Should The Death Penalty Be Brought Back?

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

How many far right Mps do we have?

Openly? None.  But, seriously, I was thinking more in terms of the implications of a possible turnaround for the far right who support reinstating the death penalty.  It's more a case of 'what if' than 'what is'.

[Ontarian1981 10]

2 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

I think if there was a referendum on the death penalty, it would probably be 52/48 ish.

 

Then  3 years of arguing about it

And to add,

 

even if it was 99/1 in favour of death penalty,

 

parliament still wouldn't pass it these days (not these ones anyway) - one has to hope that neither the far-left or far-right gain a huge majority, or it will easily pass!

 They had a few votes on the death penalty in Parliament and it was always defeated easily. The last person hanged was in 1964, but according to Wiki hanging was still an available punishment in the UK  for treason or violent piracy, right up to 1998.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Ontarian1981

[danot 10]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

Just look at American murder rates. Capital punishment might satisfy blood just but its expensive and clearly does nothing to halt crime.

Perhaps the US don't use it as a deterrent. What if killing a lifer is simply the cheaper option?  In all honesty. I occasionally question the soundness of our(the UK) ethical conduct toward lifers whenever exceptional cases  shock the nation; the world even.  

15 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

 They had a few votes on the death penalty in Parliament and it was always defeated easily. The last person hanged was in 1964, but according to Wiki hanging was still an available punishment in the UK  for treason or violent piracy, right up to 1998.

Isn't there some old law that still stands which allows an Englishman to kill a Scotsman in York  or something?

 

Just checked. Yes, you're legally entitled to, but, you'll only get away with it in York providing  the Scotsman was carrying a bow and arrow.   Odd..

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by danot

[*_ash_* 88]

33 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

 They had a few votes on the death penalty in Parliament and it was always defeated easily. The last person hanged was in 1964, but according to Wiki hanging was still an available punishment in the UK  for treason or violent piracy, right up to 1998.

Yeah, it's unlikely to be re-instated on most of our lifetimes.

 

It's been discussed in here so many times, that this will probably end up in the megathread.

 

My view hasn't changed since I joined here, so no point repeating!

 

 

[K1Machine 10]

6 hours ago, danot said:

With the United Kingdom voting to leave the European union, our eventual departure will effectively release us from laws

prohibiting the restoration of capital punishment/the death penalty set by the European convention of human rights which is binding to all European  state members.  With this in mind,  and assuming the following happened, would you welcome or be opposed to any parliamentary bill that aimed to reinstate state the death penalty?  

We could bring back cutting the hands off thieves and witch trials whilst we are at it. Lets go the hole hog eh?

[Ontarian1981 10]

20 hours ago, danot said:

Perhaps the US don't use it as a deterrent. What if killing a lifer is simply the cheaper option?  In all honesty. I occasionally question the soundness of our(the UK) ethical conduct toward lifers whenever exceptional cases  shock the nation; the world even.  

Isn't there some old law that still stands which allows an Englishman to kill a Scotsman in York  or something?

 

Just checked. Yes, you're legally entitled to, but, you'll only get away with it in York providing  the Scotsman was carrying a bow and arrow.   Odd..

 

 It's odd now, but that was probably due to Edward II losing at Bannockburn and he put up these laws to marshall the people of York about William Wallace's supposed intention to invade York, which was then ,the monarch's northern stronghold. That law must have stayed on the books since the early 14th century, I guess lol.

 

7

8

8

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Ontarian1981

[danot 10]

2 hours ago, K1Machine said:

We could bring back cutting the hands off thieves and witch trials whilst we are at it. Lets go the hole hog eh?

No one is suggesting that. But, it does strike me as odd how our so called "civilised society" spends millions a year on safeguarding the lives of sadistic killers  serving life sentences while the lives of innocent, critically ill patients hang in the balance due to life saving treatment being too expensive, resulting in family and friends having to raise funds on their behalf.  Why not reverse it- we could safeguard the lives of more patients with the money we save by leaving the fate of lifers in the hands of fund raisers?  Same principle really.

