What are your views on the Death Penalty?

[-]

CustardCreamBot@reddit

**Your post from /r/AskUK has been removed by a human moderator.** AskUK is a "catch-all" subreddit for questions about the UK life and culture, but this does not mean we accept any and all questions or answers. We may remove posts or comments which are best discussed in more specialised subreddits We explicitly do not allow questions or answers on or including: politics, technology, relationships, DIY, university/education, visas/citizenship, [medical advice](https://111.nhs.uk/) (including [mental health](https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/mental-health-services/where-to-get-urgent-help-for-mental-health/)), ranting, venting, surveys, advertising, solicitation, or "does anybody else" type vent posts. Please check the sidebar for other subreddits to have these discussions. *If you believe this post should not have been removed, [first read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/) before [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK&subject=Post Removal Appeal)*. See our guide on [common issues with posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/wiki/postremoved) and how to overcome them!

Reply

[-]

Mother-Traffic1065@reddit

I’m all for it in cases involving children especially if the evidence is fool proof , like in the Chris watts case

Reply

[-]

Merboo@reddit

Completely agree. I also don't like the idea of a government being able to say 'Nobody can kill anyone. Except us.'

Reply

[-]

MasterAnything2055@reddit

They don’t say that though. You can kill if the situation calls for it.

Reply

[-]

Merboo@reddit

You're right, I was generalising. You can kill in self defence, but the death penalty is not self defence, it's murder.

Reply

[-]

MasterAnything2055@reddit

Yeah. And I’m ok with it. Eye for an eye.

Reply

[-]

Merboo@reddit

Then we can agree to disagree

Reply

[-]

orbital0000@reddit

The state killing its own people will never sit right with me, not least because the system can be a bit shit. Hitchens got it right, "human sacrifice."

Reply

[-]

fromwayuphigh@reddit

It's stupid, barbaric, and the product of iron age morality. More salient is the fact that it doesn't do what its advocates says it does. It's long past time to move on.

Reply

[-]

dimperdumper@reddit

What it does is stops a person from ever hurting others again. I'd say it's pretty good at it too.

Reply

[-]

nevynxxx@reddit

Only if you get the right person. Evidence says we aren’t exactly tip top at that.

Reply

[-]

dimperdumper@reddit

And there lies my only problem with the death penalty. I 100% believe there are crimes which people should be out to death for, but innocent people get put to death in a system like that, so it can't be allowed.

Reply

[-]

DeadStopped@reddit

Is the death penalty that much of a punishment vs 60 to 80 years in prison? It’s always seemed like a cop out for me, these people know they’ll die in prison or they get an early way out. Plus it’s insanely expensive, psychologically scaring to the people who have to actually perform the killings, and like you said, innocent people die.

Reply

[-]

hands_so-low@reddit

Rapists these days don't get 60-80 years they get 5 if that.

Reply

[-]

DeadStopped@reddit

Yeah as a separate issue something like 5 is ridiculously low and I’m not sure why they are getting that.

Reply

[-]

No-Photograph3463@reddit

Maybe deserved for the very worse of crimes, but not for standard murder, or murder hire stuff. Also I don't get why if it is being done it's not just done via a semi-automonous robot with a gun to the head, as surely that would be the easiest, cheapest method with the quickest death (and the least amount of traumatised staff).

Reply

[-]

qtx@reddit

> (and the least amount of traumatised staff). You've never seen the mess blown out pieces of brain leave behind have you. I can totally see the staff getting on hands and knees picking up bits of skull and brain not being traumatic at all. Also, gun shot to the head is in no way a certainty of instant death, not to mention that the victim could move it's head at the last second and the robot misses completely.

Reply

[-]

WerewolfNo890@reddit

Remember watching something recently from the US and it was this really odd moment when the family were talking about going to the public execution. It felt like watching something in the distant past and yet it is a modern recording.

Reply

[-]

Anaptyso@reddit

Strongly against. Most of the arguments in favour of it do not actually stand up. Saves money? Not significantly. The evidence from the US is that the large amounts of appeals often involved in capital punishment cases cost a lot of money, and in many cases it can cost more than if the offender had been given a life sentence instead. Acts as a deterrent? Again, the US is a counter example. It has the death penalty, but not a lower rate of violent crime. We'd only do it when we were really sure someone was guilty, so why worry about the wrong person being killed? That's already the level required for any conviction in the UK ("beyond reasonable doubt"), and still miscarriages of justice happen. There's a lot we could do to improve the justice system, and the way prison works in particular. It is failing as a deterrent and failing as a rehabilitation process. But adding in the death penalty as an option will not solve anywhere near the problems people think it might, and throws in the awful prospect of people being wrongfully killed when the justice system makes a mistake. Even ignoring that poor aspect of it, implementing the death penalty will mean pulling out of international agreements which would result in a heavily damaged relationship with our European neighbours, and be a block on future integration with the EU. It's a bad idea, won't help, will cause big problems, and is only thrown out every so often because politicians and media on the right want to try and find a culture war wedge issue.

