Should the death penalty be re-introduced in the United Kingdom?

[.Joshua.]

Should the death penalty be re-introduced in the United Kingdom?



In Britain, loads and loads of people always vote 'Yes' for the Death Penalty, but you can tell more vote 'No.
When it goes through Parliament, the answer is always no from them, regardless on what the Public think.

Do you think people should be killed for serious crimes what have loads of evidence to say its that person? Including crimes such as Murder, Rape/Sexual assault and Terrorism?

As you know, Life doesn't mean life in some cases in prisons. People like Yasin Hassan Omar (who plotted to blow up the London underground in 2005, following the July the 7th Bombings that year) he was only sentenced to forty years imprisonment for plotting to kill hundreds, maybe thousands?

Do you think the hanging should be bought back to Britain? Why do you think this?
Do you not think the hanging should be bought back to Britain? Why do you think this?



Quote From My Friend

I don't like death penalty or 'eye for an eye' because it just doesn't seem like a good 'punishment' enough for those who commit serious crimes it feels like they don't suffer enough for their crime, because it's just a quick way to get rid of them? And it must be horrible if you get the death penalty treatment even though you really isn't guilty

[the.games]

I personally think that the death penalty SHOULD NOT be brought back to the United Kingdom. This is because, in my opinion, no person on earth has the right to end somebody's life, and countries that still have the death penalty often have silly laws to go with it.

A example of this is that most countries that still have the death penalty also actively enforce laws against homosexuality (such as life sentences or the death penalty for people found to be homosexual.

Tbe death penalty was widely used in the medeval times, and this is where it belongs.

[.Joshua.]

I think it should be re-introduced, as long as there is no way the person is innocent. It will also deter a lot of people from committing crimes.

[Cerys]

I think it honestly depends.
If they kill like, 20 people, then yes. They deserve it. But then again, isn't staying in jail for the rest of your life more suffering than dying?
But keeping people in jail costs money - taxpayers money, if I'm correct?

It's just a big loop of bring it back and don't bring it back.

To be fair, the whole justice system or whatever is all messed up.

[Fifty-Six]

I think it should be re-introduced, as long as there is no way the person is innocent. It will also deter a lot of people from committing crimes.

But there is still always the possibility of a mistake. Arguably criminology techniques and scientific methods of proving guilt have advanced incredibly in the last few decades (ie. DNA testing), there is always the possibility of mistake. Is it worth it to take that risk? And what happens if it turns out that somebody was sentenced to death whilst being innocent all along? Then the government is sued, lawsuits erupt, and end up losing more money than it would have cost to house them in a prison for 50 years.

I don't think the death penalties a viable option for punishment.

[.Joshua.]

But there is still always the possibility of a mistake. Arguably criminology techniques and scientific methods of proving guilt have advanced incredibly in the last few decades (ie. DNA testing), there is always the possibility of mistake. Is it worth it to take that risk? And what happens if it turns out that somebody was sentenced to death whilst being innocent all along? Then the government is sued, lawsuits erupt, and end up losing more money than it would have cost to house them in a prison for 50 years.

I don't think the death penalties a viable option for punishment.

Good Point.

[,Abbey]

I agree with a few of the comments here in the fact that if they did the most awful crime they should be killed.

However, surely it is morally wrong to kill people. Its also kinda hypocritical say if the criminal was charged with murder and then they murdered him back (the death penalty).

So I think it should be and shouldn't be.

[Kardan]

Personally I vote no, and even if it was introduced, it wouldn't be death by hanging, that's for sure.

[GommeInc]

Personally I vote no, and even if it was introduced, it wouldn't be death by hanging, that's for sure.
It probably wouldn't be used if it was reintroduced either. Loads of countries formally have the death penalty, but just don't use - either because of cost, as a way of putting people off the idea of committing anything that has the death penalty or because the country is too lazy to remove it :P

I would vote no. I don't really see how it works as a punishment. It seems to appear bi-annually on here :P

[Matthew]

I'd vote no. I'd rather someone rots in prison for life than gets a 'quick release' tbh!

[Lewis]

I want it back. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

As much as I prefer for them to rot in prison, a lot of people live better lives in prison lmao. Its so stupid...

