UKC

I'm against the death penalty but if there has ever been two total piece of shit who have almost persuaded me to change my mind then it has to be the vile excuse for human beings, Barry Bennell and Matthew Falder who were both sentenced today for their despicable acts.

Glad you've got that off your chest.

I suppose we have to do it according to the will of the people, if they want hanging then we all must just go along with it and make it work whether we think it right or not.   Otherwise we would be denying democracy

I do not agree with that. What if the people want public executions? Must we go along with that? Thanks for listening

I disagree with hanging, there have been too many mistakes, but I do feel somewhat betrayed by the anti death penalty lobby and successive governments.  When hanging was first banned I seem to recall that, hand in hand with that , we were promised that life would mean life.  Some of the sentences seem far too lenient these days.  And how does someone who gets several consecutive life sentences come up for parole in less than 8 years.  IMO the justice system is not fit for purpose.

Al

No doubt after Brexit the Tories will outsource it to Capita Punishment.

When capital punishment was abolished there was a commitment that a murder conviction would mean a mandatory life sentence. This remains true today. But a life sentence isn't (and wasn't at the time) the same as life imprisonment ("life means life"). Once out of prison, a person with a life sentence remains under the supervision of the state for their entire life and can be recalled to prison. It's probably true that the imprisonment portion of a life sentence pre-1965 was longer than today, but not by much.

If the sentences are consecutive (because the offences are unconnected, which as far as I know is fairly rare for murders) the courts have to ensure that the totality of the sentence is in proportion to the total offending. Eight years imprisonment sounds low for consecutive life sentences: is this a real example?

Edit: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_England_and_Wales#Histor..., mandatory life sentence prisoners spent 10-15 years in prison in the years immediately after abolition. Today the average is 14 years.

I believe the rapist who was recently in the news, can't remember his name, but there was a huge furore when he came up for parole.

With regard to life meaning life this was given as an assurance to those opposing abolition of the death penalty so, in that context, was an insincere and misleading promise although I don't doubt your explanation.

Al

Oh! Public executions used to be such fun! You could take the whole family along or go and watch with your mates. Take a picnic hamper, and a few bottles of vino. It beat football any day for entertainment value.

How many did you attend?

T.

I was born in the late sixties, so wasn't around for the debate, but I wonder if the problem be one of recollection and "life means life" being open to differing interpretations. Here's a quote from "The History of Life" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm:

It has been suggested that when hanging was abolished, with the public set against the measure, it was clear that it would be replaced by whole-life imprisonment for murderers.

Put like this it is easy to understand the public's ire. If life was meant to mean life, as a substitute for the death penalty, and has been chiselled away by "activist judges" over four decades, believers in democracy would justifiably feel aggrieved.

But leading QC Sir Louis Blom-Cooper has for many years studied the sentencing of murderers and says this popular idea is a myth.

"The notion of a bargain with the public that there would be substitution of very long sentences as a quid pro quo for abolition is nonsense. There never was any such bargain. When abolition took place the legislation was simply to get rid of the penalty."

The guy is a leading legal scholar and presumably knows what he's talking about. I'm sure there are contrary opinions though.

If you means John Worboys (the "black cab rapist") he got a single indeterminate sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment of 8 years. He wasn't a murderer and didn't get any life sentences, concurrent or consecutive.

As a kid I preferred a good crucifixion, went on much longer and time to drink a whole bottle of Tizer and eat a KFC - can't even buy that now.

I can do that....... go ed gis a job.

I wouldn’t give them the mercy of an easy death.  Let them live and face their punishments.  

I wouldn’t give them the mercy of an easy death.  Let them live and face their punishments.  

I'm sure your correct but I can only speak to the perception at the time.

Al

Well you may think it's ironic but there is a clear majority in the polls for the death penalty. Has been the case for years.

no longer 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

(unless its risen again)

I'm sure their fellow inmates will ensure they have a lovely time inside. 

One can hope, in the prison hierarchy, these two nonces will be right at the bottom. 

The article just says it has dropped below 50% for the first time, but there is still a clear majority. (There are many don't knows)

isnt this also a distinct case of yes but......  People tend to be keen on the idea in general but when presented with actual cases, scenarios it all changes.  I've seen some research on that recently I'm sure.

ive always been curious - if someone is hung incorrectly, on the basis of corrupted information, they have effectively been murdered by proxy.  Should the offending police  , jurors get the same?

You seem to have missed the new rules under which the right thing to do is determined by the Will of the People.  You don't want to become an Enemy of the People,  

  do you ..... ?

ps I've seen the condemned cell in Durham Nick when they still had it in  mothballs, justin case,  Grim!

Yes, I'm trying to adjust to NewDem a little at a time so that eventually I will understand the need to get behind Brexit to make it work.  Heil the will of the people!

wer that back in the day of Judge Jeffreys?

That's not really the fault of the 'anti death penalty lobby' though is it? Just because the way it works at the moment doesn't meet your expectations doesn't make scrapping capital punishment a mistake. Judicial killing is wrong. Not only are wrongful convictions possible but it is morally objectionable. The last thing modern society needs is state sanctioned murder.

