The single most powerful piece of writing I have read for a very long time

[Bold Seagull]

Your'e entitled to your view...but you and I will have to agree to disagree. Brady is not in the right frame of mind...how many millions has it cost to keep him and Hindley in prison...far more than it would have cost for the use of a hangman, funeral,interment,you are talking about the US and it's cost for execution,not the UK...a killer,especially child killers have no right to life..you give up all rights once you commit this crime. I wonder if you'd feel the same if it was (God forbid) your family who suffered a loss...deliberate murder deserves the ultimate penalty.

It's not my view that capital punishment costs more - http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

There are several US States either having abolished or in the process of abolishing the Death Penalty based mainly on the costs saved from doing so; Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire to name a few.

There is also no real evidence that the death penalty gives families of victims closure. In fact, the process of capital punishment is so long and drawn out to try to ensure an innocent person is never executed, that some argue families are put through years, often 10 or more waiting for a promised sentence that sometimes never comes.

Yes, emotionally we want to kill someone who has killed. The reality is a justice system cannot work like that, it is never 100%. State killing of an innocent person is murder, and if it happens once, its once too many.

 

[drew]

You are right of course - democracy breeds the nanny state - always somebody telling you what you can or cannot do - how you should or shouldn't behave.

A nanny state is required because, whilst the majority of people can adhere to a moral code, there are sections of society that without someone restricting their behaviour would do whatever they pleased, whether that be punching strangers on a Friday night to holding a baby in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

138 cases where "reasonable doubt" was introduced at a retrial. That does not in any way mean that all 138 were innocent of the crimes they were sentenced for, merely that someone was able to provide a set of alternative explanations which could have happened instead.

Technically you might be right but you would need to know the circumstances of all the cases. For example, if someone was convicted of murder but then DNA evidence proved that someone else was entirely to blame then that introduction of reasonable doubt would mean they shouldn't have been convicted let alone executed.

Not convinced of that argument!

I may be wrong but if there were a referendum on whether every individual in the UK should receive a Christmas gift from the Exchequer of £5,000 the majority of people would vote in favour - or at least they would until the result of doing so became apparent!

Of course the two are comparible - both options pander to vices - one to greed the other to revenge.

You say giving away £30 billion would be financial madness, and I'd agree - others would say reintroducing the death penalty would be moral madness and I'd agree with them.

I was arguing against the premise that because a majority in a democracy may want a particular thing that makes it 'right' for that society - it demonstrably doesn't.

£30b? Surely if everyone was given £5,000 that would be £300b. Haven't we given the banks more than that with quantitative easing? Had we given the money to individuals you could arge that they would have spent it increasing demand and maybe stimulating the economy more than giving money to the banks. Just a thought!

 

[kevtherev]

That's not true. There are studies showing that the Death Penalty is more expensive. States like Kansas abolished the DP and found they were saving $500m per case. Colorado are also looking to abolish it and are using the money saved to put toward investigation units to solve murder cases.

It's a complete misconception that it saves money over incarcerating someone for life.

http://www.economist.com/node/13279051

They are doing it wrong then...I could get a length of rope for a few quid....Id even pull the lever for free on cases like Huntley.....

 

[MarioOrlandi]

We are not debating if the death penalty is right or wrong. We abolished the death penalty in the early 60's because of a miscarriage of justice which saw an innocent man murdered by the Government. For example celebrated criminals of the day Ronald Biggs, The Cray Twins or The Moors Murderers would have been hanged for their crimes all of which were premeditated.
I have read this chaps statement cold, and felt horrified that an accomplice should be sentenced to death yet the murderer received life. "Our System" would spare them both and probably tuck them up in bad at night for good measure.
So next I opened the link to find out exactly what crime he had committed. What an eye opener, for me it took away all creditability of his argument. He actually intended to kill a person and steal their possessions. Not to steal and unfortunately killed a person who caught him in the act. No he walked up behind a person who was sitting down mixing his music and probably chatting to him, when he pulled his head back and slit his throat.
Now it does not matter about your race, colour or creed, this was a premeditated murder with the intention to steal, and there is no court in the World which would not find him or his accomplices guilty. He struck the first blow and then probably encouraged one of the accomplices to help complete the murder. The "I did not kill him plea" simply does not hold water.
If the Law of his land dictates life for a life then so be it. The Law of our land would sentence him to life either with or without parole.

 

[MarioOrlandi]

They are doing it wrong then...I could get a length of rope for a few quid....Id even pull the lever for free on cases like Huntley.....

US Law, like ours dictates that everyone has the right to appeal against their crime/sentence, regardless if it is an open and shut case, that can take time, a lot of time. For those people on death row every day is a bonus and an appeal can take upwards of 10yrs or more. Hence the cost of keeping them alive and savings made when the death penalty was abolished.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

US Law, like ours dictates that everyone has the right to appeal against their crime/sentence, regardless if it is an open and shut case, that can take time, a lot of time

Why not set a time limit on appeals? The appeal should not be to re try the case but just to check that the case was handled properly.

I do suppoprt the death penalty, where the evidence is absolute and for the worst cases . Why should society bear the cost of supporting them in jail? A life for a life is only fair and just IMO

 

[sydney]

it is a nicely written piece but the whole empathy thing goes out the window if he really did slice the victim from ear to ear....he is basically trying to get off on a technicality .