Reply

[-]

Hairy-Personality667@reddit

My view is mixed. On one hand: I was once made to go through our legal process. My experience? Police were corrupt. Judge was gullible. Even my own lawyer was a nasty piece of work. A lot of those being tried at court seemed pretty unaware of what was even going on to be honest. The point I'm trying to make is that while I was thankfully not wrongly convicted (I was innocent), I was truly worried I would be, and I don't trust the system not to find innocents guilty and then behead them (or that's just GoT, right?). On the other hand: With the cost of living crisis, things are really hard for many law-abiding people right now. Having a heated room with electricity and basic food? For many it isn't easy. Yet prisoners who contribute nothing to society (usually the opposite) and who do not pay taxes, get this for free, as well as sometimes free training and such. Beheading them would indeed be a hell of a lot cheaper. It seems wrong that there are good people struggling and homeless when prisoners get the basic essentials (not saying it's luxury) on taxpayer dime. This isn't really an argument for the death penalty (as it'd only impact the most serious minority of offenders anyway). Rather, perhaps community service should be more often (a net add to society instead of drain) or the cane could be brought back as a cheap and effective deterrent. Perhaps then we could just dump the absolute worst criminals on an uninhabited island off Scotland or something. TL;DR: Not for the death penalty, but our current system seems unfair and very costly.

Reply

[-]

Expert_Champion1064@reddit

it makes me feel sick and sad and I suspect in the future we'll count this among the many barbarisms happening now, which humanity will consider abhorrent

Reply

[-]

Norman_debris@reddit

It's abhorrent.

Reply

[-]

Realistic-Stay-7352@reddit

Goodness, all the publicity ahead of time said he'd serenely fall asleep and, well, the article suggests otherwise. I don't really have particularly strong views either way. I get the argument that a justice systems loses the moral authority to carry out executions the minute it wrongfully convicts someone, but then they ruin lives when they wrongly lock people up for 30 years and we tolerate that. Equally on a near daily basis I read stories about people where my reaction is I'd quite like it if that person wasn't around anymore.

Reply

[-]

No-Echo-8927@reddit

It shouldn't be legal. You can't fight fire with fire.

Reply

[-]

BppnfvbanyOnxre@reddit

Any nation that has the DP as an option loses the right to call itself civilised IMO. The fellah in the US had already been inside for 33 years. There's supposed to be as I recall 3 pillars to the justice system all equal. 1. Protection of society from the criminal. 2. Restitution 3 Rehabilitation The first 2 are served by imprisonment, we don't do very well in dealing with number 3. There are obviously people who can never be released but that doesn't mean we get to kill them.

Reply

[-]

specto24@reddit

Imprisoning people doesn't achieve restitution, any more than killing them does. They'll always cost more to imprison than they could make the state. Agree that we shouldn't execute people though.

Reply

[-]

QOTAPOTA@reddit

Personally I’m against it. I feel it’s letting them off the hook. Plus the whole miscarriage of justice thing. I don’t think as a society we have the right to take their life, just their freedom to do the same thing again. For lifers it should be hard Time. Putting myself in the victims’ family’s shoes then yes. I’d want them dead.

Reply

[-]

BastardsCryinInnit@reddit

I don't think it is an issue in this country that needs views on. It's not a thing, end of. Not everything needs to be debated! This case though with the method of execution opens up a lot of views, namely should people care if the execution is humane and painless, and the answer is yes. We should care.

Reply

[-]

HintOfMalice@reddit

Conceptually fine, for heinous crimes. I don't see why tax payers should be forced to pay to keep and feed deplorable monsters that have chosen to remove themselves from society and civilisation. We should have a method to get rid of them. In practice, no, never. The legal system is not infallible and I'd rather pay for the keep for 10 million evil men than pay for the death of one.

Reply

[-]

PaidTheTrollToll@reddit

It actually costs the US more to put someone to death than keep them in prison for life.

Reply

[-]

legendarymel@reddit

Is this because they psychologically torture these people for 33 years before they actually execute them?

Reply

[-]

Cryptand_Bismol@reddit

But they don’t just kill them straight away, that man was on death row for 25 years. The average wait is 19 years. So they still have to house them and feed them for two decades, while spending money fighting appeals of the death penalty, and then paying for the execution.

