ChatterBank0 min ago
Should The Death Penalty Be Reintroduced In Uk?
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.
• 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
I would be against the reintroducti
20:51 Sun 30th Jul 2017
“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.
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.
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:/
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:/
“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).
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).
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.”
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.”
Latest Posts
Motoring2 mins ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Sunday Post Cryptic Crossword ,
Crosswords3 mins ago
Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago