Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

As I no longer have the ability to think about stuff or create an argument, what follows is just stuff that's been triggered by various posts here recently.

I post from a long-held view that a society had the right to kill a member, if that member is seen as sufficient threat to the society. I will have had a reasoned argument for this but what it was, I've no idea.

Every time I read a measured post here from the anti side though, I'm persuaded from the idea of capital punishment. And yet doubts continue to arise.

It also has to be said that Nato, due to his posting style, continues to detract from his own arguments, some of which seem to have merit.

From my perspective, it would initially seem better to talk about killing. There's been a general consensus her, that the killing of an innocent Brazilian was justified. It seems it's often justifiable to kill 'suspects' because of a seriously held belief in what they might do, yet not justifiable to kill those proven guilty of an actual crime, in case they may prove innocent. I cannot see the logic behind the two views being held simultaneously. Seems to me that if a decision to condemn is justifiable at the time, a sentence could be carried out and the society must accept responsibility for the consequences of a future finding of innocence. The decision to condemn and execute would remain justified however. It's apparently a cognitive bias to consider outcome in the correctitudeness of the decision.

In short, I've no idea how I'd vote, should capital punishment be put to the people.


I once read a book. Crime and punishment have been debated and studied for centuries. As far as I'm aware, there is no deterrent effect of capital punishment.

There are also considerations of the society we aspire to.

Maybe it would be appropriate if we charged people with 'killing' and if found guilty, to then further decide whether it was murder or manslaughter or whatever and thus allowing for mitigation such as mental health, self defense and such.
That was then Taff, this is now where people are getting stabby over trival things as they have no fear of jail anymore... they may have of the Death penalty
 
Last edited:
The deterrent effect is the prospect of being caught.

During the Bloody Code, death sentences were handed out for relatively trivial crimes (by comparison with later eras of capital punishment) yet crime was through the roof.
About 130 odd crimes? carried the Death penalty at one time according to my badly remembered History GCE , and if it had no deterent it was because stealing to stop yourself starving to death was worth the risk to many....

It's the murder rate and the awarding of the death penalty for that rate , that we are debating and is the only relevant point re ancient crimes
 
That was then Taff, this is now where people are getting stabbing over trival things as they have no fear of jail anymore... they may have of the Death penalty
I don't think so. I think it might enhance the 'rep' amongst the underworld, that people were still prepared to be stabby.

Torture used to be an acceptable punishment - that didn't stop crime either.

There's also an inherent danger of allowing those in power to have even greater power.

Laws are generally made for the law-abiding. Our culture values individual, although in the past it was mostly the individuals of the elite. Er . . . don't actually know where I'm going with that so I'll stop now.
 
About 130 odd crimes? carried the Death penalty at one time according to my badly remembered History GCE , and if it had no deterent it was because stealing to stop yourself starving to death was worth the risk to many....
130 crimes all of which were stealing food to prevent starvation? That's another fairly hefty stretch.
It's the murder rate and the awarding of the death penalty for that rate , that we are debating and is the only relevant point re ancient crimes
The deterrent effect of capital punishment is relevant to any discussion on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

If the answer 'negligible' doesn't support the argument in favour, perhaps the argument in favour isn't effective?
 
Perhaps the real priority has to be making people understand that they are responsible for the consequences of heir actions. Hopefully that would stop a one time offender becoming a repeat offender, and a petty criminal become involved in more and more serious crimes.

Violent offences that deliberately cause injury need to be dealt with firmly, before the scroate starts to get the idea that they are untouchable. The same needs to apply to carry a knife - it needs to be something people that people are not willing to risk in case they get caught.
 
I don't think so. I think it might enhance the 'rep' amongst the underworld, that people were still prepared to be stabby.

Torture used to be an acceptable punishment - that didn't stop crime either.

There's also an inherent danger of allowing those in power to have even greater power.

Laws are generally made for the law-abiding. Our culture values individual, although in the past it was mostly the individuals of the elite. Er . . . don't actually know where I'm going with that so I'll stop now.
Wish i had about 30 posts ago ;-)
 
130 crimes all of which were stealing food to prevent starvation? That's another fairly hefty stretch.