[shiver]

just bring it in
get rid of these idiots who are in n out of prison all the time, if u cant function relatively normally in society then what need is there for u hun.

the law is a JOKE. it needs to be tougher it is an effective way of stopping crime. these days it is just a slap on the wrist n off most people go again to the next crime.

[iBlueBox]

I want it back. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

As much as I prefer for them to rot in prison, a lot of people live better lives in prison lmao. Its so stupid...


How about 'Thou shall not kill'.

I've got mixed views on this, we did this in Ethics & Philosophy.

[Pegle]

In Philosophy and Ethics a few weeks ago we watched a program about the most humane method of death for the death penalty. It was using a chamber were you forget your about to die and just die of Hypoxia.

I don't mind what we have, but the law needs to be tougher either way.

[Lewis]

How about 'Thou shall not kill'.

I've got mixed views on this, we did this in Ethics & Philosophy.

Thou shall not kill is a rule, and once this rule is broken a new rule comes into place for this person. An eye for an eye.

[Plod]

No.

- Revenge =/= Justice

- DNA evidence isn't perfect. It only tells who was at the scene of a crime, not necessarily who committed it. Whenever there's a chance of accidentally executing an innocent person who can't be brought back to life, the risk is not just worth it.

- Can give "martyr" status to certain criminals and terrorists and thus escalate the problem.

- Killing people is wrong, yet we should kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

- The convicted criminal may be the lowest scumbag on earth but in most cases they still have loved ones. Mums, dads, siblings, wives/husbands, children.. killing them doesn't just "punish" them, it punishes their family for life. Is this fair?

- In a civilised society with all the correct checks and balances in place (such as the right to appeal) it works out more expensive than life imprisonment.

- IMO, I would rather be swiftly executed than spend the rest of my natural life in prison spending 23 hours a day in a cell (Cat A prisons are this strict) and being vulnerable to getting my head smashed in or my eyes cut out or being scalded or whatever just for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. Go figure. Ignore the ******** you read in the Daily Mail about "holiday camps" and how expensive prison places are. This isn't because they're full of luxaries - which only well behaved prisoners on enhanced get btw and usually thats only things like second hand PlayStations or old TVs or curtains and it can be easily taken away, but it's because of the amount of security needed to maintain a prisoner and (as much as some people may not like this) keep them from harming themselves or others. But like I said, even so, this works out cheaper than executing them. Go figure.

[Ardemax]

In my eyes the death penalty is "revenge" rather than "justice". But what the heck, to save the prolonged arguments, the death penalty is a lot cheaper and should be an option for the worst of the worst kind of criminals.

[Fuseless]

I want it back. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

As much as I prefer for them to rot in prison, a lot of people live better lives in prison lmao. Its so stupid...

Couldn't of put it better myself.
And with the advances in science in recent years, chances of putting someone on death row for a crime they have not committed are a lot slimmer then they use to be.

[GommeInc]

In my eyes the death penalty is "revenge" rather than "justice". But what the heck, to save the prolonged arguments, the death penalty is a lot cheaper and should be an option for the worst of the worst kind of criminals.
Technically it's more expensive. In this country with just imprisonment as the most severe punishment, the case is "shelved", but if you're on death row the case is constantly being investigated to achieve the goal of beyond doubt that the individual is guilty - not forgetting the assessments and checks to whatever equipment is being used to make sure it's done painlessly and quickly, police time involve, constant badgering of witnesses and family and the continual assessment of the court. Not forgetting those on death row won't be killed immediately, they spend ages locked away before it actually happens.

If prisons were harsher, with very limited amenities and basic entertainment, it would be a lot cheaper than the death penalty especially if they were for actual life imprisonment. But unfortunately our prison system is a bit too luxurious for its own good, making it expensive to run, and repeat offenders will keep committing crimes because it's better to be inside than out. Let us not forget that most repeat offenders are imprisoned for crimes that will never warrant the death penalty, unless you want to kill people who have committed theft and burglary - which completely destroys "an eye for an eye" and turns it more into "an eye for a toe nail" in comparison.

[Plod]

If prisons were harsher, with very limited amenities and basic entertainment, it would be a lot cheaper than the death penalty especially if they were for actual life imprisonment. But unfortunately our prison system is a bit too luxurious for its own good, making it expensive to run, and repeat offenders will keep committing crimes because it's better to be inside than out. Let us not forget that most repeat offenders are imprisoned for crimes that will never warrant the death penalty, unless you want to kill people who have committed theft and burglary - which completely destroys "an eye for an eye" and turns it more into "an eye for a toe nail" in comparison.

Sorry to veer off-topic, but....

1. Imprisonment already is cheaper than the death penalty.

2. All prisons are different, and catagorised to reflect this. A-Cat and B-Cat prisons hold the (theoretically) most dangerous prisoners and have the highest security measures in place. Security is the No. 1 reason why it costs so much to house prisoners, not because they're some kind of holiday camps which you are trying to infer and have no evidence to back up. Also, A-Cat and B-Cat prisons have considerably less luxuries and privileges than C-Cat and Open Prisons which are actually cheaper to run.

3. Repeat offenders end up back in a life of crime because our rehabilitation system, to be frank, is ****e. Prisons are chronically underfunded and understaffed, which has an adverse effect on education and work programmes which in some prisons have been cut. There's also the issue that education classes in prisons receive less allowance than prison work, such as cleaners, so there's little incentive to bother. Another issue is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the CRB system which shows no mercy. In this country you can't be prevented from a wide range of jobs for simply having an investigation run on you by the police, even if it results in no charge, it is still a black mark on your record which can be legally disclosed. People with petty records are never given the chance to have their records forgotten, more jobs these days require a standard or enhanced CRB check where convictions always have to be disclosed, even if they are 20 years old and spent.

So, logically, repeat offenders may decide they want to go on the straight and narrow, but when they quickly learn they cannot even get a menial job and have to rely on state handouts, many go back into crime to supplement their income. Not because they enjoy prison. The only ones that "enjoy" prison are the ones that have been locked up for so long (30+ years) that they're institutionalised beyond repair and are only comfortable with prison discipline, this would be true even if prisons resembled the Shawshank Penitentiary in Shawshank Redemption. Exact same reason why some people can't cope living out of the military or a psychiatric hospital after being in so long and end up homeless or/and committing suicide or in another institution (there's a shocking number of ex-forces veterans now in prison).

BTW I don't say this to "feel sorry" for people in prison, but it's not hard to see that our entire system needs an overhaul. Personally I think we should look to emulate countries like Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands rather than what we have now, or worse, the USA.

There's quite a few books/studies on the subject, I suggest Jeffrey Archer's Prison Diaries. They might be 10 years old now, but there's a few insightful home truths and facts in those.

[ISniffCheese]

I think it should be brought back if the person being executed has caused mass damage to one+ people.

[GommeInc]

Sorry to veer off-topic, but....

1. Imprisonment already is cheaper than the death penalty.

2. All prisons are different, and catagorised to reflect this. A-Cat and B-Cat prisons hold the (theoretically) most dangerous prisoners and have the highest security measures in place. Security is the No. 1 reason why it costs so much to house prisoners, not because they're some kind of holiday camps which you are trying to infer and have no evidence to back up. Also, A-Cat and B-Cat prisons have considerably less luxuries and privileges than C-Cat and Open Prisons which are actually cheaper to run.

3. Repeat offenders end up back in a life of crime because our rehabilitation system, to be frank, is ****e. Prisons are chronically underfunded and understaffed, which has an adverse effect on education and work programmes which in some prisons have been cut. There's also the issue that education classes in prisons receive less allowance than prison work, such as cleaners, so there's little incentive to bother. Another issue is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the CRB system which shows no mercy. In this country you can't be prevented from a wide range of jobs for simply having an investigation run on you by the police, even if it results in no charge, it is still a black mark on your record which can be legally disclosed. People with petty records are never given the chance to have their records forgotten, more jobs these days require a standard or enhanced CRB check where convictions always have to be disclosed, even if they are 20 years old and spent.

So, logically, repeat offenders may decide they want to go on the straight and narrow, but when they quickly learn they cannot even get a menial job and have to rely on state handouts, many go back into crime to supplement their income. Not because they enjoy prison. The only ones that "enjoy" prison are the ones that have been locked up for so long (30+ years) that they're institutionalised beyond repair and are only comfortable with prison discipline, this would be true even if prisons resembled the Shawshank Penitentiary in Shawshank Redemption. Exact same reason why some people can't cope living out of the military or a psychiatric hospital after being in so long and end up homeless or/and committing suicide or in another institution (there's a shocking number of ex-forces veterans now in prison).

BTW I don't say this to "feel sorry" for people in prison, but it's not hard to see that our entire system needs an overhaul. Personally I think we should look to emulate countries like Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands rather than what we have now, or worse, the USA.

There's quite a few books/studies on the subject, I suggest Jeffrey Archer's Prison Diaries. They might be 10 years old now, but there's a few insightful home truths and facts in those.
1. Hence why I said it would be a lot cheaper :P Do you have a source to go with your comment that it is already cheaper? I've been trying to find a reliable source within the last few years but can never come across any. It would be most useful :)

2. According to jim Dawkins. we do seem to have quite a luxurious prison system compared to others across the globe. He isan ex-prison guard who wrote the book "The Loose Screw", and wrote about his time in prison and found that luxuries seem useless when prisoners do not have a use for them -arguing they can cause bullying in the prison system and a hierarchy of who has the best stuff. A-Cat to C-Cat prisons shouldn't really have a need for them, and would cost quite a lot of expense, arguably focusing on what's really important - getting them rehabilitated in a neutral, empty environment. He compares it to Queen Victoria delaying the opening of Wandsworth Prison because she did not see why inmates needed toilets which were seen as a luxury item (a bed pan would of been fine, and was a custom- times were obviously different). He also discusses bullying which is seen as a huge problem with rehabilitation, even from prison officers, which I'm sure you're aware of?.

3. Agreed, our rehabilitation system isn't all that great. They've brought in some measures, such as meeting the victims face to face in cases which involve burglary, which apparently has helped but there's been no conclusive evidence and it is only being tried in one of the Midlands counties while other counties seem to have them write to their victums. So,e prisoners just do it because it's something to do (there was an interesting programme and a few studies not so long ago). Did you hear or read that there is the idea of shipping them off to the Netherlands/Denmark? I think it is covered by an EU directive but I've never properly read in to it - it could just be a rumour built upon the overcrowding issue.

[andoo89]

no for the simple reason of a - miscahrige of justice. an innocent person being convicted of a crime they didn't commit. does happen.

[Foregetfuhl]

I've always been one of those people stuck in the middle. My mum is very adamant that it should be brought in, but only if the family members of the victim are allowed to inflict the death penalty upon the murderer or rapist or whatever it may be. However.. I'm kind of in two minds after studying law for the past two years..

When you get things such as evidence or factors etc. it doesn't necessarily prove that someone actually committed the murder. It could be for a number of reasons there DNA is there.. The amount of cases we have looked at in Uni where people who have been sent down for murders etc. when they aren't actually guilty is absurd. But then again there are soo many people who actually get away with what they have done. I think that if someone kills someone and it is a proven fact that they have and they admit to it they deserve everything that's coming to them. But you need to be careful as you could kill someone who is innocent of the crime.

I think that the prison conditions don't help. They get three square meals a day, there basic human rights are still enforced. How someone who has committed a crime like that can still be allowed his human rights is beyond me. You get these people sitting watching television, playing video games, going outside playing football and doing whatever the hell they want in their cells. Why should they live their live in prison with all these things, when some people don't even have them. And another thing, why do they deserve to be released after ten years of whatever when they have taken the life of someone. Life should be life. Not Five-Fifteen years.

There are benefits to the death penalty but there are also implications which is why it is so hard to decide and come to a definite conclusion.

[Wig44.]

Wrongful imprisonment is one thing, wrongful execution is far worse. On that basis alone it shouldn't ever be reinstated.

[Mentor]

Hell no. Despite what batman claims "to defeat darkness you must become darkness", thats a totally daft way to look at the world. To steal from R D Hunters act, its the same as say "To defeat obesity, you must first become obese".

If we want to wipe out murder, making the entire population of the UK be a party to state mandated murder is NOT the way to go.

Killing simply results in more killing.

[santa-my-nana]

I personally believe that it should never ever be brought back to the UK. No matter what crime a person has done it is never OK to be just like them and kill them. All human life is precious and yes if they have done wrong say by murder they have done wrong but that gives someone no right to murder them back (its the eye for and eye concept and its highly wrong and outdated, just like sexism and homophobic is outdated)

I vote no