Edited February 27, 2019 by danot

[Cyclone 10]

38 minutes ago, danot said:

No one is suggesting that. But, it does strike me as odd how our so called "civilised society" spends millions a year on safeguarding the lives of sadistic killers  serving life sentences while the lives of innocent, critically ill patients hang in the balance due to life saving treatment being too expensive, resulting in family and friends having to raise funds on their behalf.  Why not reverse it- we could safeguard the lives of more patients with the money we save by leaving the fate of lifers in the hands of fund raisers?  Same principle really.

You want prisons to be run by fundraising?  Or perhaps I don't understand, what are the millions spent on safeguard the lives of "sadistic killers"?

 

This was in the news yesterday

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/24/innocent-california-man-served-39-years-jail-murder-awarded/

 

Luckily for him California didn't apply the death penalty.  He still spent 39 years, over half his life incarcerated, but at least he has now been freed and compensated.  You can't free and compensate a dead man.

6 hours ago, danot said:

Perhaps the US don't use it as a deterrent. What if killing a lifer is simply the cheaper option?  In all honesty. I occasionally question the soundness of our(the UK) ethical conduct toward lifers whenever exceptional cases  shock the nation; the world even.  

Isn't there some old law that still stands which allows an Englishman to kill a Scotsman in York  or something?

 

Just checked. Yes, you're legally entitled to, but, you'll only get away with it in York providing  the Scotsman was carrying a bow and arrow.   Odd..

 

 

You won't "get away with it".  Modern law supersedes ancient curiosities of law like that.

 

And how can you argue that any sentence "isn't a deterrent".  How do you "not use" a sentence as a deterrent?  That makes no sense at all.

The US system demonstrates the cost of execution, it's very, very high.  It also demonstrates that it's entirely ineffective as a means of preventing or reducing crime.  It's only purpose is to serve as revenge.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Cyclone

[danot 10]

15 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You want prisons to be run by fundraising?  Or perhaps I don't understand, what are the millions spent on safeguard the lives of "sadistic killers"?

 

This was in the news yesterday

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/24/innocent-california-man-served-39-years-jail-murder-awarded/

 

Luckily for him California didn't apply the death penalty.  He still spent 39 years, over half his life incarcerated, but at least he has now been freed and compensated.  You can't free and compensate a dead man.

You won't "get away with it".  Modern law supersedes ancient curiosities of law like that.

 

And how can you argue that any sentence "isn't a deterrent".  How do you "not use" a sentence as a deterrent?  That makes no sense at all.

The US system demonstrates the cost of execution, it's very, very high.  It also demonstrates that it's entirely ineffective as a means of preventing or reducing crime.  It's only purpose is to serve as revenge.

This specific case has no bearing on lifers (in the UK) whose guilt is beyond doubt.  And no, I'm not suggesting prisons are funded by fundraising at all. That's not what I wrote Cyclone.

[Halibut 12]

4 minutes ago, danot said:

This specific case has no bearing on lifers (in the UK) whose guilt is beyond doubt.  And no, I'm not suggesting prisons are funded by fundraising at all. That's not what I wrote Cyclone.

Behave - what are people supposed to infer from the phrase ''leaving the fate of lifers in the hands of fund raisers'' if not that you think prisons should be financed by fundraising?

[danot 10]

2 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Behave - what are people supposed to infer from the phrase ''leaving the fate of lifers in the hands of fund raisers'' if not that you think prisons should be financed by fundraising?

You behave. I specifically said "The fate of lifers", not the fate of the general prison population or the funding of prison. 

 

I know it's early Halibut but you'll need to get up ealier than this to trip me up.

 

[Halibut 12]

5 minutes ago, danot said:

You behave. I specifically said "The fate of lifers", not the fate of the general prison population or the funding of prison. 

 

I know it's early Halibut but you'll need to get up ealier than this to trip me up.

 

So explain how you think that idea would work then.

1 hour ago, danot said:

No one is suggesting that. But, it does strike me as odd how our so called "civilised society" spends millions a year on safeguarding the lives of sadistic killers  serving life sentences while the lives of innocent, critically ill patients hang in the balance due to life saving treatment being too expensive, resulting in family and friends having to raise funds on their behalf.  Why not reverse it- we could safeguard the lives of more patients with the money we save by leaving the fate of lifers in the hands of fund raisers?  Same principle really.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Funding for healthcare isn't limited by the funding of the prison service. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Halibut