The Death Penalty

[Gembo]

Do you support the death penalty?

When I was younger and first learnt about it I thought it was awful and was strongly against it. As I got older there were some crimes I heard about that I thought justified it. Now I’m a bit on the fence and not really sure. I think at most it should only be used when there is absolutely no doubt around guilt and the defendant has committed awful crime(s) and shows no remorse at all. I’m thinking the really evil monsters that would definitely reoffend if released and contribute nothing to society.

I just wondered what other people think?

 

[Belulah]

I always think of this case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

 

[Gembo]

I always think of this case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

We learnt about this at school in drama (we had to create a play around it) and I don’t believe someone should be executed if they didn’t commit the actual murder. But again, for me it would have to be a case by case thing. If they were part of a gang that robbed a bank and someone was shot dead but they didn’t pull the trigger, I don’t think they should be executed. But if there was a gang who kidnapped and tortured someone then shot them to death, I think possibly the ones who also just did the torture should also be executed. It’s a really thought provoking topic, for me anyway, I don’t find it black and white I think there are a lot of grey areas.

 

[Libertine1975]

I don't support the Death Penalty at all. There are a lot of cases where the wrong people have been convicted of crimes they haven't committed.

The US has a terrible appeal systems so it is very hard to overturn a conviction. I would recommend people watch the film Just Mercy which shows real life cases worked on by Bryan Stevenson.

I'm not religious but I do believe that an eye for an eye the whole world would be blind.

 

[Pinkblush]

For crimes against children yes, but the beyond reasonable doubt rule would have to apply.

 

[Belulah]

We learnt about this at school in drama (we had to create a play around it) and I don’t believe someone should be executed if they didn’t commit the actual murder. But again, for me it would have to be a case by case thing. If they were part of a gang that robbed a bank and someone was shot dead but they didn’t pull the trigger, I don’t think they should be executed. But if there was a gang who kidnapped and tortured someone then shot them to death, I think possibly the ones who also just did the torture should also be executed. It’s a really thought provoking topic, for me anyway, I don’t find it black and white I think there are a lot of grey areas.

We studied it at uni. Looking at linguistics. The whole criminal enterprise thing seems a crazy thing to execute someone on to me. I’ve seen a lot of death row documentaries were people are on there for seemingly being in the proximity- obviously there could be a lot moee to it than what is covered in the docs.

 

[mcfeez]

If even one innocent person is executed, the whole system is broken. The justice system is too full of holes to have such severe consequences.

As for "extreme circumstances" - too difficult to define in terms of the law. How would one define extreme?

For crimes against children yes, but the beyond reasonable doubt rule would have to apply.

Doesnt beyond reasonable doubt always apply? You cant reach a guilty verdict without it.

 

[Pinkblush]

If even one innocent person is executed, the whole system is broken. The justice system is too full of holes to have such severe consequences.

As for "extreme circumstances" - too difficult to define in terms of the law. How would one define extreme?



Doesnt beyond reasonable doubt always apply? You cant reach a guilty verdict without it.

No. People do time based on circumstantial evdience. There the no body ever found cases where people have been put away.

I don't think we operate beyond reasonable doubt properly anyway, not under the current justice system. The jury vote, that is not beyond reasonable doubt. If the death penalty were reintroduced then the justice system would have to be reviewed to consider other aspects.

 

[mcfeez]

No. People do time based on circumstantial evdience. There the no body ever found cases where people have been put away.

Some juries do reach a guilty verdict, beyond all reasonable doubt, with only circumstantial evidence though.

Would you propose then that only cases with direct evidence then i.e. eye witnesses to the crime, be allowed to be considered for death penalty then? All other cases, like those built heavily on circumstantial evidence, could only lead to life sentences, severe jail time etc.?

 

[Pinkblush]

Some juries do reach a guilty verdict, beyond all reasonable doubt, with only circumstantial evidence though.

Would you propose then that only cases with direct evidence then i.e. eye witnesses to the crime, be allowed to be considered for death penalty then? All other cases, like those built heavily on circumstantial evidence, could only lead to life sentences, severe jail time etc.?

Beyond reasonable doubt, for example the cctv footage showing lee rigby being murdered and no question who by. I know there were supposedly mental health issues involved but that too would need thoroughly examining and not just accepting the push by the defence.

 

[imnotarobot]

Do I believe in the death penalty? Hard. No.

Do I think the system is a broken one? Yes. Do I know how to fix it? Not a clue.

 

[What's your point]

I used to believe in the death penalty when I was younger and didn't think things through as much.