To be fair, that's a pretty good way to abolish the death penalty. There's no way crapita could organise an execution without making a complete mess of the paperwork and losing the convicted felon.

Why are you preaching to me.  I said I was against it and I was talking about the anti lobby of the time not now.

In the aftermath of any particular attrocity, there is always a clamour for the reinstatement of the death penalty.  I think you have to reall look at the motivation for that outcry:  Is it a demand for a modern judiciary which works for the benefit of the population or is it a call for revenge ?

Joking aside, this is my strongest reason for being anti death penalty . Botched executions are common, especially when using the electric chair. 

I remember one particularly grisly double execution in the gas chamber where one inmate managed to wriggle out of the restraints except for one wrist and started running around and yelling. The other guy was still strapped in and I can only assume was just wishing things would end quickly.

The state shouldn't kill people to show it's wrong to kill people.

Good point and the exact reason I still feel an eye for an eye type mentaility is not the solution.

Nevertheless, still the most evil scumbags on this land.

If these crimes had been tried in USA; be full life tariffs I assume?

Personally, I think it’s the root of the gun problem they have in the USA. The state say it’s OK to kill criminals. They even allow lethal force to protect yourself and your property.  This gives a clear message to the people that it’s ok to kill criminals and they all then think they can be judge, jury and executioner. 

I don’t really want to live in that kind of society. 

Is there a correlation between the 19 states that don't have the death penalty and the number of gun murders?

What is the purpose of prison? It's not a trick question but there isn't a right answer either.

jk

As I understand it, (and no doubt I'm wrong):

Protection of the public.

Rehabilitation of the offender.

Although no one likes to admit it, an element of punishment for the offence.

Some deterrent effect on potential offenders.

In Falders case, given his manipulative personality and lack of remorse I can see a whole life tariff for public protection being warranted.

In the UK the state sanction the killing of criminals by the police to protect  the lives of the public.

The state also sanction the killing of criminals by the public in self-defence if there is no other option.

You're already living on that continuum, we just draw the line at capital punishment and have a stricter attitude to self defence.

There is an element of punishment but that punishment is decided in a non emotional way so that it’s not retributional. 

No. There is no shoot to kill policy in the UK, and if someone kills someone while protecting themselves they’ll still face a trail for manslaughter and will receive a minimum sentence.

In the US they can be acquitted. 

There is no shoot to mildly injure policy either. If the situation requires the police will shoot at centre of mass with very likely fatal consequences. In the case of someone with a bomb vest they will most definately be 'shooting to kill'.

Facing trial after killing someone is a matter for the CPS to decide. If it does go to trial there is no such thing as a trial where conviction and sentencing is automatically decided in advance.

The option of 'not guilty' also applies here.

Not necessarily.  If shooting someone was seen as using reasonable force, that is legal.

As I said, there is no right answer. I don't think there's a wrong one either. It's different things to different people, I think the relative importance we each ascribe to various functions differs person to person, case by case and with it our opinions on appropriate sentencing and conditions. Most would agree it effectively serves each of the functions you mention to some degree.

To your list I'd also add general purpose holding facility for those we'd be far better off treating for illness or addiction than simply containing.

It'd be reassuring to think him mad, broken in some repairable way but it does seem quite possible he is just bad and very dangerous with it. It's a difficult decision I'm happy to leave to others better trained and informed as and when his time comes.

jk

If you shot someone in the Uk you would be going to prison regardless. 

Nonsense. There are scenarios where one could shoot and even kill in Britain without being convicted let alone jailed.

jk

Very very few and rare ones. 

That's simply not true. Almost all police shootings, for example, don't result in any prosecution for exactly the reason I gave above, and they are subject to the same law as anyone else.  What you can't do is shoot (or injure in any other way) people who aren't a threat.  There was case with a farmer a few years ago who did this and was prosecuted.

That's because it is very rare to need to use lethal force in self-defence in the UK, to a significant degree because of our sensible gun laws.

Remember the case of the Norfolk farmer, Tony Martin?
That was an interesting case.

Not being prosecuted isn’t the same as it being legal. 

No, but it is.  Self-defence is a well-developed legal principle.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime

birmingham six and guildford four should make for food for thought

Where did you get that idea, ignoring the fact that "shoot to kill"   is a journalistic nonsense invention.

Unless we have had a complete change of law since my day self defence is a complete and absolving defence to a charge of murder, not a special defence reducing to manslaughter as in automatism or diminished responsibility.

If someone is threatening you with what you reasonably fear is lethal force then reasonable force is allowable in your defence, at least to the extent of the minimum needed for you not to die yourself.

If someone breaks into your house you cannot just shoot them and claim self defence. 

In certain very restricted circumstances it might be a full defence.  If for instance the householder had good reason to be terrified then the law would look on what it was reasonable for person in that state might do to save themselves.

Callously wounding or killing an intruder is not excused, nor is killing simply in fear of property.

If you are say a frail old lady and you see a burly male burglar breaking into your house I think it would be entirely reasonable to accept that you would fear for your life, in which case it could be argued that the only way you would have any chance of beating him in any form of conflict would be a pre-emptive strike  against him before he becomes aware of your presence. So could it be successfully argued that shooting him with a shotgun or stabbing him with your late husband's old army bayonet in such circumstances be acceptable minimum force?

