SIGN UP

Should The Death Penalty Be Reintroduced In Uk?

Avatar Image
willbewhatiwill | 08:35 Sun 30th Jul 2017 | Law
108 Answers
I believe death penalty should not be reintroduced, as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is as effective against murder as death penalty because:
• It is possible that death penalty can be carried on a prison who actually did not commit the crime.
• A desperate murderer may try to avoid arrest by committing more murder to save himself/herself from facing the death penalty.
• life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder.

As a person who has done a conversion course in Law for graduates (LLDip), I know that the intention (mens rea) for murder, under English Law, is ‘malice aforethought’ & the fixed penalty for murder is fixed at statutory live imprisonment. The medical condition of the victim is not an excuse to murder in Law – as the perpetrator ‘takes the victim as he found him’ (i.e. in good or poor health), hence a terminally ill person can be murdered.

There are different degrees of killing of a human being – from mercy killing, accident, self-defence, negligence, diminished responsibility, provocation, insanity, intentional killing to evil killing in aggravated circumstances. Hence the penalty for causing the death of a human being can range from community service (like ‘mercy killing’, genuine accidental death) to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Answers

81 to 100 of 108rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Avatar Image
I would be against the reintroduction of the death penalty, mainly because I am not confident that convictions are reliable, but also because there is no evidence that it is the deterrent we might think it is. Furthermore, if it was reintroduced we would no doubt end up with a situation like America where condemned people would be on death row for years while...
21:51 Sun 30th Jul 2017
Question Author
bhg481 stated, “If you're defining "beyond the pale" as "not usual decent/accepted human behaviour", then I'll agree”

Of course I know from the very beginning that a contract killer is mercenary (can be desperate though), not necessary confused and/or mad.
Society doesn't accept any crime. That's why we have law.
Question Author
Zacs-Master stated, "Society doesn't accept ANY crime. That's why we have law".

I would not generalise as you did - as some crimes are more unacceptable than others.
any crime is unacceptable.
Question Author
albaqwerty,

Surely, crimes like driving without MOT is generally less tabooed by society than murder.
Ah now your introducing layers of acceptability. If something is unlawful, it is because it is unacceptable to society whether it be driving without insurance or murder.
Quire right willbe, hence the difference in punishment.

It's also the case that a deed has to be accepted as a crime by the majority of people, so statutes can be changed and crimes added or removed. eg, homosexuality is no longer a crime bu using a mobile phone whilst driving is.
“Everyone who listen to (or read) the news will know that lifers are often released (on parole licence for life) after about 12 years in prison. This is not ‘rocket science’ or profound information.”

Why don’t you read what people have written?

You are explaining something that I made out in my earlier post and that is the precise nature of my point. (In fact you are slightly wrong – the average time spent behind bars for a “Lifer” is about 17 years, give or take, but no matter). In your question, among many other deep and meaningful things, you said this:

“I believe death penalty should not be reintroduced, as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is as effective against murder as death penalty”

That may well be the case. But you neglected to add that only around 1% of murderers receive a “Whole Life” sentence (i.e. the “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” that you mention). The vast majority are released before their death, some considerably in advance of their demise. Many of them spend far more years out and about after their release than their hapless victims managed to spend in total on Earth before they were knifed, shot, hacked to death, beheaded or suffered whatever method of dispatch their assailant chose for them. I’m sure their victims would eagerly swap the utterly tiresome position that released murderers find themselves in by being “on licence” as opposed to being dead.

This, as you rightly say, is widely known. It certainly is not rocket science and I told you before you told me, remember. They know that the deterrent you mention, of “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” is extremely unlikely to be handed down to them. They may well know that spending the rest of their life behind bars is about as bad as being executed. But they also know, especially if they have committed an “ordinary” murder without any aggravating features (apart from killing someone, that is) that the former is not much more likely than the latter.

So back to my point, it is disingenuous to say that all murderers are sentenced to “Life” (in the generally accepted as opposed to legal definition). For around 99% of them the expected sentence is an average of around seventeen years. Equally, when you make your comparison between the death penalty and the current normal sentence for murder you should not suggest that a life behind bars is an appropriate sentence to use for your comparison.
I wouldn't advocate the death penalty for driving without an MOT or Insurance.

