Would I have a problem in pulling the lever on someone who had, with premeditation, raped and strangled a little girl? If there is irrefutable evidence, no problem whatsoever. The jury reluctance applies to cases where there is only circumstantial evidence. I don't think these are fit for the death penalty anyway. It does mean, I accept, that the number of cases for the death penalty will be small, but it will still act as a deterrent imo. I'm certainly not saying it's a deterrent in every case. But it would be in some, and that would save innocent lives We had the death penalty until the mid 1960's without an armed police force. I don't see that would change. An offender doesn't know whether or not his case would be seen as fit for the death penalty. As I say, most cases would not. And of course, armed police are used now to arrest dangerous offenders. Those that went in for Dale Cregan were carrying more than truncheons
Odie, your totalitarian mindset can’t get past the fact that it’s not the government that chooses who’d go to the gallows. It’s a proper legal process, evidence, jury, defence, appeal and all points in between. Any government should be nowhere near the execution (deliberate) of such things. Yes, I would be prepared to execute those that have passed through such a process and sentenced accordingly. I’m sure you’re correct that certain criminal types would be hardened to the law, but they’re already right here and among us. Personally, I’d like them got rid of, not locked up for 20 years before some Namby takes pity on their physical or mental health and determines to set them free. There’s no such opportunity for their victims.
We are not only talking about people who strangle little girls Goldie - we are talking about anyone who your government has said deserves to die. As the public executioner you have no say in the matter. You have it in your appointment book that eg. Fred Smith should be dispatched into the next World at 10.00 and that is the end of the story - you do not know him, and have nothing against him personally. Your only concern is in doing the job - you didn't make the laws, or decide who deserves this and who doesn't - there is no emotion there whatsoever. Do you realize that you have institutionally dehumanized someone in the process, through creating this 'job' ? During World War 2 my father served on a firing squad in North Africa - he didn't know who he was shooting at because the victim was behind a white sheet - in order to pep people up for doing this kind of work they were doped. We know that Montgomery issued 100,000 amphetamine pills prior to El Alamein - my father has since confirmed this. In order to get soldiers into the state of killing strangers for a living we drug them up to the eye balls, discipline them into zombies, and progressively dehumanize them. But this is, at least, against someone who is trying to kill you. But the executioner's job is to dispatch a stranger who is strapped to a chair (or bed or something else) who your government says deserves to die - whether you think he does or not is beside the point. Do you want to create such an institutionalized monster ?
It is the government which would choose the range of offences for which the death penalty could come into effect Uber - the dirty work would, I acknowledge be done by others.
I would bring it part in a heartbeat that would solve knife crime overnight An eye for an eye Taking a life if proven through a violent act shouldn’t mean a few years and vast amounts of tax payers money
You have such a jaundiced view of government, Odie, which I share in part. It's only a matter of time before government gives in to Big Dope and legalises recreational use of a range of dangerous drugs. I won't be surprised to hear that you support such a move.
One more time. If the death penalty was restored it would be through a democratically elected parliament. Of course, we can blah blah blah about FPTP here if you wish. All the government can do is restore the ultimate penalty for certain types of offences, it cannot impose this sentence on whosoever it chooses - that's the job of the legal system. Even if a jury returns a unanimous guilty verdict on some lowlife for some heinous crime, it is the job of the judge to then determine whether the felon is deserving of the death sentence or not.
The judge determines within a range of possible sentences - he determines according to the legal facts of the case and according to legal precedent, not on whether he likes the face of the accused or not. You say that a restoration of the death penalty would be through a democratically elected government - so the sentence would then be dependent on the constellation in the house of commons at the time of the crime, rather than on the crime itself. Under one government it would be ok. but not under the next ? Maybe it would be good to examine why some countries have the death penalty and others don't - but there are none which have abolished it but then gone back. We are not fundamentally disagreeing here Uber, because both of us want to live on safe streets. What is important is the certainty of punishment, and not the severity of it. It makes absolutely no difference what sentences you have if you only have a police clear up rate of 20% or so. We also need to make sure that our prisons actually fulfill their function of returning people back to society in a reformed way, and through then being able to rehabilitate ex cons back into society. What is especially problematic in the UK. is the rate of recidivism, which is much higher than in many other countries.
It's not government that makes the decision - parliament legislates to give courts the option. And as I say, there would have to be a higher burden of proof for the death penalty. Some people are suited to the work. Some wouldn't want to work in an abattoir Some are fine with it. Murderers get lethal injections in the US. I've never heard it made monsters of those giving the injection.
Far more eloquently put than my lazy description, but what I meant (as I suspect you know) The death penalty is a serious thing and shouldn't be introduced nor applied lightly. As we both know, it will never happen. The House would never agree to it and (I suspect) public opposition, though possibly not a majority position, would be vocal. Perhaps we should have a referendum on it? As for your Government du Jour point, that's the nature of things - one government introduces legislation, the next one repeals it. One government might take the country to war, another may have immediately sued for peace. If your argument is that a 100% guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt) piece of multiple child-murdering sputum (as an example) might swing under one government, but rot in prison (or be released after X number of years) under another then, yes, that's always a possibility. Is that harsh on the sputum that hangs? Not in my view... it's lenient on those that don't. Fair point - I wonder what the relevant crime rates and prison populations are for those countries? Would politicians even admit they'd got it wrong? Hmmm, difficult one for me. I would have a huge problem returning certain criminals back into society - Kenneth Noye is a recent example. Is it the prisons' sole function to "return people back to society in a reformed way"? Not all rehabilitation, surely? Punishment too? What if someone is beyond rehabilitation, or the severity of their crime is just too gruesome to ignore? I not only want to be safe on the streets, I want to ensure that those people that don't make the streets safe (in the most heinous way) are never given the chance to return to them. An interesting point here: I understand the reluctance to send an innocent person to the gallows, but what about taking the risk of returning a dangerous crim to society? How often have we heard about serious crimes being perpetrated by individuals given early release from the slammer despite the severity of their original offence? That's a big risk too, innit?
I would say that prisons have two functions - the rehabilitation function, and separating dangerous people from society for as long as they are dangerous. As for punishment - the taking away of liberty is enough in itself, we don't need chain gangs as well. With all due respect the majority of people in prison are not dangerous, not beyond redemption, and will return one day to the World outside mostly still of working age. If they are returning to the same conditions they left, and have additional problems gaining meaningfull employment, then all the conditions are there for a return to their criminal ways. Such a vast number of prisoners are short term ones and a year's imprisonment is not enough time to reform someone, yet is long enough to ruin their life - in that they have probably lost homes, jobs, partners in the meantime. We have to find alternatives for these short term sentences so that prisons can concentrate upon the hard cases. I wouldn't say that it is the sole function to ''return people back to society in a reformed way'' - but it is the main one for most prisoners. We have to ask why so many ex cons return to prison within a year of having left - we can only presume that the time spent there was wasted.
The majority of people in prisons are drug addicts. Rehabilitation is non existent, it's just a means to an end.