It would seem to pass the tests in that

a) You reasonably fear for your life. You are certainly not going to hang around to find out if that assumption is wrong when common sense tells you that you cannot expect to survive any conflict with him once he becomes aware of your presence.

b) Your only chance of surviving conflict is a pre-emptive strike. You are terrified and doubt that he would treat a threat from you seriously if you try to hold him up - you certainly don't have the confidence to put it to the test.

Absolutely right.  If there is any sign of violence offered to someone who is not normally placed in that situation and not capable of dealing with it you could argue that the person acting in their own defence had no indication of how far the aggressor might go and could, given the circumstances, have been in fear of his/her life.

Even more true given the speed with which knives are produced these days and the lethality of knife attacks.

I've started to think that anybody who does something to another person which could leave them feeling suicidal, like serious sexual assault or rape can do, should probably go to jail for 3 or 4 decades. Their victims are still damaged for life even if they don't try and take their own.  

Steady on Tim, I'm going to agree with you for once!

All very understandable, but what purpose would such mandatory long sentences be serving? If it's deterrent, is there any evidence that that would be effective as a deterrent? If it's public safety, is it not likely that a case-by-case approach may be more nuanced in terms of removing a threat to society?

I don't have any answers, but I do wonder sometimes whether the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach is more targeted at satisfying enraged members of the press-reading public than it is at improving society in general.

To my mind it's the effect on the victims that should be the main priority. Having the perpetrator get a derisory sentence and be walking the streets laughing must really prey on their minds.

By funding one to one programmes to integrate the perpetrators into society and no doubt giving them far more resources than the victims seems to give the message that criminals are more important than the victims.

It happens so rarely that I’d expect every case to be dealt with on its own merits. 

I can think of one case where someone was shot because they might have had a bomb. And 3 cases where it was thought they had a gun. One of those cases he didn’t have a gun and one of the cases whether or not he had a gun was never proved. 

Then there’s Tony Martin and a handful of cases where burglars have been knifed to death. At least one of those cases resulted in a life sentence  

Compare that to the USA where the taking of a life appears to be  considered their god given right. 

I can't honestly say that some sort of desire for retribution isn't behind my thinking a long sentence would be 'fair', and if there is, it definitely comes from knowing a boy who was abused, and emotionally being touched by how affected he was/is, and the same from knowing a rape victim. In that if it's left a mark on me, it must be hell for them - to continue to live. That said, I understand that it can be a traumatic feeling for rape victims to know that their attackers are 'at large' again after a certain amount of time, too, arguably not very long considering how they're left affected for their lifetimes. Which is as straight forward as I can be. I don't know if there's a definitive answer either, other than I think must remove the anxiety or trauma of knowing they're free again soon, to know they've gone to jail for a few decades. 

Edit: I read in New Scientist that there's more of a desire for retribution in people with more empathy for victims of crime, which doesn't surprise me. It makes me glad we have a justice system which isn't emotionally involved, at least not from knowing victims or perpetrators. 

how do you know how many cases of self defence have never been brought to trial in the UK ?

Shootings won't because generally people are not armed here, but people defend themselves nevertheless.

Sorry, I found your post comments confusing.

On Silver Jubilee night, when a student, I spent some time in Durham police station with my friends.   We'd been set upon by someone for no reason.   When I felt an arm over my face and a fist in my stomach suddenly I bent  down and pulled the attacker's ankles from under him so he fell back.  At the same time I jumped forward into the air so I became airborne and landed on his chest.   The police arrived to find him on his back and his face covered in blood. (which was from some incident before we "met" him.)

We explained that we'd been attacked and the question of what I'd done to him never arose, rather why they did not want to prosecute him as he was an informer in an operation to recover a large amount of stolen property.

I've never got used to that kind of compliment.  

I'm mostly a fluffy liberal type, but it's not fair for people to be damaged for life. 

I guess sometimes life isn't...  

All very pejorative.

When you say "derisory", have you thought what the impact of even a short time away from your job, family, friends actually means ?  if people are released and then "walk the streets laughing" (I've yet to see it), blame it on the ability of the parole board.

As for victim support, I would suggest proper counselling is a better approach than encouraging cold revenge. 

Isn't cold revenge pejorative?

In 2016 577 cases of homodcide were recorded. 6 of those either didn’t go to court or were acquitted. 

That’s just over 1% and what I’d call very very rare. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compend...

You killed him?

Google is your friend. Correlation doesn't prove causality of course. It could be the stupid and angry demanding political sources of revenge. There is no obvious logic I've seen anywhere for state sanctioned death penalties but when did logic ever convince readers of the Scum, Fail and Excess.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-h...

I had a quick skim read of this thread last night and then was pondering the whole idea of capital punishment and the ethics of it, and although I wouldn't say I'm pro death penalty, I couldn't work out why it was wrong. 

If someone commits a serious crime we punish them for it, currently by locking them away in a prison where they are confined to a small cell for most of their day, they are denied luxuries and access to their friends, family and loved ones and they can be in said prisons for years or decades of their life. 