Reply

[-]

danny321eu98@reddit

Apparently the death penalty costs a lot more overall than keeping someone in jail for life

Reply

[-]

evilamnesiac@reddit

That’s only because they have appeal after appeal to try and prevent innocent people from dying, and still they die. Unfortunately there is no practical way of implementing the death penalty even for the crimes that really deserve it. Best thing is not to bother with it at all.

Reply

[-]

CleanMyTrousers@reddit

Just to point out that as seen in the US, it ends up costing more to kill than to keep them. I'm against it for a few reasons. Potential miscarriage of justice, I believe in rehabilitation, I'm not convinced it's moral and finally cost.

Reply

[-]

Alwayslearnin41@reddit

I've always said I'd leave the country if it was brought back.

Reply

[-]

Chilton_Squid@reddit

Why, what dark crimes have you committed?

Reply

[-]

amboandy@reddit

Hey those goats were like that when I got there!

Reply

[-]

Alwayslearnin41@reddit

😜😂

Reply

[-]

just_some_guy65@reddit

Same as OP, this subject is an intelligence test which involves someone's ability to understand an issue and understand that justice doesn't mean killing even if you have the guilty person and even if this person is not from a disadvantaged background with respect to being given a death penalty. Reading up on two cases in the UK that played a large part in the death penalty being abolished here is informative. The John Christie/Timothy Evans case. The Derek Bentley case.

Reply

[-]

FaintEnthusiasm@reddit

Exactly. “Beyond all reasonable doubt” is the standard of proof, but as it depends on the jury or judiciary, that’s not the same thing as “true”.

Reply

[-]

annonn9984@reddit

Your first sentence just failed your intelligence test.

Reply

[-]

Able-Work-4942@reddit

I'm against it because we've had it for eons and we still have crime. Nelson Mandela's group was known to necklace his opponents. Necklacing involves dipping a tire in petrol and placing it on someone's torso then lighting it. The human body isn't actually flammable so the tire just sits there, melting onto your torso and thighs while your eyes boil out. Wayyyy more painful than just being burnt alive. Did that stop anyone? No. It didn't make a difference.

Reply

[-]

Electrical_Swan_6900@reddit

I'm all for it, some people like pedophiles, serial killers, they just don't deserve to live. Plus they cost a fortune. Get rid.

Reply

[-]

BeccasBump@reddit

I don't understand. I had surgery yesterday and they had me completely unconscious very peacefully and without pain or distress in about two minutes flat. Presumably they could then have murdered me in a manner of their choosing without me knowing a thing about it. Why was this guy subjected to half an hour of torture?

Reply

[-]

sirgreyskull@reddit

Personally I don’t agree with it. If the person is killed they will no longer suffer in prison. Instead of the death penalty I would donate the person to medical science so they can be used as a lab rat to help cure things like cancer. Death is the easy way out. They shouldn’t be covered under the human rights laws as they have acted in an inhumane manner which resulted in them being imprisoned.

Reply

[-]

Able-Work-4942@reddit

I'm against it because we've had it for eons and we still have crime. Nelson Mandela's group was known to necklace his opponents. Necklacing involves dipping a tire in petrol and placing it on someone's torso then lighting it. The human body isn't actually flammable so the tire just sits there, melting onto your torso and thighs while your eyes boil out. Wayyyy more painful than just being burnt alive. Did that stop anyone? No. It didn't make a difference.

Reply

[-]

bowagahija@reddit

There is no upside to death penalty. It is more expensive, irreversible in mistakes which are *inevitable* and it's questionable if its even a harsher punishment than life in jail

Reply

[-]

Teapur@reddit

We can't say as a society that murder is wrong if we also kill people.

Reply

[-]

hands_so-low@reddit

I don't think murderers and rapists are punished enough at the moment. I am aware of a rapist who is getting out of prison this year, that's it he'll just be free. That's not fair is it? I get the argument that you could kill the wrong person and that's irreversable. However, the justice system also imprisons the wrong people, sometimes for decades, that's irreversable too. How about we just get a better criminal justice system. I don't think people hould be left on death row for years, that just seems counter intuitive. Get it over with. I don't understand how the death penalty isn't a deterent as others have said. If anyone had a study on it I'd be interested to read up on the matter.

Reply

[-]

Neps-the-dominator@reddit

When I first read the headline I was imagining that being killed with nitrogen gas would just cause you to feel very lightheaded and that you'd simply lose consciousness very quickly, and pass away with no pain or trauma. However this man's execution took *25 minutes*. That's fucking crazy and awful. I am against the death penalty. Are there some crimes that deserve it? I believe so, but at the same time I wouldn't want to have then the *smallest* risk of a miscarriage of justice. At least if someone is convicted of a crime, sentenced to life in prison and they're actually innocent, there's a chance for them to be exonerated, released and compensated. You can't un-execute someone. I don't think the government has the right to decide who lives or dies.

