Still in opposition to the death penalty?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....e-disabled-woman.html

Can some of Britain's society sink any lower than these 5 savages have sunk to?

There have been many unspeakable crimes committed in the past, but most of those who committed them met their end at the end of a rope.

I know that there are some who even after reading this despicable case will still oppose the death penalty, the question must be why?

[TTG]

The death penalty is too quick and the easy way out. Better to make prisons less of a holiday camp.

[jno]

Kromovaracun: not necessarily. The defence (only in cases of murder) of diminished responsibility requries the defendant to prove he was "suffering from such an abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing"; if so he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

That seems to me to include psychopaths, though in any given case it'll be up to his lawyers and doctors to persuade the court.

[DTCwordfan]

Agree with OG and TTG on this

I can just see AB of the future if they permitted the penalty and then it was proven there had been a miscarriage of justice. "How disgraceful!" "What is the Government thinking?" "How dare they" and all the rest of the vitriol that would bounce Chatterbank and News....... No we should not lower ourselves to the level of murder but we should ensure they are banged up -and if prisons are no holiday camp, they will certainly know about it from the system and fellow inmates as there is, supposedly, a code of honour as to the type of crime.

[jno]

heaven preserve me from a justice system run according to a prisoners' code of honour; I'll stick with my own.

[DTCwordfan]

any difference, jno? (lol)

[Kromovaracun]

"That seems to me to include psychopaths, though in any given case it'll be up to his lawyers and doctors to persuade the court. "

The reason this provision exists, so far as I understand, is to give judges scope so that relevant cases can be hospitalised (largely so that they can be placed into the treatment infrastructure) rather than imprisoned. Psychopaths cannot be treated by any means - or not yet, anyway. You might argue in response that hospitalisation can be used for containment rather than treatment, but I find the case for execution far more convincing in these cases. I recognise the discomfort for killing people for something that is essentially inborn nature - but I don't think our society has any reason to be ashamed of itself if it has no place for people whose inborn nature is unambiguously destructive, harmful and predatory - as applies to psychopaths who become killers.

[jno]

it has got a place for them: prison (assuming them to have committed a crime).

Aside from that, though, my own objection to the death penalty for psychopaths is exactly the same as for the totally sane: too many mistakes, which the death penalty makes irremediable. Just saying "Oh, DNA will take care of all that!" is unfortunately not true. (Sorry, I know it wasn't you who said that; but others above have.)

[jd_here]

'and that the death penalty would not be issued lightly, there would be very little chance of this happening.'

But still a chance....therefore still strongly opposed to it

[Kromovaracun]

"it has got a place for them: prison"

Which everyone is always saying is under too much strein/full/whatever (I'm sure these claims are sensationalised to some degree but nevertheless). To properly protect the public from these particular individuals, they need to be (and mostly are) locked away or hospitalised for the entirety of their lives - quite a resource commitment. Plus it'd be fair to call the relatively small number of psychopaths a recurring section of the prison population - hence why I'm sympathetic to the execution argument [though only in these cases - I've not found it convincing anywhere else].

"Aside from that, though, my own objection to the death penalty for psychopaths is exactly the same as for the totally sane: too many mistakes, which the death penalty makes irremediable."

And there, I'm in agreement with you :).

[jno]

it is quite a resource commitment, but I think it's one a civilised society should make. To say we should shoot them all to save money is not a proposition I could ever put my name to (though others above have done so). In reality, though, I don't think there are actually all that many mad psycho killers around, are there?

[DaisyNonna]

Life should mean until natural death. Not a paltry 10 years.

[Kromovaracun]

"I don't think there are actually all that many mad psycho killers around, are there?"

Not at any one time, but psychopaths (who I don't think you can necessarily call 'mad' - they're quite self-aware) while a tiny % of the population are a recurrent section of the prison population - and who need to be contained for a lifetime if their threat to the public is to be neutralised. As I say, my principal objection to killing them is entirely about wrongful conviction - I think in these cases calling it 'barbaric' is a little simplistic and empty (and for me is an unconvincing argument against capital punishment generally when compared to how convincing, say, the wrongful conviction argument is).

[jno]

I'm pretty sure that historically, the reason for doing away with executions was the number of wrongful or doubtful convictions (though one of them, Hanratty's, looks as if it was right after all). The 'let him have it' case - where they hanged the older guy who'd already surrendered and wasn't armed, but not the younger one who actually did the killing - was also found widely disturbing at the time.

Like you, I think the wrong-verdict argument is quite enough to justify a continuing ban on executions; innocent people are still convicted and I imagine always will be.

[andy-hughes]

I find it hard to reconcile the notion of ending a human life with the argument of ecconomics - 'it will save the country a fortune'.

Where does that kind of thinking lead? Euthanasia?

It's barbaric that anyone would consider the execution of an individual based on the ecconomic cost of keeping them alive to serve a prison sentence.

I hope no-one of such a cavalier approach to humanity is ever in a position to affect such decisions - although it's a pretty safe bet that they won't!

[Kromovaracun]

"It's barbaric that anyone would consider the execution of an individual based on the ecconomic cost of keeping them alive to serve a prison sentence. "

This argument is just as emotive and simplistic as the 'let's kill the scum' argument in favor of capital punishment, so I'm a little disappointed to see you writing this. Personally, I don't see the connection between being willing to forgo the cost of containing psychopaths who have been convicted for life and murdering people who are disabled and otherwise innocent. It's to do with discriminating our attitudes to inborn nature/things people can't help. I see no moral inconsistency in condemning to death those whose inborn nature makes them inherently destructive and dangerous while sheltering those whose nature or circumstances render them vulnerable.

As I say, I don't want anyone to read this and think I'm in favour of capital punishment - it's just that I only really find one line of reasoning against it convincing.

[andy-hughes]

I don't see it as an argument - just a viewpoint.

My reasoned aregument against CP is that it is legalised murder by the state, based on a concept of revenge rather than justice.

My point of view is that arguing in favour of CP on the basis of ecconomics is not viable - but that is separate from my main view on the idea.

I hope i have expressed myself more clearly this time around - but as we all know, and are discofvering as we debate the issues, it is a seriously complex and emotove subject.

[sir.prize]

Some interesting comments at the foot of this article . . .

http://news.sky.com/h...news/article/16070730