We won't doubt that being forced to live under such conditions is a punishment, it inflicts suffering and it takes away huge chunks of your life. So why is incarceration as a punishment okay but inflicting physical harm isn't? What is it about inflicting physical harm on someone which makes it morally objectionable? 

There is as you point out the possibility of wrongful conviction, but outside of the death penalty, you can no more take back say, a beating than you can give back a year of someone's life lost in a jail. So I don't see it as an issue, if someone was later found to be innocent then they should be compensated as they would be now if they'd spent time in jail for something they hadn't done. If the death penalty were brought back then I'd say for safety it could only be used where the suspect is not just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but guilty beyond any sane doubt where the chances of wrongful conviction are next to zero.  

So I posed myself the question "If I'd committed a serious crime and got caught would I rather have 20 years in jail or my left hand cut off?" 

And after thinking about it for a bit the answer was I'd probably go for the hand. The reason being I'm 33, so these next 20 years are the prime of my life. I'm about to get married, start a family etc. all that would be lost. Obviously climbing would be out the window with a missing hand but I doubt I'd get much done in jail anyway. Which then got me thinking, well if I'd chose that over a long stretch of jail time, can jail in fact, be more of punishment than physical harm? And I think the answer to that is yes it can depending on the stretch. As far as Death goes, compared to the rest of your life in jail I don't think it's any worse really if polled people would probably be split as to what they would rather have.   

But it doesn't explain why the capital punishments are morally objectionable but locking them away for 20 years or forever isn't because as I've said above it could be argued the jail time is the worst of the two punishments. 

The benefit of jail I guess is that it keeps the criminal off the streets, protecting the public from them. If you simply administered a beating to someone then let them out the same day they would be free to terrorise people again straight away. But in the case of the death penalty vs life in jail, they achieve the same protection for the public. 

So anyway after my ramblings, why is harming someone immoral, but locking them in a room for a decade fine? 

 

I can't imagine us wanting him arrested if he was dead!  But he looked a mess and it looked incriminating for me, being there with him scuffed up on the ground and bloody from his previous misdeeds.  I'm not sure that landing on someone usually kills them and I thought I'd reacted pretty rationally, as I'm not used to streetfighting and I used his own weight against him, then mine.   A trick I learned against the big boys at school.

But there was never any suggestion from the Polis that I'd done anything wrong. Just reasons why I should accept my one and only cigarette I've ever smoked from a plain clothes man who emitted the immortal words "I'll deny this conversation ever took place" and why they would not want to prosecute him.

You are missing the point that if someone is justifiably killed in self-defence, it's not homicide and so won't be recorded in the statistics your quote.  That said, it will be a very rare occurance that killing in defence is justified.

google also throws up this 

https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983

For one thing there are many shades of grey allowed for in 'detention', from tagging to maximum security prison which there aren't in capital punishment (assuming we aren't advocating a medieval scale of different deaths).

Secondly, the detention system does (at least in theory) allow people to reform.

Interesting post, with a perspective I'd not considered before. However, when you say:

I think you've overlooked one important possibility, which is the potential for case review and miscarriage of justice. While you can't bring back lost prison time and missed opportunities, compensation can help. Not so once you're dead.

Why do you presuppose someone opposed to one wouldn't also have serious misgivings about the other, particularly when used for punishment over public protection?

jk

I find it strange that someone wouldn’t be arrested and charged with homicide or murder if someone dies. As has been said, it would then be down to the CPS to decide whether to go to court and the court to decide whether to acquit. So there were 577 arrests and charges and 6 were then either discharged or  acquitted. 

So how is this relevant in a thread about the death penalty?

The initial arrest (for something even if not murder/manslaughter) would be pretty much a given. I think you'll find it will be down to the CPS to decide whether to charge and if they say no, then no charge let alone court.

Very good. My argument is about the utility to society as a whole: there is more to that than the single question "does capital punishment deter murder? " (where 'the jury is out' but talking to most experts the data favours the fact that it doesn't as the US arguments for mainly look at marginal US changes in a broken system and with heavy blinkers so fail to compare other countries and other states with no penalty where murder rates are much lower). The death penalty in the US is clearly socially and racially biased (rich or white murderers are much less likely to end up on death row), is more expensive, removes the vital human possibility of remorse and redemption, and removes the chance of reversing miscarriages of justice (very important given some of the horror stories of shoody legal behaviour of prosecution and/or defence teams and how slow state systems are to respond to evidence of these for some on death row).

Couldn't agree more. Imaging the problems if martyrs were wrongly made of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six!

The abolition of the Death penalty is a good example of a (Labour) government being proactive and creating policy in order to bring about a better society. This is in stark contrast to the unprincipled Tory mob in power at the moment (hopefully for not much longer!).

M

Why do you find it strange.  Some examples: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jean-charles-de-menezes-ruli...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Deliberation_and_verdict 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/27/police-car-shoot-near-brist...

Claims of strong statistical evidence and claims that the strong statistical evidence is very flawed or wrong.

Reality is confusing.

Indeed.

My point was exactly that googling for evidence doesn't always give one a clear or correct answer.

If you say so.