Reply

[-]

n3ver3nder88@reddit

I'd agree with this. Generally speaking I'd say I value restoration and reformation over punitive actions, but for some crimes I don't think there's any return; serial killers, child rapists, people who do 40mph on a national speed limit road etc. The major problem with having a system of capital punishment though is that it's fallible, it's extremely costly & lengthy going through the legal process, and overall it's probably not worth any potential return when considering the limited number of criminals who would meet the threshold for it under a system that aims for reform over punishment.

Reply

[-]

GoldBear79@reddit

I laughed at your first paragraph, I’m sorry

Reply

[-]

Neps-the-dominator@reddit

> people who do 40mph on a national speed limit road etc. It's too early in the morning to talk about such horrific crimes! But yeah, totally agree.

Reply

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

The government doesn't decide who lives or dies in the US. Juries of their peers decide it.

Reply

[-]

lordnoodle1995@reddit

The jury decided to spare his life and a judge overruled that, with more judges declining his appeals.

Reply

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

Fair enough. I was speaking generically not specifically (although that's still not the government). Personally I have a lot less faith in judges than should be the case - and I don't think that's a reflection just on me. So in that specific case it shouldn't be decided that way either.

Reply

[-]

jjgill27@reddit

In this case didnt the jury decide not to execute and the judge overruled them?

Reply

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

Fair enough I was speaking generically not specifically (although that's still not the government). Personally I have a lot less faith in judges than should be the case - and I don't think that's a reflection just on me. So in that specific case it shouldn't be decided that way either.

Reply

[-]

QOTAPOTA@reddit

The judge decided this one. The jury voted against the death penalty. Ordinarily you’d say the judge is independent but this is America and not just any America, it’s Alabama, America.

Reply

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

Fair enough I was speaking generically not specifically (although that's still not the government). Personally I have a lot less faith in judges than should be the case - and I don't think that's a reflection just on me. So in that specific case it shouldn't be decided that way either.

Reply

[-]

JamOverCream@reddit

From what I understand, in this case the judge overturned the jury and imposed the death penalty. IIRC that can no longer happen in Alabama but I wonder how often the judges, rather than jury, set death penalty for the 2000+ remaining death row inmates.

Reply

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

Fair enough I was speaking generically not specifically (although that's still not the government). Personally I have a lot less faith in judges than should be the case - and I don't think that's a reflection just on me.

Reply

[-]

leonardo_davincu@reddit

I’m sure I read that they already botched this guy’s execution before. Like seriously botched it.

Reply

[-]

SmeeegHeead@reddit

Totally agree. Very well put.

Reply

[-]

MrNippyNippy@reddit

I haven’t looked into it but I would have thought rising co2 would be better. That’s what you can use to kill animals and apparently if it’s don’t right they “fall asleep”

Reply

[-]

Chicken_shish@reddit

Mammals have a breathing system that operates on detection of CO2, not presence of oxygen. If you are suffocated (or hold your breath) the desperate urge to breathe is driven by the build up of CO2 in your blood. This happens much faster than oxygen deprivation. If you walk into a room filled with nitrogen. you will feel fine. You will be exhaling CO2, and the body will be entirely unaware that anything is wrong. You’ll feel light headed, and quite quickly pass out - probably within 30 seconds. About 2 minutes after that you’ll be dead. Their process takes 25 minutes because they they’ll be gradually changing.the nitrogen concentration. How do I know it is painless? Well, I damn nearly killed myself walking into a space filled with Argon. Thankfully it wasn’t pure Argon in the room, and I’d left the door open behind me. The only pain was from rhe split lip as I hit the floor.

Reply

[-]

wibble089@reddit

The human body doesn't notice the lack of oxygen, but rather the build up of CO2. We increase breathing to reduce CO2 in the body, not to increase the level of oxygen, although the effect is to do so. In theory an atmosphere without oxygen wouldn't be noticeable to a human and as long as the CO2 content was low it wouldn't cause any increase in respiration. The person would simply fall unconscious once the brain failed to receive enough oxygen.

Reply

[-]

Acrobatic-Shirt8540@reddit

Almost everything about that comment is wrong. If you're curious, Google hypoxia.

Reply

[-]

MrNippyNippy@reddit

Yeah that’s a point - take them up to 40k feet in a Boeing 939 max 9 with the oxygen masks disabled and wait for the plug to fail?

