Reinstating the death penalty in the UK?

yes but only incases where their is 100% proof like witnesses to a murder , not on flimsy trials with poor experst, yes i would agree that the death penalty should be re-introduced, but apperently we cannot ever do it , as tony blair signed something saying we couldnt , think we would have to leave the eu to do it , so its a win win situation.

also the death penalty has a 100% success rate, noone has ever commited a crime after being killed by state .

bring it on.

9 years for them sick bassards is a disgrace

No the Death penalty has been COMPLETELY abolished in the United Kingdom in line with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 which proscribes in law that every person, every person is entitled to the right to life, criminals included. The death penalty for capital offences of murder, as opposed to non capital offences was abolished under the Homicide Act 1957. The death penalty continued to be a possible sentance for piracy on the high seas endangering life, arson in Her Majesty's Dockyards and High Treason against the Crown, until 1998 when the Human Rights Act came into force. That being cleared up, I don't think the death penalty should be re-instated at all in the United Kingdom. It is an abhorrent, archaic and useless tool in the armoury of the judiciary. Far too many miscarriages of justice, vested interests and failings in DNA evidence. DNA evidence is not a silver bullet in proving guilt in murder cases or rapes or cases of child molestation. Scientists and Forensic examiners, Scenes of Crimes Officers accept that scenes can become contaminated, cross contaminated and that DNA evidence is fallible.

My 'thoughts on this' are very complex and probably boring.

However you asked for them, so here they are!

Your theory smacks of the Old Testament!

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

I am anti religion (all and any religion) so leaving religion on one side and looking at the facts .

Although I am anti all religion I am still a fellow human?

If some one near and dear to me was 'done away with' in the manner you described my first thoughts of course would be revenge.

It's a natural instinct, then if I was right or wrong I would be subject to the same punishment!

But I was provoked ? Does that matter? I bashed the fellers head in with a base ball bat!

So I was a mental case at the time I was bashing, does that matter?

Should that be take into account?

If perhaps I could look back in time and find proof that punishment should fit the crime actually stopped the crime being committed then I would be inclined to agree with your point .

I cant find any such evidence, so to my simple mind it wouldn't solve the problem, if the question was designed to discover if revenge was satisfied, then yes it would be.

As an athiest I would have no religious qualms about the base ball bat cure, but that wouldnt make me right would it?

OK thats what I think , not a lot of help is it?

Take a look at the experience of the USA with the death penalty where the crime rate is worse than in the UK. The death penalty hasn't been effective in preventing or reducing crime and it risks executing innocent people. Is it worth taking on this system??

Risks of executing innocent people-

124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent 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 states that don’t.

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

Death penalty costs. The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start mounting up before trial, continue through the uniquely complicated trial in death penalty cases (actually 2 separate stages, one to decide if the defendant is guilty and the second to choose the sentence), and appeals.

The death penalty doesn't apply to people with money. Its not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. 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 across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Yes! The cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is thousands per week, the jails are over crowded and people who should be in jail are being tagged and released and are commiting more crimes. There is no deterent in the British judicial system for any criminal, let alone murderers. Executing all murderers would free up much needed prison spaces and provide a deterent to other would be criminals. Instead of them geting thier wrists slapped & being sent home they could be jailed in place of the murderers.

I don't agree that they should be killed by the same means they subjected thier victims to though. After all, who are you going to get to carry out the sentance? The relatives? What if they are Christians and they forgive the killer? What if they have not got the stomach for it? No, They'd have to be another Pierrepoint (I think that's his name, might be wrong tho'.) to do it on behalf of the state. Getting an executioner to pull a lever, flick a switch or 'jack' up a con is one thing, but I doubt the executioner would be as willing to stab the villian 36 times before decapitating him and dissolving half the remains in acid and feeding the other half to pigs. I just would not work.

Even better, make it a pay per view event. Why not? Let the income go to the grieving familys' and to pay for all the other costs incured in the trial. Why should the public foot the bill when there is a way to recoup the money spent.

No. We should never reinstate the death penalty. While my conviction is sorely tested by cases like this, there are too many mistakes made.

Sally Clark, Angela Canning, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko, Peter Fell and numerous others might have hanged had that sentence been available. Yet all were released after their convictions were found unsafe.

It's no good saying only hang where the case is solid. All the above were convicted by juries, guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, of crimes they did not commit. They can at least be partially compensated for years in prison, there's no putting right a death sentence.

The case of Tahla Ikram did not, in any case, result in a murder conviction. Both parties blamed each other for the child's injuries and there was no way to be certain who was responsible for the child's injuries. They were convicted of "causing or allowing death". Would you hang both parties, to make sure?

In theory, yes, the death penalty is the solution to preventing horrific crimes.

In reality, absolutely no. As Susan explains, it just doesn't work. It's expensive, drawn out, inconsistent and ineffective.

It may stop murderers from re-offending, but it simply doesn't work as a deterrent, and that's what we need to focus on.

Perhaps in a very few cases. I think the entire justice system needs an overhaul. It seems ludicrous to me that you get a longer sentence for money embezzlement than you do murder or child abuse. I think the punishment in prison should be more than currently ie no TV/cable and other luxuries along with enforced work to help serve the country and repay their debts to society.

For crimes that get very short sentences, eg mugging and assaulting an elderly victim the perpetrator should be made to make/do something whilst imprisoned that raises money - a cut of that money should go to a relevant charity, eg help the aged and the perpetrator should be made to have contact and involvement with the charity.

If, and only if, the death penalty would be reinstated, then the ones killing the murderers would be murderers as well, and what would we do to those murderers? kill them as well? it's all a bad cycle, and therefore, I would say, no it wouldn't be good to bring back the death penalty; in any country what so ever. Put them in a crappy jail instead, and make them realize what kind of wrong they have done!

Totally agree with you if it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they have carried out brutal and savage murders...and especially in cases such as the one you mentioned...then there is only one real solution and that is to extinguish the threat!!