Should The Death Penalty Be Reintroduced In Uk?

[willbewhatiwill]

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.

[andres]

Yes! The sooner the better. Not hanging but a lethal injection or cocktail of drugs.

[THECORBYLOON]

Why would a hit-man be less likely to be hanged than another murderer? The United States is different from the UK so there is little point in using them as an example.

[New Judge]

Throughout this thread there has been constant mention (especially by the OP) of “Life without Parole”. When the abolition of the death penalty was debated in the 1950s and 1960s the public was given to believe, by labelling the replacement penalty as “Life”, that murderers would spend the rest of their days in custody. They did not believe that it would mean a few years behind bars with the ever-so-frightening sanction of being “on licence” for the rest of their days.

It soon became very apparent that they were to be disappointed. As early as 1969 (just five years after the last execution had taken place in the UK and four years after Capital Punishment had been formally abolished) the Kray twins received “Life” sentences at the Old Bailey with a minimum term of 30 years. The public gasped at Justice Melford Stevenson’s sentence (which was then the longest handed down at the Bailey for murder). Such had their expectations been managed down in that short time that even the Kray twins, probably among the most deserving of murderers at that time to be handed whole life sentences, were given sentences that would possibly see them released in their mid-sixties. Quite by chance Ronnie Kray did indeed serve a “whole life” sentence as he died in Broadmoor at the age of 61. He was unlikely to have ever been released having been declared criminally insane. Reggie was released on compassionate grounds (suffering from cancer) having served 31 years.

“Whole Life” sentences are exceedingly rare. They were only introduced in 1983 (which somewhat dispels the myth that “whole life” was the intention of Parliament in 1968). Around 300 people a year are given “Life” sentences so (very roughly) since 1983 about 10,000 must have been handed down. But only about 100 people have been locked up for the rest of their lives meaning about 1% of murderers receive a whole life sentence. In fact the average term served for murder is about 17 years with some offenders serving as little as ten.

In view of this disparity the very least the authorities can do is to do away with the term “Life” unless the sentence imposed is one of “whole life”. It is often argued that people change over long periods and someone who was a threat at 25 may not be quite so at 55. But that misses the point of the exercise. Murder is the most serious crime possible. It is irreversible for the victim who has no chance of beginning a new life following a suitable period. The punishment should fit the crime, not the likelihood of the miscreant reforming. The public were misled in 1968 and continue to be so now.

[willbewhatiwill]

THECORBYLOON asked, "Why would a hit-man be less likely to be hanged than another murderer"?

Perhaps because hit-man is mercenary which, it may be argued, less 'evil' than serial brutal sadistic murderers. This is for the Judge and Jury concerned to decided on a case by case basis, however.

[willbewhatiwill]

I meant: This is for the Judge and Jury concerned to decide on a case by case basis, however.

[mikey4444]

Its a no from me as well.

[willbewhatiwill]

New judge,

Life sentence is for life unless a parole approves giving a parole licence for life to the lifer – i.e. after the lifer has served the minimum prison tariff announced by the Judge. A lifer on parole licence for the rest of his natural life can be recalled back to prison for anything that concerns a court.

[willbewhatiwill]

I meant: Life sentence is for life unless a PAROLE BOARD approves giving a parole licence for life to the lifer.

[THECORBYLOON]

The last person to be sentenced to death in the UK was Liam Holden in 1973 after he was found guilty of murdering a soldier in Ulster. The sentence was commuted to a life sentence and the conviction was later quashed in 2012. Yet another example in support of not putting capital punishment back on the statute books.

[Zacs-Master]

Your use of the word 'perhaps' (11:23) illustrates that you've no idea why, or even if, a hit man would be given a life sentence or the death penalty. You're speculating.

[THECORBYLOON]

You said "[whether to hang or no] is for the Judge and Jury concerned to decide on a case by case basis" Surely it would be only the judge who decides the punishment and not the jury?

[willbewhatiwill]

Zacs-Master,

I used the word 'perhaps' because it is the decision for the Judge & Jury at the time concerned whether to impose the death penalty - after hearing the unique circumstances of the case, not a decision I can generalise.

[willbewhatiwill]

THECORBYLOON, "Surely it would be only the judge who decides the punishment and not the jury?"

In USA, death sentences are handed down by the Jury.

[Zacs-Master]

It's difficult debating with someone who has such a frail grasp of the law, thaynthink a Jury determines sentencing.

[Zacs-Master]

They think

[Zacs-Master]

The title of your post says UK, Will. What goes on in the USA is of no bearing.

[albaqwerty]

I'm not in the USA, Don't know how many other ab'ers are.
Don't care what they do over there, I'm more concerned about UK law.

[willbewhatiwill]

Zacs-Master stated, "What goes on in the USA is of no bearing"

UK (unlike USA) currently do not have capital punishment.

It is not me that have 'a frail grasp of the law, thaynthink a Jury determines sentencing'. Speak for yourself.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/jury-to-decide-on-death-penalty-for-boston-marathon-bomber-1.2169243 states, "same jury will now decide whether to sentence Tsarnaev to death or life in prison without possibility of parole".

[Zacs-Master]

I'm well aware we don't have capitol punishment, Will. Citing the US and its cases serves no purpose. Please limit your responses to U.K. Law as this is what your OP is all about.

[New Judge]

"I meant: Life sentence is for life unless a PAROLE BOARD approves giving a parole licence for life to the lifer."

Quite so. And I've explained what that means in reality. And in any case throughout this thread you have referred to "Life without the possibility of parole" as if it is the normal sentence for murder. It is not and is in fact very rare.