Should the death penalty be introduced back to the UK?

[Lee]

I've heard every possible argument against the reintroduction of the death penalty, with the most significant (in my opinion) and commonly stated being:

1. There is a possibility of executing the wrongly accused.
2. It does not act as a detterent.

I believe that certainity that the accused have committed the crime should be the main factor in a judges verdict, piecing together conclusive evidence (which can include CCTV footage and so on in the modern world) in order to come to a certain conclusion (possibly meaning the number of death penalties issued would be small as it may be rare to be 100% certain in a lot of cases).

In terms of deterrence, I don't see that as a valid argument at all, unless of course it was shown that it heightened crime rates and statistics. Some people may say it is just a form of revenge and the human life should be valued, but in my opinion this is justified when people commit horrible crimes. It would also saves money in terms of keeping life offenders in prison, not only feeding them but the luxuries they get nowadays.

Crimes I believe that should possibly result in the death penalty are; adult and child murder, sexual assault, unprovoked (provoked being judged as acceptable or not) serious assault, paedophilia, kidnap and other along these lines.

What are your opinions?

 

[susan s]

Its a good idea to first take a look at the death penalty system in action in the US, where murder rates are higher.

The death penalty isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people. (By the way, we have life without parole in most states.)

The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.

Who gets it:
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. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??

Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

It comes down to whether the death penalty should be reinstated for the sake of the only two purposes its serves: retribution and revenge.

 

[Braindead Brainiac]

It has been suggested that certainty of death, if convicted, could raise the violence and tenacity of crime. Thus a pedophile molests a child, then panics and says,"I have to keep this kid quiet! Or I'm dead!" What happens next? Use your morbid imagination. Or consider the possibility that because of certainty of death, a greater number of crimes go unreported. Then, as a convict which he/she would rather do: Death penalty or life in prison. Most convicts will jump on the death penalty. People like you have not a clue what it's like to be in prison. I'm a U.S. citizen, and I fight the death penalty every time I get the chance. It's barbaric and absurd.

 

[Marlene]

it is a deterrent. i have never heard of any one who as been hanged, been charged with another crime

 

[stabilis]

My opinion concurs 100% with yours

 

[Louisville Slugger]

Yes it should be brought back, current system is joke.

 

[Shark Fergusson]

Life in prison actually costs less money than death penalty.

 

[Quizzard]

A number of studies HAVE shown that death penalties result in increased violent crime. The logic behind that is, if you have committed a murder and know you face the death penalty, why would you ever give yourself up without a fight.

Meanwhile not a SINGLE valid scientific study has ever shown a REDUCTION in crime or even murder through the use of a death penalty. Most murders are of two types. The first, and largest, consists of crimes of passion. In the heat of the moment, someone pulls a knife or a gun, or hits someone on the head with an iron pipe. The question of consequences does not come up.

The second major type of murder is premeditated murder, planned murder. Anyone who plans a murder is convinced that they can get away with it. Whether the penalty is life in prison or death the murderer does not believe they will be caught, so does not consider the consequences.

A death penalty does NOT save money. Again, every scientific look at the statistics says it cost FAR more to prosecute and carry out a death penalty case. The reason is that the legal costs (paid by the state (the Crown in the UK) are 2-3 times as high even for the original trial, plus (if we are to assume your 100% level) the appeal process, which takes years, often decades.

I'll leave aside your 100% certainty, because it just never happens.

 

[Elana]

Nope.

Indeed, I think the punishment system, as much as it might make the victims and society "feel" better has shown statistically to be far worse at rehabilitation and deterring crimes than other more progressive methods.

Certainly the death penalty seems to have exactly the reverse effect of what you want in the US.

 

[goneoffline]

Considering your recent deadly riots, absolutely.