The deterrent effect of capital punishment is relevant to any discussion on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

If the answer 'negligible' doesn't support the argument in favour, perhaps the argument in favour isn't effective?
Think that you missed my point and your weak sarcasm failed too .

There were untold crimes in that period that had the death penalty as a sentence , not all for stealing food , happy now?

We have discussed whether it would be a deterrent for Murder now

no worries, you know what you mean - i know what i mean, and my point is that capital punishment may be a deterrent for the casuall gang stabbing going on at the 'mo...however, i do like Dingers comment re whole life sentences, that way , if new evidence is presented that shows innocence or a miscarriage of justice , we can let the person out...rather than dig their corpse up

Edit: In 1688 there were 50 offences on the statute book punishable by death, but that number had almost quadrupled by 1776,[1] and it reached 220 by the end of the century.[2]

Most of the new laws introduced during that period were concerned with the defence of property, which some commentators have interpreted as a form of class suppression of the poor by the rich.

[3] George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax, expressed a contemporary view when he said that "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen".

[4] Grand larceny was one of the crimes that drew the death penalty; it was defined as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence, about one-twentieth of the weekly wage for a skilled worker at the time.[5]

As the 18th century proceeded, jurors often deliberately under-assessed the value of stolen goods, in order to avoid a mandatory death sentence.[5]
 
Last edited:
There were untold crimes in that period that had the death penalty as a sentence , we have discussed whether it would be a deterrent for Murder now
Not all of which were committed out of life-or-death desperation, so whether the death sentence deters crimes of choice can be easily disproven by the fact it didn't.
 
That was then Taff, this is now where people are getting stabby over trival things as they have no fear of jail anymore... they may have of the Death penalty
The death penalty is not a deterrent at all.

Think about it logically, no one goes “oh, only five years in prison. Who cares?”

Anything more than a couple of years in the nick is irrelevant in terms of deterrence - people will still commit crimes either because they don’t think they’ll get caught, or because they’re not thinking about the consequences.
 
Not all of which were committed out of life-or-death desperation, so whether the death sentence deters crimes of choice can be easily disproven by the fact it didn't.

You're still not getting it are you? mainly because you are using data that's 300 years old where society was a lot different - and where you mind set and reasoning also seesm to be .

How about trying to get with the times Grandad and look at it from a present day perspective...or is that a bit difficult for you seeing as the facts and examples you are using are old and therefor irrelevant?

no worries, crack on and amuse me somemore with your subjective, stubborn nonsense ;-)
 
The death penalty is not a deterrent at all.

Think about it logically, no one goes “oh, only five years in prison. Who cares?”

Anything more than a couple of years in the nick is irrelevant in terms of deterrence - people will still commit crimes either because they don’t think they’ll get caught, or because they’re not thinking about the consequences.

Which is why I can see the value of Dingers comments - but I'd dare a good few urban youths would think twice about casually stabbing someone if they knew of a friend who was hanged for murder for doing the same thing that they were thinking of doing re gang nonsense

It would also be of more use if you stuck to the murder theme too rather than include other crimes as they are not relevant to the capital punishment v murder thread are they?
 
You're still not getting it are you? mainly because you are using data that's 300 years old where society was a lot different - and where you mind set and reasoning also seesm to be .
Actually, I'm using the argument that death was not a deterrent then because nobody really expected to be caught, ergo it's the expectation of capture that deters and not the fear of death.

Of course, the death penalty isn't likely to deter the wrongly convicted so there'll still he somebody to swing to prove that crime and punishment go hand in hand.
 
You're still not getting it are you? mainly because you are using data that's 300 years old where society was a lot different - and where you mind set and reasoning also seesm to be .

How about trying to get with the times Grandad and look at it from a present day perspective...or is that a bit difficult for you seeing as the facts and examples you are using are old and therefor irrelevant?

no worries, crack on and amuse me somemore with your subjective, stubborn nonsense ;-)
I think the answer is that data has been collected for centuries and capital punishment has never been found to be a deterrent.

To suggest it would be today because humans are somehow different, does not seem persuasive.
 