Yes. Perhaps people who commit violent and sexual assaults should perhaps consider that beforehand as well? I agree 'collective punishment' of offender's families is wrong, but as far as I know no-one is suggesting jailing petty criminals for life and burning down their houses.

For the vast majority of offenders rehabilitation and prevention of re-offending should be the main priority, but completely removing the punitive element would be counterproductive.

There is a very small sub set of extremely dangerous and manipulative offenders whose crimes are of such a magnitude that there is no logic whatsoever in releasing them.

You say revenge, I say justice and peace of mind. 

I'm not sure these people are really of sound enough mind  to make such judgements are they?  Would, for example, Jimmy Saville really have behaved differently if he had known that if caught he would have been jailed for life?  In fact, he probably would have been and it didn't have any effect.  For some crimes it seems to me the reason for jailing someone should really just be about protecting the public.  For others, perhaps theft, there is a deterrent effect.

No mention there whether anyone was arrested and charged. 

I was arrested when I had a car crash although I wasn’t charged. I’m hoping that I would have at least be charged if I’d killed someone and that later the charges would be dropped. I just can’t believe that if you’d killed someone the police would just make an on the spot assumption. 

Obviously any death will be properly investigated.  However, the CPS will only charge you if there is a reasonable chance of a conviction and police only arrest you if they think you have committed a crime.  

The over-riding factor is whether they think they’ll be caught. 

With Jimmy Saville, as it went on, it must have been pretty clear to him that he was untouchable due to his charity work and celebrity persona. 

Similarly, with this football coach, the longer it went unreported and the more he got away with, the more he’d do. 

Ok. Didn’t realise that the CPS got involved in the charging. Seems they only do for serious crimes. 

No one's said that. If you're found over the blooded corpse of a burglar the police aren't going to turn up and say 'Fair play, we won't take this further'.

1. You will be arrested, just as you would be if you were involved in a fatal car accident.

2. Evidence from the investigation will be passed to the CPS who will decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge you

3. If charged you will go to court. There are a number of options on howthis goes, included being found not guilty and acquitted. You won't, as your earlier post suggested, be automatically found guilty of manslaughter if you are found to have acted in self defence.

You say 'justice' and 'peace of mind' as though everyone still lives in an old testament 'eye for an eye' world.  I'm sure that there are many victims who would love to see their attacker 'fry' and there are others who would be deeply perturbed by the idea.  Fairness of punishment should not be determined by the feelings of victims, let alone the most vengeful victims as they are the least objective people in these circumstances.

Some people live in an old testament eye for an eye world.

Some people live in a privileged bubble where their own sense of smugness in their moral superiority over others overrides all other considerations. Some even have 'new testament' views on forgiveness and redemption.

Neither group can be regarded as being objective when it comes to deciding how society deals with offenders, and neither should be influencing the penal system more than the others.

Because I performed the Actus Reus that would have been a crime against the person But for the fact that it was justified by self defence.    This man could have had an eggshell skull and died from falling.  Because of his previous criminal history and because they had been watching his movements that night the police accepted my account without even raising the idea that I might have done something wrong, or even have risked doing something more serious to him.

As we don't normally carry guns in the UK I did not have the American option of justifiably shooting him, thank God, and I think that goes a long way to show why there are not many cases where people have shot someone in the street in the UK and claimed self defence.   You were the one who raised, repeatedly, a comparison with the US and shooting and how things are handled here.

Yes. Because in the US it’s seen by a large percentage of people as acceptable to kill people. And I believe that’s cultural and isn’t helped by the top down philosophy from their leaders. 

I suspect there might well be a larger percentage of people in the US with a "lower threshold as to what constitutes an acceptable situation to kill someone".

That sounds a bit clunky and pedantic, but there are probably only a small percentage of people in the UK who believe there are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever where killing another person might be acceptable.

The US legal system has a 'stand your ground' attitude, rather than the UK 'run away' attitude to self defence, and you're right that killing someone is probably more justifiable to the average American than the average Brit.

As regards support for capital punishment, I'm not sure of the actual figures, but there might not be as much difference as you think.

In the end killing someone with your hands or a knife is hard work, but shooting them takes a lot less effort. That probably accounts for the higher murder rate in the US.

The UK doesn’t have a run away attitude. The law allows for reasonable force. 

The US appear to have an attitude of  as much force as you can meter out. 

When I did jury service (Scotland) it was explained that you couldn't claim self defence if you had the option of escaping.

http://salvas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Self-Defence-Memov1_1.pdf

The victim or another is being attacked and there is imminent danger to life or limb OR there is reasonable belief they are going to be attacked. An effort should always be made to retreat or escape from an attack. A person may use force as a last resort if there is no other means whereby they can escape or retreat from an attack. (NOTE: Where a person is acting in self defence of another person there is no requirement to retreat.)

It avoids the US situation where both parties hold their ground, one of them ends up dead and the survivor (who might be the aggressor) has killed the only witness who might dispute the circumstances.

Many, but by no means all, US states have, since 2005, introduced 'stand your ground ' laws which removed the previous need to retreat wherever possible from a threat.