Reply

[-]

Blackintosh@reddit

Isn't helium way better too?

Reply

[-]

EdmundTheInsulter@reddit

CO2 is what causes breathlessness so it would create a feeling of panic, is the theory.

Reply

[-]

neo101b@reddit

es respiration is driven by CO2 and not O2, CO2 poisoning would cause pain and suffering. Gasses like Helilum and Nitrous should just make you pass out and not wake up, you wouldn't even feel suffocating. I think its the best way to go.

Reply

[-]

MrNippyNippy@reddit

Interesting. I’d heard anecdotal comments that rising co2 the animals didn’t suffer but it looks to be much more complex A quick skim of this would appear to support your claim, at least in some circumstances. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1258/0023677053739747 Maybe stunning and throat cutting is a better way?

Reply

[-]

SaberReyna@reddit

I assumed they'd pump nitrogen gas into a small room with the prisoner boy was I wrong.

Reply

[-]

Sowlolekatonieo@reddit

Everyone’s against the death penalty until it’s their family member being killed/raped. If you rape a daughter of mine, I promise you it won’t matter if there’s a death penalty in my country because I’ll bring death upon you myself

Reply

[-]

Apprehensive-Owl-101@reddit

Good, glad he suffered , karma.

Reply

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

I have 4 questions, which must be answered with a single word : yes or no 1. Yes or no : has anyone ever been convicted of murder, even though they were actually innocent? 2. Yes or no : has anyone ever confessed to murder, even though they were actually innocent? 3. Yes or no : does America have the death penalty? 4. Yes or no : does America have murders? The answer to all 4 questions is a resounding "yes" From questions 1 & 2 we can see that innocent people will be murdered by the state From questions 3 & 4 we can see that the death penalty is not a deterrent For these reasons I would be against the death penalty.

Reply

[-]

Tarwgan@reddit

Some people can't be helped. There are monstrous people and we shouldn't pay for them to be kept alive. Rapists, Child molesters and terrorists should be killed. Why should we have to use our resources to help people who have done these inhumane things. "Oh s/he wasn't in the right state of mind" should have thought about it before you ruined someone else's life.

Reply

[-]

britboy4322@reddit

What about people who were _almost definitely, but not 100% definitely_ rapists?

Reply

[-]

Scotto6UK@reddit

The terrorist example is tough because it's just a subjective definition.

Reply

[-]

DeadStopped@reddit

Killing terrorists can also make the martyrs, which isn’t ideal in stopping future terrorists.

Reply

[-]

ctolsen@reddit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates That should be all you need to be against it. The death penalty is verifiably murdering innocent people.

Reply

[-]

GoldBear79@reddit

The US would execute someone with sandpaper if it had to. That’s the bit I baulk at; their dogged, shameless pursuit of killing someone even if it means strapping a mask over their head and seeing what gives. I think for some absolute monsters - Couzens, Bellfield, Huntley - people with ‘wire in the blood,’ so to speak, they have nothing to contribute, are wholly dangerous, and would kill again in a second if released. But the amounts of people in America who end up on death row for a burglary gone wrong, or neglected children who grow up to graduate into prison, and then death row - that, I find abhorrent.

Reply

[-]

TheNoGnome@reddit

I'm heavily against it, and have discovered a new reason today. The news from Alabama has managed to make me feel sorry for a murderer, not something I expect or want to be.

Reply

[-]

mogwaihelper@reddit

The murderer was someone who knew exactly what he was getting into and killed someone in cold blood. I have zero sympathy for him.

Reply

[-]

britboy4322@reddit

You'd have done brilliantly in 15th Century Europe. In a 21st century world, not so much.

Reply

[-]

Climate_Additional@reddit

Ten years ago I would've brought it back in a heart beat. Now I'm the opposite. I personally think it's barbaric and would be a step back. And, despite leaps and bounds in forensics mistakes still happen. If the wrong lyrics convicted person is in prison they can be released and compensated. It's a small comfort but at least there's a chance to rebuild a life. On the other hand, you can't raise the dead. Then there's the punishment angle. Take the case of Lucy Letby. I've heard people say she should be strung up as prison is not harsh enough. I kind of disagree. She is 33-34 years old and in apparently good health. She could potentially live 60 years. Imagine 60 years in a tiny room living in constant fear for your life. The only human contact she will have will be with lawyers, psychiatrists and prison guards all of whom despise her and make no secret of that fact. And she will endure this every single day until she dies. Contrast that with an execution that is over in minutes. I would argue that death would be a mercy she does not deserve.

Reply

[-]

Infernode5@reddit

[For every ten people on death row who are executed, at least one person on death row is innocent.](https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/death-penalty) That alone should be enough

Reply

[-]

yearsofpractice@reddit

It’s one of the few things that seems black and white to me. - Killing people is bad, so don’t do it - It doesn’t work as a deterrent because executions are still happening

Reply

[-]

MrNippyNippy@reddit

I don’t have any issue with it - theoretically it’s cheaper than keeping them alive and it’s certainly safer, plus why should they live after certain crimes. HOWEVER I don’t trust any legal system to be 100% failsafe and it practice it doesn’t turn out to be cheaper from my understanding so no.

Reply

[-]

ConstantDeviation@reddit

> why should they live after certain crimes. Because it's government-sanctioned murder?

Reply

[-]

MrNippyNippy@reddit

So what? If Jimmy Savile had been caught when he was alive why shouldn’t the state kill him? There are some people in this world who are genuinely better dead.

Reply

[-]

mogwaihelper@reddit

>If Jimmy Savile had been caught when he was alive why shouldn’t the state kill him? Yep. Reddit thinks that every criminal can be rehabilitated. People like Jimmy Savile are monsters who would never mend there ways. It would be pointless to keep them locked up hoping they would.

Reply

[-]

modumberator@reddit

In fact I might say raising and killing animals in poor conditions for the sake of food is immoral, and doing so because Ian Watkins wants to eat meat while he's in jail is crazy. Would anyone in the UK really say that it's worth killing dozens of chickens a year to please Ian Watkins' tastebuds?

Reply

[-]

poptimist185@reddit

This guy was on death row for decades. They usually are. Legally it’s *way* more expensive to the tax payer than just normal a lifetime sentence

Reply

[-]

MrNippyNippy@reddit

Yeah exactly. There’s also an argument to be made that a whole life sentence is more of a punishment. However I would argue the whole thing (imho) is moot as the issue of fallibility in the legal system is so big as to render any other argument irrelevant.

Reply

[-]

Kientha@reddit

* There's no evidence it's an effective deterrent (the bloody code would actually suggest the opposite!) * Miscarriages of justice happen, if you execute someone then it's impossible to reverse * Men are more likely to be executed than women for the same crimes and women being executed impacted the mental health of executioners significantly more than women * The two tier of only executing "super guilty" people that is often suggested by death penalty advocates is illogical

Reply

[-]

MasterAnything2055@reddit

People keep saying it’s not a deterrent. Who cares. It’s about getting an evil creature off this earth.

Reply

[-]

ILikeXiaolongbao@reddit

It’s awful. And the whole “we shouldn’t have to pay for these people to live for the rest of their lives in prison”, well the appeal system means it takes decades anyway so that’s a completely irrelevant argument. And if you say “well let’s get rid of all these appeals” then I’d suggest you move to a remote part of Syria since apparently ISIS is a better fit for you than a modern civilised country.

Reply

[-]

Browneskiii@reddit

Anyone that murders someone else, and can be proven, deserves the same fate. I'm for it in extreme cases.

Reply

[-]

AncientNortherner@reddit

I generally agree with what you've posted, but there are cases where there is no doubt as to guilt, the offender not only admitted the offence but uses aspects of the crime to exert power, and there is no possibility of release. A decent example being Ian Brady. A more current example would be Levi Bellfield. The money spent incarcerating him for the rest of his days could have been better spent on many other things. I'm cars such as these three is no risk of institutional failure. They did what they were convicted of and possibly much more.

Reply

[-]

DutchOfBurdock@reddit

Child molesters, rapists and murderers. Capital punishment for the lot. Save the taxpayer money. Fuck the rights of people who fucked the rights of others.

Reply

[-]

Martipar@reddit

Killing someone as punishment for killing someone is hypocritical as it implies that there is a situation where killing someone is justifiable. I did the maths a few years ago but based on the reoffending rate of murderers in the UK and applying it to the US it would suggest 98% or 99% of the people on death row wouldn't kill again. Either because the murderers did it spontaneously or they were successfully rehabilitated.

Reply

[-]

MasterAnything2055@reddit

It is sometimes justified to kill. Is someone charges at someone’s baby with a knife wanting to kill it, you’d say it wasn’t justified to defend your child by any means necessary?

Reply

[-]

DrH1983@reddit

Whilst there's any margin for incorrect jury decisions and judgements I can't support it at all. And that margin is never going to disappear.

