Parliament Would Never Say Yes, But With The Increase In Savage Murders, If They Were To Hold A Referendum For The Return Of Capital Punishment Would The British Public Vote Overwhelmingly 'yes'?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6349455/Ex-Tory-minister-John-Hayes-calls-return-capital-punishment-amid-bloody-crime-wave.html

[AuntLydia]

goodgoalie //Lydia - it's 72 virgins!//

blinking inflation....;-)

[anotheoldgit]

Rockrose

/// Would you put to death a woman who murdered her abusive
partner? ///

No more than a man who murdered his abusive wife.

[AuntLydia]

Rockrose // Would you put to death a woman who murdered her abusive partner?//

The Courts would decide on mitigation. I know 'crimes of passion' do not exist in British Law but I doubt in that scenario the death penalty would be warranted.

[anotheoldgit]

goodgoalie

//Lydia - it's 72 virgins!//

There is a shortage of virgins these days.

[ichkeria]

Capital punishment in this country thank god consigned to history.
A referendum would only ever be held by a government that supported it in the first place. And most referendums are called by the side that thinks it would win.
Meanwhile parliament might never vote for Brexit: so the people might have to do it again for them lol.

[dannyk13]

Under the old law the death penalty was mandatory for murder.I would like to see it brought back for certain types of murder, eg premeditated.

[Rockrose]

But they are murderers and ytare saying that all murderers should be put to death, so which is it all or just some?
You should really make up your minds

[Rockrose]

For ytare I mean of course your

[andres]

Yes I think they would . We can't keep filling up the prisons with murdering scum and paying a fortune to keep them alive whilst the poor people they have killed are rotting in the ground. Give them a lethal injection and get rid.
DNA testing and modern technology are supposed to be foolproof these days.

[Mamyalynne]

No.

[dannyk13]

Rockrose //You should really make up your minds//
My mind is made up.

[JJ109]

Andres - nothing is foolproof! Remember Derek Bentley ? DNA and forensics would not have saved him!

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // I am talking in such circumstances as those who killed Lee Rigby, no one could say that they might not have been guilty. //

Guilty of the murder, yes.

But in a civilised society a trial is necessary, and that means any defence solicitor is going to offer, and attempt to prove, mental instability as the cause, and I don't believe we are at a stage where we execute mentally ill people.

To save time, let me pre-empt any poster sitting down to write something like "So you think murdering scum should be allowed to live because a clever lawyer can get them off … "

That's not what I am saying.

[anotheoldgit]

JJ109

/// Andres - nothing is foolproof! Remember Derek Bentley ? DNA and forensics would not have saved
him! ///

He was in custody and not in possession of a gun, today he wouldn't have even been charged with murder.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

To kill a person intentionally every person has to be mentally ill.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - The difficulty is, every crime is unique, and it's impossible to be sure every single time that a murderer is guilty under the law, and that an irreversible sanction such as execution, can be assured as being beyond any doubt, now and also in the future.

Timothy Evans is a more accurate example, rather than Derek Bentley - he was convicted largely on Christie's evidence, and would be today in the same circumstances, leaving aside Evans reduced mental capacity to stand trial.

That means that an 'Evans' deemed fit to stand trial with the evidence given, would have been hung today as well.

That possibility has to ensure that Capital Punishment remains what it is - a relic of a more barbaric time.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // To kill a person intentionally every person has to be mentally ill. //

If that is the case, then there is your own repudiation of the Death Penalty - we don't execute mentally ill people.

[SparklyKid]

YES, end of.

[andres]

Strange world isn't it? We send soldiers out to kill innocent people and rejoice in the fact that we have won a war but we can't put to death murdering scum who have deliberately killed another human being.

[andy-hughes]

andres - // Strange world isn't it? We send soldiers out to kill innocent people and rejoice in the fact that we have won a war but we can't put to death murdering scum who have deliberately killed another human being. //

That is serious over-simplification of a difficult moral problem - so not really helpful to the debate I would suggest.