Obviously being armed with a firearm is more likely to encourage a person to do battle with an attacker than would be the case if they had to depend on their ninja skills.

Whether or not these laws are an improvement is open to discussion.

I think you're exactly right - I suspect there are very few people in Britain who would deny others (and probably themselves) the right to fight for their own lives and those of people who matter to them when there is no other way

What about killing people because they're evil and have committed acts that are so bad they don't deserve to live and their continued existence is a waste of limited resources? 

Rehabilitation. 

What about it? 

Not that it seems very effective or cheap to try but you only need to look at reoffending rates (then consider that's just counting the ones which actually get caught) to see how ineffective rehabilitation is for the majority of people. 

But let's say we get to a point where rehabilitation is refined and really starts to work well. Where you can go inside for a year or so on an intensive program and come out a changed person with a useful qualification and help to get into work once you're out and the support you need to get going in life as a productive member of society. 

Sounds almost utopian on paper, but even if such a turn around was routinely possible and cost-effective would we as a society want it? Imagine someone raped your kids, and shortly afterwards was caught. Can you honestly say you'd be happy for them to spend a couple of years in a nice cosy rehab centre being treated nicely by caring staff helping them to get their life turned around at your expense? Then when they are considered "fixed" let back out into the world where you can see them get a job and getting on well in life and everything has turned out rosy for them? 

Rehabilitation is all well and good, and if it works effectively then great, who wants reoffending criminals being let back out after they have served their time?  But before that starts they need to be punished for their crimes and punished harshly. Once they have suffered the accepted amount, then we can look at changing their ways. Otherwise, what's the point? For some, it would be worth committing crime just to get rehabbed. 

Is it in the public interest to keep people who are on whole life tariffs alive?

Take:

Levi Bellfield

Christopher Halliwell

Michael Adebolajo

Etc etc.

Why keep these people alive when a) they will die behind bars b) will cost the state substantial amounts of money and resources in doing so and c) no matter how much rehabilitation they under go, they will always be evil bastards.

But, still executing doesn't seem the right option either.

Hard labour / chain gangs should be brought back. Or send these scumbags on a one way ticket to Syria to help with the efforts there.

Sounds like retribution to me. 

The purpose of the long sentences is to protect the public. 

There is real likelihood that advances in medical science will enable us to understand and fix these people. 

Treat people like animals and they’ll behave like animals. A lot of criminals are mentally scarred from bad upbringings. That can be changed given the right resources. 

I believe so, I did before that belief was shockingly challenged and after much thought at the time I still do.

I disagree. The process of seperating them from those they can further harm is punishment enough in my opinion.

jk

Hmm, although I partially agree with you, I'm not sure we can say bad up bringings are the cause or to balme for for the most heinous crimes.

Seems a bit of a cop out, no?

Also, where would Dr Shipman fit into this theory?

Also to punish the guilty.

Dangerous road to go down that, if people think the wrong way then they need to have their brains altered to fix them, and it's okay for the state to do this?

They do it all day everyday at school to our children. 

And that’s what we do in prisons at the moment to rehabilitate them. 

Really!?  I'm not sending my kid to that school then!

Teaching/raising your kids is not generally equivalent to surgery.

Who said anything about surgery? 

"There is real likelihood that advances in medical science will enable us to understand and fix these people."

You did?  What did you mean by that otherwise?

You didn't answer my previous post on this topic. 

Essentially, even if in the future effective rehabilitation was possible, do you think people who commit serious crimes should go unpunished by society? Or should society just pay to improve their lives for them by helping them to become law-abiding, productive people from then on?

 Should someone who as inflicted great suffering on others or even killed them, not have to endure suffering themselves or would you be happy to see your child's rapist quickly rehabilitated and back out enjoying life as soon as possible?   

I think the issue of proportionate punishment is difficult, made more difficult for the majority of us by not even being able to imagine the level of 'punishment' that being locked up for even one year would cause (loss of job, possibly marriage, etc.). 

There is an element of punishment apportioned to deter people from offending. The level of punishment should fit the seriousness of the crime. Currently it stands at 10years imprisonment. That’s a hell of a long time. If I look at myself 10 year intervals throughout my life I was a completely different person at each stage. 

If someone is no longer a threat to society then they should be free to rebuild their life. 

The normal methods we use. 

Teaching. We start to program members of society as soon as they’re born. Sometimes that programming isn’t effective on everyone and they need additional psychological help  

Drugs. People take tranquillisers, anti depressants, and drugs to help with ADHD when their neurological health isn’t right.

Okay, so what about those people who don't consider themselves broken and aren't depressed?  Those who are quite happy as thieves, murderers, rapists, gangsters, etc?  They will still exist.

I had presumed by "fix" you meant exactly that, not try and rehabilitate which is what we do already.  We do that with the consent of the criminals.

Would we only give the death sentence to criminals who consent to it as well? 

Do we ask for their consent before we imprison them?

To me or you yes, a year in prison could ruin our lives, which is why we'd be unlikely to commit even fairly minor crimes as the likely rewards would never be worth the risk of what we'd lose if we were caught.

