Death penalty in britian?

Bill A

A very topical, thought provoking & split viewed subject.

My own view is - Yes, I am all for Capital Punishment.. too many serial criminals knowingly commit a crime nowadays with the assurance that if caught the punishment will fall short of the crime.

For me unprovoked murder & any type of rape should carry the death penalty... Murder is taking someones life - so why should this person live their's ?

Rape is in a way taking something from someone - more or less their self-respect, pride etc.

The last act of CP was over 45 years ago - since then the advances in science & criminology ie DNA more or less guarantee a suspect is the culprit & a miscarriage of justice highly unlikely. Therefore, former arguements for the defence of penal servitude incase of the wrong person being convicted can gradually be eliminated & the CORRECT punishment applied.

As a tax payer - why should we pay large sums of collective money to provide evil, senseless & mindless villians with a luxury lifestyle inside 4 walls with all modcoms - why why why ?

You will always get your do-gooders that come out with lame excuses or & on behalf of the criminals - well I am srry but if you do the crime well then do the time - in this case if you do a crime forget the banger - get ready face the HANGER !!

or ... do a rape or murder if you dare
then get ready for the electric chair

JUSTICE FOR THE RIGHTEOUS !!!!

Northern Lad

Dodgy subject.
I don`t believe in capital punishment, but I do believe that a "life" sentence should be exactly as it says "LIFE!"
In the case of the death penalty being proved by DNA. Even DNA is not 100% foolproof.
And I would hate to be the person that has to inform the relative of the wrongly executed person, that the Law made a mistake and handed out the death penalty to an innocent man/women.

Sophie

Absolutely not, this is a civilised country. You needn't kid yourself it will act as a deterrent anyway: some of the most violent countries in the world have the death penalty, it's massively expensive and an abhorrence to any intelligent person.

heritage b

An eye for an eye, while sounding right means you only stoop down to their level. I would prefer for the criminals to have long, hard prison sentences with hard labour for example. Prisons should not have TV, radio and computer access for instance. Prison should be tough. The UK will never go back to capital or corporal punishment its to middle ages.

Susan S

First take a look at the experience of the US with the death penalty. Many of us realize that you don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid terrible punishments for terrible crimes to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime, to look at alternatives and to think about the risks of executing innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. To deter others a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that donâ€™t.

We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Chillingly, 127 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, canâ€™t guarantee we wonâ€™t execute innocent people.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Paul D

You can debate this as much as you like, the death penalty has been abolished and will stay abolished, no matter what people want.

Vic Split

Bring it back. No government is brave enough to tho. Would need a strong campaign and leader.

J-J Adams

The last hangings in Britain took place on the same day in August 1964, one in Liverpool jail and the other in Manchester, of two armed robbers who killed someone during a burglary. The reason hanging was abolished was because too many innocents were hanged. E.g. Derek Bentley or Timothy Evans. DNA wouldn't necessarily have helped in either case because Bentley was convicted by police officers who lied and Evans was convicted because he was framed by his landlord. Neither of them could read or write properly so they were unable to defend themselves particularly well. They have both been pardoned now but it's a bit too late isn't it?

Becci

I don't think it is for a human to judge whether another human should live or die (hence murder being wrong) so I don't think it should be brought back. Also, there is always the risk of executing the wrong person - it happens!

warly

i don't think it will be brought back but believe it should be brought back for certain crimes where there is unreasonable doubt

rand1812

It won't happen but personally i like the idea of Casino Royale get (in this case) proven killers , paedo's and drug dealers .Let them all loose on a small uninhabited island (about 3 miles by 2) like one of the Shetlands/Hebridies give them different weapons , tag them with explosives ,last one left alive wins a pardon ,those that don't fight get blown up remotely , this would save money , free up prison places and if turned into reality television would pay for itself . Once someone had been through it they would probably learn their lesson and not re-offend.

Jason W

Those 3 pieces of scum had admitted, to the offence, hang them if they are not old enough, keep them until their are

colin -why?

Ruth Ellis was executed in 1956.
Britain abolished the death penalty under a labour government.
Now with the advantage of DNA---lets bring it back---minimum age 17, same as the age of a man/woman can sign up to the military for

rainydaze

I fully support it! Its such a controversial subject, I know.
But if a murderer is convicted without a doubt to his or her guilt, then I believe it is just punishment.
I think of the victims family and God forbid my own.

pooled08

Every country in the world-Britian, the US, whatever-should have the death penalty reserved for first degree criminals. here's why:

-it serves due justice (the punishment fits the crime), and serving due justice is the NO.1 job of a court of law (preventing crime is NOT their job)
-it shows that we are tough on crime
-it gets bang for the taxpayers buck
-criminals given the DP have a 0% recidivism rate
-It holds people responcible for the horrible content of their character. This fulfills what MLKJ always wanted: judge not by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character. The characterof these criminals warrants death
-It holds the criminal responcible for his actions
-appeals and **** aside, it's cheaper then prison
-it decreases the prison population, which saves even more taxpayers money
-Because the death penalty is the punishment given by a neutrel judge, there is no vengance in it. Therefore, there is no moral objection to be had with the death penalty.
-The death penalty defends human rights by establishing a mentality that "we will not tolerate any violation of any innocent person's human right's

crazeygrazey

Hang'em. Flog'em. Shoot'em. That's what I say!

honestguymids1

It should be brought back, as other people have mentioned in this post about the advances of DNA.
I can see the point of veiw from the person who had recommended the death penalty for anyone aged 17 or over, but in the eyes of the law, children 14 and over are classed as adults and can be tried in an adult court... so my personal opinion would be for the age of 14, when clearly a 14 year old should know the difference between right and wrong.
It would also act as a deterrant to any vicious murder.

Stinkbug B

I think it should be reserved for people that kill others for like 10 pounds, a robbery at a fast food place and they kill all the employees, just cold heartless random murders

racey-pacey

It's done in USA, why not here. If there is absolutely no doubt, hang 'em. The murderers have taken a life (or maybe even more) - take theirs. I'm all for it. Paedophiles should also be hanged or put to sleep. Rapists also. They have ABSOLUTELY no right to kill anyone or hurt others. They kill and continue their lives. The people who are the victimes have to try and piece their lives together and continue with life. This country is too easy going on sentencing - life means life, not 10-12 years. I hope it does happen and the sooner the better. A short prison sentence is no deterrant to the thugs.

Sally Noir

I say an eye for an eye!

If you kill someone you have no human rights whatsoever

Johnny

They should bring it back

susie x â™¥â™¥â™¥

I personally think it would be a good idea to bring it back but it wont happen as there are too many do gooders here.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: