanging should not be an option, far too barbaric, a lethal injection to put them to sleep sounds much better.


Free up the jails from overcrowding, stop the taxpayer paying for their keep and maybe even prevent them doing it again.

I think with terrorists and extreme serial killers it is.

I watched this video once of a serial killer where this woman was interviewing him and he said 'I have no problem with killing. I see people as objects, not as human beings.' To which he was then asked if he'd kill again and he said 'Yes, without a doubt...'

I mean the chances of him ever getting out of prison were very very slim, but the thought that there's many more people out there like that... I'd rather not think about them being out in the open again.

Plus, as mentioned before, I prefer to look at things from the view of the victims families. If someone i loved was murdered. I'd want them dead. Simple as.

there are those who are mad and not bad....
The schizophrenics and psychopaths, you could argue that they had some form of diminished responsibility despite being 100% guilty.
For this reason I would say no.

I do get your point.
I really do believe in their cases we should open up the asylums and keep them there. In a warm hospital type environment..not the shackled at the ankles way that was portrayed in the old films.

I read the autobiography of a hangman once and far from being barbaric, if it is carried out correctly it is quick an painless as long as the neck is broken instantly and they are not left to be strangled.

I personally would prefer 23 hour lock up, hard labour and life meaning life I think...but as I said earlier should I ever have to absolute tragedy of someone I love being the victim, I very well may change my mind

...lol smudgie, I kind of think a lethal injection probably would prevent them from doing it again...

..not to make light of it though, it is one of those 'hypothetical' things whether people would feel differently if it was a heinous crime against a loved one..obviously no one would know exactly how they would feel in that situation...but I guess I'm of the thought that it would make me the wrong person to make a decision like that anyway because I couldn't possibly be objective and you would have to be to decide to take a human life...and I also think that with heinous crimes, people can't be 'of sound mind' to do that...

..but I do think that sentencing terms should mean just that and not be reduced like they are...

There are Rampton and Ashworth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-15891444

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23382682

..there is an article in the Daily Mail today and yeah, I know it's the Daily Mail...but it kind of sums up my feelings on the death penalty...

Beheaded in front of children, Assad's thugs are dragged to their doom and butchered like animals in some of the most brutal scenes to emerge from Syria's civil war

...the pictures are also pretty disturbing because of the young children watching....I can't imagine anyone not being horrified/disturbed to watch something like that, it's sickening...and yet, if it was done 'behind closed doors', by lethal injection etc...would that make the taking of a human life any more acceptable...because we don't have to watch this type of 'justice'...how can that ever be 'civilised'....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bloodbath.html

I thought this related to justice in the UK?
Not to acts of war, that is not the same thing at all.

..there is nothing in the thread title or OP that says this is specific to the UK...the death penalty is about the taking of a human life in the name of 'justice'....and the DM article as I referred to it was how barbaric/horrific the reality of doing something like this is....

Oh well if it's that all encompassing it's pointless trying to discuss it as there are too many variables.
As a yes or no question I say no.

And who decides if the proof is 100%? On what grounds?

There are very few cases in which the murderer stands over the corpse, bloody dagger in hand shouting 'it was me, I done the bastard'. Juries already convict on the basis of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Standards of evidence change. What seems 100% proof today may seem deeply flawed tomorrow.

We used to believe a confession was absolute proof. Then we figured out that if someone was threatening or hurting you at the time the confession was made that it might in fact be a false confession. Then on top of that we began to understand the more subtle ways in which false confessions could be wrought, and indeed the likelihood of certain mental conditions to produce false confessions.

It used to be thought that lie detectors were sufficient proof of deceit, but they've been pretty much discredited since. We think we've got it covered now, with our DNA evidence and super-duper forensics tech. Are we arrogant enough to think our era will be the first whose methods and assumptions won't seem flawed and inadequate to future generations?