These days I am not so sure, I certainly think some people dont deserve to breath the same air as the rest of us (Ian Huntley, Rose West, Mark Bridger and many others). And I wouldnt give a crap if they were dead.

Even though it is getting increasingly more difficult for the wrong person to be found guilty due to advances in forensics etc... so miscarriages of justice should be less frequent i think any risk of executing the wrong person is too much of a risk to take.

I do think anyone found guilty of murder and some other crimes should get a whole life tariff though and not be able to get out in 20 years time.

I am not going to criticise the US and other countries where executions do take place because the scum that commit the crimes know the likely punishment and still do the crime anyway so more fool them.

I also dont think it works out cheaper to execute someone because they spend years (decades) on death row and then the legal cost of appeal after appeal against the death penalty is so high. Would probably be cheaper to just keep them in prison for life so economically the death penalty makes little sense.

Fear of 13 is an excellent documentary on Netflix about a death row prisoner. I wont spoil the outcome for those that have not watched it but it is really good.

 

[SavvyBee]

I think on a personal level, it’s the right thing to do in a relatively small number of cases where crimes are especially heinous, there’s an admission or irrefutable evidence and no chance of rehabilitation. I don’t see why the state spends money keeping absolute monsters with no remorse in better conditions and comfort than many of our ex service people or pensioners.

That all said, I believe it is too divisive an issue and would potentially skew jury verdicts. I believe that there is great potential for a juror who was very against the death penalty to find a person not guilty because they didn’t agree with the potential sentence they’d get. I also frequently despair at the level of intelligence of the average person so again I’m not sure that the average juror is equipped to make a life or death decision but I think its open to abuse of those decisions are made elsewhere within the justice system, so for the most part I agree with us not having it even though there are some vile animals that are much deserving of death.

 

[What's your point]

I think on a personal level, it’s the right thing to do in a relatively small number of cases where crimes are especially heinous, there’s an admission or irrefutable evidence and no chance of rehabilitation. I don’t see why the state spends money keeping absolute monsters with no remorse in better conditions and comfort than many of our ex service people or pensioners.

That all said, I believe it is too divisive an issue and would potentially skew jury verdicts. I believe that there is great potential for a juror who was very against the death penalty to find a person not guilty because they didn’t agree with the potential sentence they’d get. I also frequently despair at the level of intelligence of the average person so again I’m not sure that the average juror is equipped to make a life or death decision but I think its open to abuse of those decisions are made elsewhere within the justice system, so for the most part I agree with us not having it even though there are some vile animals that are much deserving of death.

I agree with this I actually think there would be some benefit to professional jurors that would at least understand the forensics and the legal process.

 

[265]

A woman was recently executed in the USA, her crime involved a baby, I was pleased to hear she got the needle.

I'm all for the Death Penalty, especially when it comes to crimes involving children.

I do understand that there are people on death row who might be innocent which is why the likes of Kim Kardashain
are getting involved in preventing executing a possible innocent man. The science has to be bulletproof for anyone
to be executed.

 

[Rippedjeanmaybe]

I’m kind of on the fence. In some tough prisons, I think being there, especially for people who’ve committed crimes against children and are at risk of abuse themselves, would be worse than death. Death does in some ways allow them to slip away from it all, although I know it takes years and years before they’re executed.

Although, I do remember when I watched the Gabriel Fernandez trials on Netflix. I do fully believe both of the monsters (his mum and mum’s boyfriend) would have deserved the death penalty as I don’t believe either of them should ever breathe air again.

 

[Rockin' Robin]

It depends on the crime. Ian Brady should have been executed.

 

[The King in the North]

It costs too much to have the death penalty. Look at America, almost three million dollars. It doesn't stop people from committing crimes, why bother using it?

 

[Gym&Tonic]

No, and not just because of miscarriages of justice. For a lot of killers dying would be too good for them. Let them suffer in prison.

 

[black ripped skinnies]

I've voted in extreme circumstances, but genuinely unsure although I used to strongly believe in it when I was younger. The Derek Bentley case makes me pause, but then I think some people just do not deserve to live when they've committed such horrific crimes.

Husband was telling me he read there was a country that used to (or still does?) Execute by gunshot immediately after a guilty verdict, and then the bill the family for the cost of the bullet/executioners But he can't remember where he read it, what country, and whether he's getting confused between real life or a fiction book So if anybody knows what he might be on about, and can explain it to me better please feel free to reply/message me as it's going to get on his/my nerves!