Reply

[-]

HellPigeon1912@reddit

Used to be pro death penalty because I'm not particularly emotional over the "value" of human life. If a dangerous criminal dies I won't shed any tears. I had the logic of "why pay to feed and home them for their natural lives when you could save the money by killing them" However, I then read up on the data behind it. Sentencing someone to death (rightly) comes with a lot of extra legal red tape, such as additional chances to appeal. Legal costs are not cheap, and from the research it costs a lot more money to administer that process than it does to keep someone in prison for life. So it's not actually a cost saving measure, and as a deterrent, I'm personally of the belief that a life spent in prison is a greater punishment than a quick death. It also seems that when you look at the pro death penalty crowd, a significant amount seem to hold their views because they *reeeeeally* like the idea of killing someone. Justice, cost, etc seems to come secondary to that. It's not a team I'd feel comfortable being on even if I felt my own reasons were valid

Reply

[-]

mogwaihelper@reddit

>However, I then read up on the data behind it. Sentencing someone to death (rightly) comes with a lot of extra legal red tape, such as additional chances to appeal. Legal costs are not cheap, and from the research it costs a lot more money to administer that process than it does to keep someone in prison for life. In general that's only true of the US. Plenty of countries have the death penalty and less red tape.

Reply

[-]

RespOSINT@reddit

IMO if a person has confessed AND there is incontrovertible evidence of guilt AND there are no extenuating circumstances then the death penalty is acceptable and is probably more humane than life imprisonment with no chance of parole.

Reply

[-]

vctrmldrw@reddit

*Killing people is so wrong that we're going to kill you if you do it.* That's why, in a nutshell, I think it's dumb.

Reply

[-]

Mafalos@reddit

Abhorrent is the right word.

Reply

[-]

skwaawk@reddit

The thought of the State executing an innocent person makes me feel physically sick. For this possibility alone, I could never support it.

Reply

[-]

Steven_Dj@reddit

I\`ll let mighty George explain. Enjoy :) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI)

Reply

[-]

Papa_Capin_Uranus@reddit

I work on a chemical plant and witnessed an incident where pure nitrogen gas was released. Unknowingly I breathed it in and let me tell you, after your first intake of the stuff your body completely rejects your instinct to breathe for a short while. It's fucking awful. I had to sprint away while taking in no air to barely start breathing again. I imagine if it's introduced slowly it wouldn't be so bad, sort of drift into a calm sleep. 0/10 wouldn't recommend.

Reply

[-]

Chilton_Squid@reddit

I believe the idea is that yeah it's introduced slowly and you get gradual hypoxia which is actually meant to be quite peaceful. It's happened to people on aircraft before where the oxygen has slowly been replaced with nitrogen and there were no signs of panic or anything. Not saying it's in any way ideal but yeah, it's not administered in the same way you got it which sounds awful.

Reply

[-]

MasterAnything2055@reddit

I’m ok with it. For the right cases. If someone is going to live their life happily in jail with no remorse, then why pay for it, just kill them and be done with it.

Reply

[-]

atomic_mermaid@reddit

Barbaric, and should be outlawed everywhere.

Reply

[-]

shiko098@reddit

It's ineffective and stupiud. With this debate I always remember Ian Hislop during an episode of Question Time ages ago that articulates the points against it perfectly: [Ian Hislop on Capital Punishment (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU)

Reply

[-]

Meowskiiii@reddit

Came to share this too. Ian is a treasure.

Reply

[-]

pintperson@reddit

I think it’s ok for the absolute worst of crimes when there is absolutely no doubt whether the person is guilty. Like when that guy in New Zealand live streamed himself shooting multiple people in a mosque, what’s the point in keeping him alive in prison for the rest of his life? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings

Reply

[-]

TheRealWhoop@reddit

You just need to read the Wikipedia page of George Stinney to see why it’s a terrible idea.

Reply

[-]

thatstoomuchsauce@reddit

Against it. You can't undo killing someone and legal systems are unfortunately infallible. I also believe as a civilised society we should be better than resorting to killing ourselves.

Reply

[-]

Reliantregal90@reddit

Embarrassing that it's still occurring in so-called civilised countries. 100% against it without exception

Reply

[-]

fearlessflyer1@reddit

there are crimes where i believe that someone who commits them does not deserve to live anymore but i do not trust any system set up by the UK (or any tbf) government to be the ones to decide that. look at how many people the US has executed that it later came out that they shouldn’t have

Reply

[-]

Arse-Whisper@reddit

I always liked The Running Man

Reply

[-]

bgd_@reddit

>A journalist who witnessed the execution described to the BBC how he thrashed violently on the gurney, and said the process took around 25 minutes in total. Grim.

Reply

[-]

royalblue1982@reddit

There are some crimes for which the only just punishment is death. But I don't think the state should kill people in cold blood. There are just too many issues involved.