Which is why I can see the value of Dingers comments - but I'd dare a good few urban youths would think twice about casually stabbing someone if they knew of a friend who was hanged for murder for doing the same thing that they were thinking of doing re gang nonsense

It would also be of more use if you stuck to the murder theme too rather than include other crimes as they are not relevant to the capital punishment v murder thread are they?
I don't think they'd care. Probably regard it as an occupational hazard of 'the streets'

I think people who get stabby out of choice have no regard for the norms of society and in fact, see themselves in their own, alternate society, where it's their 'jungle' rules that count.

Not that I can reasonably put myself in their frame of mind but that's what seems to come through in Ross Kemp type documentaries.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The death penalty is not a deterrent at all.

Think about it logically, no one goes “oh, only five years in prison. Who cares?”

Anything more than a couple of years in the nick is irrelevant in terms of deterrence - people will still commit crimes either because they don’t think they’ll get caught, or because they’re not thinking about the consequences.
Ok, I've thought about your post logically.

In your theory neither death nor prison terms work as a deterrent to crime.
So if they're not there as a deterrent what good are these sentences ?

Revenge ?
Nothing particularly against that, though it tends to be unproductive.

Punishment ?
Punishing someone for a crime they committed even though there was a hefty tariff for for doing so, would indicate as per your theory that the person wasn't deterred.
So you do you punish those who scorn your punishments ?
Increase the sentence ?
Might that deter ?
Probably not, so what's the punishment ?

If we can admit we're doing it out of revenge, all well and good.
But for those with a more fragile vertabral column there is no reason to imprison people.

Besides, look at the money saved by closing all the gaols.
 
Not all of which were committed out of life-or-death desperation, so whether the death sentence deters crimes of choice can be easily disproven by the fact it didn't.
It appears that you are still missing crux of NS 123's comment in that death sentence awarded for the act of Murder in the present climate ,may deter those who will stab a gang rival, not caring if he actually dies, because they know that they will only get jail time.

Maybe we need our own Death Row?
 
I don't think they'd care. Probably regard it as an occupational hazard of 'the streets'

I think people who get stabby out of choice have no regard for the norms of society and in fact, see themselves in their own, alternate society, where it's their 'jungle' rules that count.

Not that I can reasonably put myself in their frame of mind but that's what seems to come through in Ross Kemp type documentaries.
That may actually change if they saw some of the 'Homies'...can I say that? swing or be locked up forever
 
I've an idea.

Why, when a murderer has been found guilty, don't we put the punishment to a poll of the great, good and wise people of the UK?

I suggest that we open up a poll at the bottom of the Daily Mail online article fully detailing the crime and the judicial process and put the option of a minimum time limited tarrif, a whole life tarrif without parole, or capital punishment. After all the readership of said paper seem to get more worked up than even the grieving family and it may serve as a cathartic experience for the perpetually outraged.

If the capital punishment option is selected, by a supermajority of course, then a further poll to select the method of despatch will take place. This poll will cost £5 per vote, no vote limit per person, with the proceeds being donated to the grieving family.

Options including, hanging, firing squad and trebuchet.

It needs meat on the bones, but it's an outline nonetheless
How about reality TV makeover? Celebrities could vie for the opportunity to dispatch the condemned chap in a series of play offs, with marks for technical achievement, flair and speed of execution (Pierrepont famously dispatched a condemned person within 7 1/2 seconds of entering the execution cell).
 
Last edited:
Clearly it would not be murder, as they already tried to kill him with a car before drawing some of their weapons.

The police result at London Bridge was cheaper and drew a line under the issue for all concerned. The idea that it was better that Rigbys murderers survived being shot to cost us a bloody fortune I find utterly bizzare.
I doubt very much that SO-19 did a cost-benefit estimate when they pitched up at Borough Market. But I agree, dispatching them was the best-fit decision at the time, but let’s not confuse police tactical actions with the judicial process in this country.
 
It appears that you are still missing crux of NS 123's comment in that death sentence awarded for the act of Murder in the present climate ,may deter those who will stab a gang rival, not caring if he actually dies, because they know that they will only get jail time.
I don't think I am. It's based on the assumption that today's stabby gang members are more caring of their own lives than their latterday counterparts. Given they choose to get involved in gangs despite the casualty rate; and that a significant portion of their attacks are not premeditated, that seems unsupportable with the evidence.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top