What on earth did that have to do with your OP anyway?

You're not a relative of AOG are you?
No. I think of Timothy Evans and Ruth Ellis. However I think whole life sentences should be moved more. And stop this only serving half a sentence nonsense. If they get 2 years they should serve 20 years. Built more prisons.
Same as Alba ... the nice people can bang on about all they want about how barbaric the death penalty is but if anyone deliberately killed a member of my family

I want them dead ... as dead as a Norwegian Blue in a comedy sketch.
Question Author
New judge, stated “For around 99% of them the expected sentence is an average of around seventeen years. Equally, when you make your comparison between the death penalty and the current normal sentence for murder you should not suggest that a life behind bars is an appropriate sentence to use for your comparison. In fact you are slightly wrong – the average time spent behind bars for a “Lifer” is about 17 years, give or take, but no matter”

When did I ever said life behind bars is an appropriate sentence for murder (as I certainly did not), as what is appropriate for murder is for the trail Judge to recommend: (1) on the tariff on years to actually be in prison, or whether it is going to be (2) life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Of course most people (including me) know that a very small proportion of convicted murderers are convicted to “whole Life” sentence, as often it is reported in the news.

https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-serve-prison/ (which anyone can refer to, but I did not refer to when I answered your post) stated, “ On average, they’ll have served about 17 years in jail, with a life on licence with the probation service to follow, unless they are recalled to prison".
Question Author
albaqwerty stated, "You're not a relative of AOG are you?"

Who is AOG??
lol Will !
Yes, but it won't.
Especially for torturing and killing babies and children.
I feel sorry for the families of the victims. They are the ones getting a life sentence. No parole for them.
Question Author
Zacs-Master stated, "If something is unlawful, it is because it is unacceptable to society whether it be driving without insurance or murder".

Yes but there are degrees of unacceptability, surely.
“When did I ever said life behind bars is an appropriate sentence for murder (as I certainly did not),”

You did not. And neither did I. Once again you must read what people write, in this case my entire sentence:

“…you should not suggest that a life behind bars is an appropriate sentence to use for your comparison.”

I said nothing about it being an appropriate sentence for murder. I remarked that it (a whole life sentence) was not an appropriate sentence to make the comparison that you first mentioned in your question. You said:

“…as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is as effective against murder as death penalty because:…”

So you were comparing a whole life sentence with the death penalty. You went on to give your reasons and included:

“life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder.”

So we’re back to my point (and I don’t know how much simpler I can put it): The comparison you make is inappropriate because very few murderers receive a whole life sentence. It is not in any way a deterrent to murder because it is extremely unlikely to be handed down. A more appropriate comparison would be between the death penalty and the average “Life” sentence (which you now seem to accept is of about seventeen years).
Question Author
New judge stated, "“The comparison you make is inappropriate because very few murderers receive a whole life sentence. It is not in any way a deterrent to murder because it is extremely unlikely to be handed down. A more appropriate comparison would be between the death penalty and the average “Life” sentence (which you now seem to accept is of about seventeen years).”

Answer: DEATH PENALTY and the AVERAGE “LIFE” SENTENCE is less alike than - AVERAGE “LIFE” SENTENCE vs other AVERAGE “LIFE” SENTENCES.

I was merely pointing out that WHOLE LIFE SENTENCE is as effective as the DEATH PENALTY.

This is because death penalty is not likely to be the only sentence for murder (as it is the case currently in the USA) – like WHOLE LIFE SENTENCES or death sentence is likely to be imposed on the minority of (severest) murder convictions. Hence WHOLE LIFE SENTENCES & DEATH SENTENCES can be regarded as the severest sentence for the severest of murder cases.
NB
Yes I did say, “I believe death penalty should not be reintroduced, as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is as effective against murder as death penalty because:
• It is possible that death penalty can be carried on a prison who actually did not commit the crime.
• A desperate murderer may try to avoid arrest by committing more murder to save himself/herself from facing the death penalty.
• life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder.”

81 to 100 of 108rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Should The Death Penalty Be Reintroduced In Uk?

Answer Question >>