But if you're someone without a stake in society, with no wealth, no job, no mortgage, no meaningful relationships etc. then a year inside isn't going to be a big deal. You get a year of not having to worry about rent or food while hanging out with a load of like minded people you can relate to and probably get on with. Then once you're let out nothing much has changed as far as your prospects go, if anything you might have a bit more street cred now. It's not a surprise it's not much of deterrent these days for the sorts of people likely to commit crimes like violence, theft or drug crime. 

So you're okay with punishment then? The punishment currently being x years in jail depending on the crime. 

I'm okay with the idea of rehabilitation, if it can be shown to work then it's a no-brainer. But they do need to be punished first, life needs to be made bad for people who break the rules. 

Yes. I don’t think I’ve said anywhere that I’m not. 

No, punishment is given without consent.

Rehabilitation in the way we do it requires consent.  You can't reform someone who refuses to reform.

As some food for thought, here's the list of countries worldwide who executed someone in 2015:

Afghanistan (1), Bangladesh (4), China (exact number unknown), India (1), Indonesia (14), Iran (977+), Iraq (26+), Japan (3), Jordan (2), Malaysia (exact number unknown), North Korea (exact number unknown), Oman (2), Pakistan (326), Saudi Arabia (158+), Singapore (4), Taiwan (6), UAE (1), Vietnam (exact number unknown), and Yemen (8+), Chad (10), Egypt (22+), Somalia (25+), South Sudan (5+), Sudan (3) and United States (28)

With the exception of Japan, I'm not sure any leap out as shining examples of human rights or places I'd particularly want to live. I'm definitely sure I don't want the UK to be on that list.

There are ways of talking to people and treating people that will influence their descisions. 

Te more we learn about how the mind works, the more we can develop the tools required to more effectively influence people’s descisions. 

Freewill is an illusion. 

Looks like Iranians love a good old execution..  

So what exactly are you suggesting we do?  Because that sounds like coercion to change them.  No need for choice, we have a council of the learned who decide how people ought to think and fix them?

Getting rid of the notion of consent is exactly why it's a dangerous road to go down.

Freewill is an illusion, sure, and we're just automatons so why not just shut down the ones who aren't functioning correctly?

I'm completely against the state executing criminals but I am less sure the state has a moral duty to prevent the worst criminals killing themselves.  If someone is in jail for life without parole for some particularly evil crime and they really aren't going to get out then why not let them ask for a glass of whatever they use at Dignitas.

That’s exactly how the country works at the moment. 

We live a western lifestyle in a democracy and are bought up to behave in a certain ‘civilised’ way. We look at other countries (like America and Iran) and think they’re wrong. 

They look at us and think we’re wrong.

The only difference is the way we’ve been taught and bought up (coercion as you call it). You can pretend that’s not indoctrination and it’s your own freewill but social pressure has taken away all of that already.   

Who decides what acts are "so evil"? We'd have as many answers as we do judges. And about limited resources, I wouldn't be to happy about killing people because they cost money.  That's a whole other slippery slope.  

No, it's not.  There's a big difference, in that if I choose to become a Muslim, or to watch American Football, there's nothing stopping that happening.  They're things that I can choose to do.  I can also choose to steal, nothing is stopping me except that I'm not allowed and that if I get caught I'd be punished.  There's a world of difference between that and changing my brain so that I no longer want to steal (or whatever thing the state think is good that they change my mind to think).

The fact that the world is determined, that it's causal, doesn't change this.  We all think we have free will, we all act as if we have free will.  Determinism doesn't tell us how we ought to act, it just tells us that whatever we do would always have been what we would do.

I take it you are saying that you would think it okay to alter people's brains if they break the law?  Would it have been right to alter gay people's brains 50 years ago?

Also - what's your answer as to why we ought to not kill people if we're just automatons?  On a more philosophical note, what's the big difference between killing me and forcibly altering me so that I'm in many ways an entirely different person?

Prozac anyone ? Or would you like a coffee ? 

The only thing stopping you from stealing is the fact that you’d be caught and punished? You haven’t been brought up believing stealing is wrong?

The technology wasn’t and isn’t available to change people’s sexuality. Mainly because we don’t know what determines people’s sexuality.

If you can change the way people think, ie so murders don’t want to murder people and child abusers don’t want to abuse children, you an always change their minds back again when you decide that murder and child abuse are an acceptable societal norm. 

Its a bit more tricky if you’ve executed them. 

Am I having either of those forced on me?

That too, sure.

Imagine it was.  You were talking about a hypothetical situation in the future where we could fix people that broke the law.  It's the same hypothetical, but with a crime that (presumably) you think should not be a crime.

Except that of course once everyone's mind is changed to reflect the current social norm there's no chance of our deciding that the social norm is wrong.  You've removed the option to decide.

Which doesn't answer the question.  We're automatons, what does it matter if we're executed?  What's the difference between killing a person and scrapping a faulty machine that cannot be fixed?

It’s not hypothetical. We’re already doing it to a certain extent. As we learn more, we’ll just get better at it. 

As a society we decide what kinds of behaviour are acceptable. People who’s behaviour falls short of those standards get punished. 

You won’t ever get to a situation where you have no criminals as we are the product of our environment. It’s a very complex environment. You’ll only ever be able to rehabilitate people once they become criminals and are caught. 

