Should the Death Penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

Answer 1

== == Let's forget all the emotive arguments about some innocent people being executed by mistake etc, and the Biblical 'eye for an eye' chestnut (which, incidentally, was meant to be a limit for punishment so that vindictive revenge didn't take place, and not as a tit-for-tat retribution). The argument that the death penalty acts as a suitable deterrent is very weak. Those countries that have a death penalty have no lower murder rates than those who do not - and in many cases have a higher rate. For example, the USA in total has a much higher rate of murder than the UK, although the UK has no death penalty. The easiest way to compare is in the USA, where states that have retained the death penalty have no lower rates of murder than states who have not. It is very easy to quote the occasional anomaly to the capital punishment/lower murder rate like Japan (0.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants), as one could equally quote others like the murder rate in Greece which is also 0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants - but Greece has no death penalty. Britain's score, incidentally, is 2.0. However, if one takes the top countries in murder rate (those over 12 murders per 100,000 inhabitants) of the 22 countries in the group, 15 have the death penalty, and of the 8 where the figure is 40 or higher, all but one has the death penalty. It simply is not a deterrent. The stark fact is that whatever the penalty, murderers will murder anyway. This has happened throughout history and continues to happen today. In fact, many reports on crime and retribution have argued that, far from being a holiday camp that people believe it to be, those in prison for life find it a much harder punishment than a swift humane hanging or injection. One has to ask what is punishment for. The strongest argument is for the rehabilitation of criminals. Many criminals, given the opportunity and expertise, are able to reform. As one simple example, Nelson Mandela was a one-time enemy of the state, guilty of aiding and abetting (albeit by proxy) quite barbaric crimes against the oppressive white regime he found himself in. However, while many applauded his actions, by the law of that land he could easily have been hung, had the death penalty been used, and the world would have been 'rid' of one of the 20th Centuries greatest statesmen. Another argument is to make the perpetrator of the crime suffer. In other words, Revenge. However, this bloodlust against another person, this insistence that another person should die, whether a murderer or not, reduces the person seeking revenge to the same level as the murderer. No wonder those countries that retain a barbaric form of punishment have the problems they do. Life is sacred, whatever life you talk about. If a murderer takes someone's life then he or she has violated that sancitity. It seems hypocritical if the state regards the loss of life as a violation of its sanctity and then rapidly calls for the loss of life of the murderer. To suggest that the life of a murderer is of less worth than the life of a normal person is a dangerous precident, that can be extended to all sorts of situations - is a normal person (whatever that means) worth more than a handicapped person? a thief? a homosexual? someone who is black/white/asian or whatever. Christians believe that all were created equal in the image of God, and that, as a result, all life should be thus respected. Executing someone for killing will not bring back the victim. Nor will it make the victim's family feel any 'better' despite Job's comforters who cry for revenge. Ask hundreds of families in the USA that have been in that position. The only place that the death penalty has in the Law of the Land is in history, and there it should remain. ---- The above argument is flawed. Ask any family who has been robbed of a relative in the most heinous, deplorable way, and they will demand death to the murderer. They wish for the highest possible penalty for such a wicked criminal. Why should taxpayer's money be wasted on these sub-human animals? What right do they have to live off the state when society would be better off without them? England would be a much better nation, knowing that capital punishment is always an option for those who wish to stoop so low as to kill in cold blood. Granted, I am against the idea of the death penalty for convicted fraudsters and those accused of corruption (as is the case in countries such as China), but there has to be a maximum price to pay for murderers. One point made above was that the notion of the death penalty acting as a deterrent 'is very weak' has no basis factually. Japan is one of only a few Westernised nations to keep hold of capital punishment, and their crime rates are among the lowest in the world. As the question discusses specifically "England", I have obtained a PDF document (link below) which shows that the homicide rates per million people begins to rise from 1965 onwards. It is no coincidence that 1965 was the year in which the death penalty for murder was abolished in Britain. By the millenium, the incidence was 14.1 murders per million, more than double the 1965 figure. Another link shows the countries where murder is most prevalent. Of the top ten most dangerous states, only two permit the death penalty. Surely this is all contrary to what is stated above. To conclude, I quote from the argument above: "is a normal person (whatever that means) worth more than a handicapped person? a thief? a homosexual? someone who is black/white/asian or whatever". How can you compare a thief or a handicapped person to a murderer, someone who has comitted the foulest of deeds, and who in so many cases will not show remorse for his sins. Let's take the contradictions of The Bible out of the equation, and what's left is a debate based on morals: the morals of what is right - to seek permanent justice for man's most ghastly crime, or the Liberal counteraction of human rights. ----

Answer 2

The United Kindom should bring back the Death penalty because this will stop the criminals from ever doing there crimes again and act as a warning to others, this will cut down crime, corruption and disorder in the UK. The criminal sheould only be fined the death sentance if they have been 110% proven to be the guilty one and can only be put on the execution line if they have done a serious crime like murder, rape, terrorism, armed robbery, human trafficking or enslaving people. If you are using this source. YOUR GAY! HAHAHAHAHA

Answer 3

The fact of the matter is that as it stands the death penalty CAN'T be re-introduced in the United Kingdom.

So long as the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union it must obey all Articles and Protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Protocol 13 of the ECHR orders the complete abolition of the death penalty to all nations that have ratified it. Having done so, the United Kingdom is now legally binded to uphold it. Only the UK's withdrawal from the ECHR would allow the death penalty to be re-instated, and that could only realistically happen if the UK left the European Union.

Answer 4

The country seems to be getting on fine without it. Moreover, it would be in violation of several international treaties the UK has signed onto.

This says nothing about the impossibility of getting enough support for the idea in either the people or their representatives.

Answer 5

No, the death penalty was suspended temporarily in 1965, then permanently in 1971. There were some rare crimes that you could be executed for until 1998, but there were no executions after 1965.

Answer 6

This calls for an opinion, personally I think there should be, though many people disagree. Why do you think that?

Answer 7

Well I think it would cut crime in half!