Reply

[-]

GreatBigBagOfNope@reddit

I'd rather not empower the state to take a life. Even after a long time in prison, you can still make at least an *attempt* to make amends for a miscarriage of justice. Death, not so much. Even if a crime (or series) is sufficient to warrant the removal of the perpetrator from society, prison is morally superior to state murder. Of course, the natural subsequent conversation is the purpose and nature of prison...

Reply

[-]

WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit

Some people simply cannot exist inside society without being predatory scum to others. So there does need to be a permanent solution. Each society needs to decide for themselves what that is. Fallibility of convictions makes the death penalty very hard to select. But you're always going to get support for it when you have concepts around life not meaning life, prison not meaning what people want it to mean. But especially refusal to acknowledge the concept that not everyone is redeemable and refusal to acknowledge that justice does actually involve some concept of commensurate punishment. (Those are all things that generally seem to matter to people who support the death penalty). If you had a prison structure in place that separated the irredeemable plus those who carry out the absolute worst levels of crime. (Obviously with certainty tests or however you want to phrase it). That actually put them completely outside the structure of society. With a life that is truly basic (cheap) and commensurate punishment (hard). You might find the level of calls for the death penalty would drop. But like many things everyone talks about the subject being wrong, needs fixing etc but no one actually wants to put their hand in their pocket to pay for it. (Plus in my experience some very vocal opponents of the death penalty are also opposed to the concepts I've listed above so don't want anything commensurate to the crime). So the less a society does to get rid of the need for the death penalty the stronger the calls for it will be.

Reply

[-]

throwRA18272h@reddit

Reddit lefties stand up

Reply

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit

Even the righties don’t want it back.

Reply

[-]

dbxp@reddit

I'm not totally against the context but IMO discussion should really be focussed on lower level crimes which get a slap on the wrist and ensuring people are caught.

Reply

[-]

lynziB@reddit

I’ll never agree with it, no matter what method is used or for whatever reason Capital punishment is for the dark ages

Reply

[-]

modumberator@reddit

I'm against it because of miscarriages of justice. But I don't think that keeping someone in jail until they die is necessarily any more moral than killing them. Fuck this guy in particular who killed someone for less than $1000, and I don't really have any empathy for him.

Reply

[-]

tmstms@reddit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45835584 is an interesting article about how many countries have the death penalty and how much they use it. It says that 55 countries have it and of those, 9 only potentially apply it in the most serious cases such as multiple murders. If you look at which countries use the death penalty a lot, they are not famous for human rights, quite the opposite- the figures for 2022 are about 200 for Saudi, at least 576 for Iran and an unknown number for China, but estimated at thousands (China does not release figures). No other country executed more than 24. So in almost every country, even where it applies, it is used very sparingly. Personally, I think what other people have said- miscarriages of justice that cannot be rectified, appeals taking years and years, and the morality of the state killing people means it cannot be justified.

Reply

[-]

NickTann@reddit

I am totally against the death penalty.

Reply

[-]

hashishhabit@reddit

Reform and rehab like Denmark prisons. Failing that, the criminal leaves us as a society no option but to dispose of them.

Reply

[-]

DiscardedKebab@reddit

I'm against it. Now don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of people out there that deserve to die for the things they've done but I don't think as a society we should be killing people. We're surely past that. Not to mention the fact I don't trust the criminal justice system.

Reply

[-]

Matthewrotherham@reddit

Backwards. Kinda makes the appeals process defunct. Ian Hislop did an amazing piece on question time about this. "It's not much of a detetent is it..... Killing the wrong people?"

Reply

[-]

Zennyzenny81@reddit

I'm against it due to the fact that the legal system is fallible and death is irreversible. Just the idea of being in the situation of being led to a room for my life to be ended and knowing that I really hadn't committed the crime. I'd be genuinely interested in stats/evidence as to whether it does deter the most punishable crimes to some extent, statistically (though that sort of thing probably has way too many variable factors to make any single one analysable is isolation).

Reply

[-]

impendingcatastrophe@reddit

It's just vengeance. Doesn't deter others, kills innocent people and is not the product of a civilised society.

Reply

[-]

jg26176@reddit

Don’t agree with it. Look at the miscarriages of justice that have occurred previously some of those people would now be dead rather than pardoned

Reply

[-]

redrabbit1984@reddit

I agree and I can't believe it's 2024 and the United States are still doing this kind of thing. I'm also pretty sad that it's happened. Don't misunderstand me. I don't mean I am sad for the individual or feel sympathy necessarily. I just mean that I think it's something we should have left a long way in the past.

Reply

Reply to Post

143 Comments