I can't see that we do anything similar to what you're suggesting.  The rehabilitation we do is not forced on anyone (e.g. meeting victims, counselling sessions, etc), it's all up to the convicted whether they want to sign up.

Nothing close to using medical science to fix those who break the law.

Maybe your view of what ‘medical science’ means is too narrow. 

Maybe we should get some inmates of Britain's prisons to pick up the masses of litter on the side of our roads. Or grass cutting, save the council a few quid.

Actually I though the likelihood of minor offences being committed are more influenced by the likelihood of being caught than the severity of the sentence.  Something like speeding or using the phone whilst driving being great examples.

Your list is incomplete. You can add the UK, France, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Holland. All countries which have recently ordered targeted air strikes in Syria.

That is, unless you don't count as execution, tracking a person to a location via drone camera and then dropping a 500 lb bomb on the target (often regardless of any collateral damage).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for killing murderous, whack job, ISIS terrorists. What I don't understand is the widespread acceptance of the use of lethal military force to protect our public (or simply to "send a message") and at the same time the widespread handwringing over executing our own unrepentant, murderous whack jobs.

This attitude just doesn't sit right with me. It stinks of something like Hypocrisy tinged with Xenophobia, maybe even Racism.

Maybe you're just trolling?

Not at all. 

Psycology and psychiatry are both  branches of medical science. 

That’s not execution, it’s war. 

No, it's execution. Unless we've declared war on someone and nobody told me? 

If a government picks out an individual and decides to kill them it's at best an execution. Without any legal scrutiny or due process of law, is it more morally defensible than hanging someone like Ian Huntley?

The moral difference is that with an execution the state has complete power over the prisoner.  The prisoner is helpless and does not pose any danger.  Therefore the state has no need to kill them to protect itself or its citizens.  The prisoner is being killed purely as a punishment and deterrent to others.

And Sky would pay a fortune for the broadcasting rights.

Go tell Charles Bronson he's helpless and doesn't pose any danger (or any of the prison officers from governor on down that he's held hostage).

While your at it, explain to Worboys hundreds of victims how he can't possibly hurt them anymore when he's released (despite knowing exactly where they live).

You could also try explaining to this blokes three ex-partner's families and children about how harmless he is (though you might need a medium to contact the ex-partners themselves).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42540995

The prisoner is being killed purely as a punishment and deterrent to others. 

Unfortunately Tom, sometimes this just isn't true. Sometimes bad people, just carry on being bad people no matter how much we might wish this were otherwise.

Do you think this man can be rehabilitated? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scully

Well I’ve gone from counselling and meeting victims to surgery, seems to me that spans the range.  The point is consent to medical treatment (required right now). I think you got that though, you just don’t want to address it.

Worboys wasn't a threat to his victims when he was in jail.  Neither was the three time killer.   The state had them in control without killing them.   Those cases are not an argument for capital punishment, they are an argument for not letting those particular people out of jail.

If someone poses a threat to staff when inside jail then the system needs to provide a more secure facility where that threat can be managed.  The extreme end of measures to control violent prisoners is something like US Supermax or using drugs to pacify.  The state doesn't need to give up and simply execute them.

I'm not a fan of state sanctioned killing, whether it's in a civil or military context, except in the most extreme of circumstances.

My issue is that I find it bizarre that so many see capital punishment as a black and white moral issue, while remaining broadly supportive of pursuing political or ideological objectives through force of arms.

If you can except that some relative unknown in Syria deserves to die then why not someone like Ian Bradey ?

Crime and war are not the same thing so normal rather bizarre that people think differently about them.

Relatively black and white outside a war zone where there is functioning system of law and order?

I'm not a fan either. 

It doesn't save money, there are miscarriages of justice (particularly emotive cases that attract calls for the death penalty?) and the idea of gifting propoganda victories to terrorism by creating martyrs really really pisses me off.

If we'd had the death penalty I doubt we'd have a peace process so we'd problably have another few hundred dead in Northern Ireland. We can't know  but i think the deterrent effect would have been less significant than making negotiations and compromise impossible.

I’ve certainly not said anything about surgery. Can you find wherever I’ve written that?

This clarifies a few of your questions.

http://blogs.iriss.org.uk/discoveringdesistance/files/2012/06/McNeill-When-...

You said fix, and I've still no idea what you meant by that.  I said surgery and asked you to clarify, you don't seem to want to.

No it doesn't, I've still no idea what you think is acceptable, except that you seem to think consent is meaningless.  The article you link seems to consider it to be important.

What I think is acceptable is of absolutely no consequence. 

The article explains exactly how you fix the problem and how it is dealt with now. The offender does not consent to punishment and punishment is integral to rehabilitation. 

I’m not exactly sure what your point is. 

It's not as straight forward as that, and the article is an opinion piece not a statement of fact.  I would say that being required to do community service is a punishment and so of course wouldn't need consent - and so they're wrong that we ever force rehabilitation, given that this is their sole example.  Either way, you're still left with the problem of people who choose not to reform, those you said we could "fix", whatever you meant by that.

Not much point continuing this any further if you're not willing/able to put your point of view.