Setting aside what constitutes evidence, how about the ways in which less definitive proofs are delivered and received in court? What may seem an innocuous detail when applied to a white defendant may add to an assumption of guilt when applied to a black defendant.

All of us, whether we like it or not, engage in a degree of 'profiling' in our day to day life. Humans shortcut, look for patterns and categorise.

What about the jury itself, made up of individuals, all with their own preconceived notions, fears and hangups. As much as anyone attempts to leave all that at the court door, it is impossible not to receive and understand the evidence presented through the prism of lived experience.

And then there are the component parts of the law enforcement and judicial systems themselves. The police have a vested interest in conviction. Time and again we see cases of mismanaged evidence, deliberate or accidental. We see evidence filtered through their desire for a conviction (witnesses not followed up, evidence kept back from the trial etc). Even before the desire for conviction, the process by which a suspect is identified may be deeply flawed.

Once into a trial, our system is adversarial. A battle between two sides. With a winner and loser. Some of those convictions will be because the right person was put on trial, but some will merely be because the prosecutor put up better fight. And vice versa, sometimes people walk away from court because they sweren't guilty, whilst others will walk away because the prosecutor didn't fight well enough.


There is no 100% certainty possible in most convictions. All we can do is build a system that is as robust as we can make it, and with enough safety nets in place to mitigate the inherent potential for individual harm.

I swing back and forwards with this issue, taking on lot's of views from others and also keeping an open mind of my own.
I will ignore involving war crimes because to me that is a whole separate issue, war crimes arise from the war atmosphere as much as for any other reason.
2 sections or more of peoples or countries locked in war with each other will be filled almost 100% with hate against the other and will almost inevitably open up cruel and brutal deaths taking place.

As for henious crimes against a person in a State where no war is the scenario,that's a different thing altogether in my opinion.
Taking someone's life or multiple lives for selfish or reasons even being unknown as to why do require strong punishments.
I have overall always been more against the death penalty than for it but I am really fed up of people who murder a child or children,rapists who murder several Women and others who go out in killing sprees getting to live some way their lives after totally destroying and removing the life of the person they have killed and causing also great trauma and massive grief to their loved ones left too.

I would want to see a criteria for the death penalty of a very large list of boxes that ALL had to be ticked for it ever to be carried out but I do believe some people should lose their right to life for how many lives they themselves have taken or the way too that they did take the life or lives they did too.

Presently we lock people up and that is the only punishment from the state they get, the loss of their freedom,maybe prison should be harder for those who commit such horrific and unnecessary murders.
I do though know I could be persuaded that some murderers, should warrant the death penalty.

100% certain is the hard one to get around definitely in the vast majority of cases of murder but it can be clearly the case, this year we have had a brutal murder of someone,unarmed and doing nothing wrong at all that was in all effect filmed.
There could be no doubt there at all.

It is not the States job to take life but it is the States duty to ensure lives are not taken by others from people just living their own lives.
If someone kills others then it should be an option that could be enacted,I would hope no one would ever get the death penalty but I would not bat an eyelid at it being used for the perpetrators of the murder I mentioned above.

It is barbaric,I agree with that but what defence do women have against rapists and children against those abusing them and then killing them too.
Those victims after losing their lives so brutally and unnecessarily have no futures and for me in certainly a minority cases,neither should their killers.

This is a subject I wrestle with a lot, how would I vote if there was a referendum as to the death penalty at least being an option again, with very strict and a very long criteria to be filled,I don't know.
I feel sure though I can be persuaded either way and no doubt will wrestle with this issue for all my life too.

Setting aside all my moral concerns as to whether the state has a right to kill: I do not trust the state enough to want it to have that power. I don't trust the police, the courts, the judges or the jury enough.

Even with a giant list of conditions to be met, I don't trust the legal system not to find a way to subvert or misapply that list.

Great post as usual Joey:wavey:I am a bit biased I know ,but I 100% see your points.

Nope.

People always want an impassioned punishment dealt to criminals. This is purely emotional and has no place in justice.